" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

113–176 

Calendar No. 402 

CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2410]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 2, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

88–034 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–176 

Calendar No. 402 

CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2410]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 2, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

PETER K. LEVINE, Staff Director 

JOHN A. BONSELL, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the bill .................................................................................................... 1 

Committee overview .................................................................................. 2 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority implication ...................................................................................................... 4 

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4) ....................................................... 5 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 7 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 7 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 7 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 7 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121) ................................... 7 

Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat Ship 

seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122) .......................................... 8 

Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of aircraft carrier 

and construction of amphibious ship (sec. 123) ................................... 8 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 9 

Prohibition on retirement of MQ–1 Predator aircraft (sec. 131) ........... 9 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air Force aircraft 

(sec. 132) ................................................................................................. 9 

Temporary limitation on availability of funds for transfer of Air 

Force C–130H and C–130J aircraft (sec. 133) ..................................... 9 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A–10 aircraft 

(sec. 134) ................................................................................................. 10 

Limitation on transfer of KC–135 tankers (sec. 135) ............................. 10 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 136) ......................... 11 

Report on status of air-launched cruise missile capabilities (sec. 137) . 11 

Report on C–130 aircraft (sec. 138) ......................................................... 11 

Report on status of F–16 aircraft (sec. 139) ............................................ 12 

Report on options to modernize or replace the T–1A aircraft (sec. 

140) ......................................................................................................... 12 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 13 

Army ........................................................................................................... 13 

Light Utility Helicopter ..................................................................... 13 

UH–60 Black Hawk M model ........................................................... 13 

Common Missile Warning System .................................................... 13 

Bradley program modifications ......................................................... 14 

Improved recovery vehicle ................................................................. 14 

Joint assault bridge ........................................................................... 14 

M1 Abrams tank modifications ......................................................... 14 

Carbine ................................................................................................ 14 

Modular handgun reduction .............................................................. 15 

40mm reduction .................................................................................. 15 

Precision Guidance Kit reduction ..................................................... 15 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical, increment 2 ............... 15 

Joint tactical radio system ................................................................ 15 

Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio .............................................. 15 

Family of weapon sights .................................................................... 16 

Joint Battle Command—Platform .................................................... 16 

Counterfire radars .............................................................................. 16 

Army information technology ............................................................ 16 

Modification of in-service equipment ................................................ 17 

Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund ................................................ 17 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement —Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 17 

EP–3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System .... 17 

Aircraft spares and repair parts ....................................................... 18 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests ....................................... 18 

Tomahawk .......................................................................................... 18 

Navy enterprise information technology .......................................... 19 

Power equipment assorted ................................................................ 19 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 19 

RQ–4 .................................................................................................... 19 

MQ–9 ................................................................................................... 19 

C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program ............... 20 

U–2 ...................................................................................................... 20 

C–130 aircraft modifications ............................................................. 21 

C–130 engines .................................................................................... 21 

Lynx synthetic aperture radar .......................................................... 22 

Small diameter bomb ......................................................................... 22 

General purpose bombs ..................................................................... 22 

Base information transportation infrastructure transfer ............... 22 

Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment .................... 23 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 23 

MC–12 aircraft ................................................................................... 23 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ...................................................... 23 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 24 

Air Force KC–46A Pegasus procurement ................................................ 24 

Armored vehicle transmission industrial base ........................................ 24 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense ...................... 25 

Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

requirements .......................................................................................... 25 

Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......... 26 

Comptroller General of the United States review relating to remotely 

piloted aircraft ....................................................................................... 26 

Distributed mission operations ................................................................ 27 

Ejection seats ............................................................................................. 28 

Enhanced position location reporting system ......................................... 28 

Family of medium tactical vehicles ......................................................... 28 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle ..................................................................... 29 

Joint Strike Fighter software development ............................................. 29 

Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development ................... 29 

Lightweight robots .................................................................................... 29 

MH–60R helicopters .................................................................................. 30 

Modular handgun ...................................................................................... 31 

Report on the Navy’s shipbuilding industrial base ................................ 31 

RQ–21 unmanned aerial systems ............................................................ 32 

Solid state radar upgrades ....................................................................... 32 

Technical study and business case analysis of body armor plates ........ 33 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 35 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 35 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 35 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 35 

Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 211) ..................................................................................... 35 

Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 212) ............ 35 

Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target Attack 

Radar Systems aircraft (sec. 213) ......................................................... 36 

Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and evaluation 

capabilities (sec. 214) ............................................................................. 37 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 37 

Study and reports on the technological superiority of the United 

States military (sec. 221) ...................................................................... 37 

Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222) .................................... 37 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 38 

Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency of private sector personnel with critical research and development expertise (sec. 231) ................................................................... 38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

V 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation —Continued 

Subtitle D—Other Matters —Continued 

Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents of members of Armed Forces for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 232) ........................................................... 38 

Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing in pilot program to include technology protection features during research 

and development of certain defense systems (sec. 233) ...................... 39 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 39 

University research initiatives ................................................................. 39 

Indirect fire protection capability ............................................................ 40 

Infantry support weapons ......................................................................... 40 

Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational awareness operations support ........................................................................................ 40 

Marine Corps assault vehicles ................................................................. 41 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development ............................. 41 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System .................................................... 42 

F–15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System ............ 42 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload ..................................................... 42 

Network Centric Collaborative Targeting ............................................... 42 

Logistics information technology .............................................................. 44 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs ........................ 44 

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for military children ........................................................................................... 45 

Historically black colleges and universities and minority serving institutions ................................................................................................. 46 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology ......... 46 

Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security Research ................. 47 

Foreign technology testing ........................................................................ 47 

Science and technology analytic assessments ......................................... 47 

Concept and technology demonstrations ................................................. 47 

Advanced sensor applications program ................................................... 48 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system ........................................ 48 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and maintenance funding ........................................................................................................... 48 

Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense 

programs ................................................................................................. 49 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase ................................ 49 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program ............ 50 

Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution ................. 51 

Combatant Command exercise engagement and training transformation funding decrease ................................................................... 52 

Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program ............................................. 52 

Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research and development ............................................................................................... 53 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ............................................................. 53 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 54 

Advanced training technologies ............................................................... 54 

Air Force Office of Scientific Research .................................................... 54 

Airborne signals intelligence enterprise .................................................. 55 

Anti-submarine warfare research and development .............................. 56 

Cargo unmanned aerial system ............................................................... 56 

Clear technical communications .............................................................. 56 

Combat rescue helicopter .......................................................................... 57 

EC–130H Compass Call aircraft .............................................................. 57 

Electronic warfare threat emitters .......................................................... 58 

Improved turbine engine program ........................................................... 58 

Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures development .. 59 

National Security Agency cybersecurity research and development ..... 59 

Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory technologies ........ 60 

Technology transition of successful research initiatives ........................ 60 

Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards .................... 61 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 63 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 63 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 63 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment ..................................................... 63 

Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the Sikes Act 

(sec. 311) ................................................................................................. 63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VI 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance —Continued 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment —Continued 

Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station, Chincoteague, Virginia (sec. 312) ................................................................. 63 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of drop-in fuels 

(sec. 313) ................................................................................................. 64 

Study on implementation of requirements for consideration of fuel 

logistics support requirements in planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes (sec. 314) .......................................... 64 

Comptroller General study of Department of Defense research and 

development projects and investments to increase energy security 

and meet energy goals requirements (sec. 315) .................................. 64 

Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area on island 

of Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316) ......................................................... 65 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 65 

Modification of annual reporting requirement related to 

prepositioning of materiel and equipment (sec. 321) .......................... 65 

Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement (sec. 322) .. 65 

Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323) .......................... 66 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 66 

Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense operation and 

financial support for military museums (sec. 331) .............................. 66 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority ................................... 66 

Limitation on MC–12 aircraft transfer to United States Special Operations Command (sec. 341) ................................................................... 66 

Limitation on establishment of regional Special Operations Forces 

Coordination Centers (sec. 342) ............................................................ 67 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 68 

Repeal of authority relating to use of military installations by Civil 

Reserve Air Fleet contractors (sec. 351) .............................................. 68 

Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms 

(sec. 352) ................................................................................................. 68 

Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353) ....................... 69 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 69 

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases ....... 69 

Facilities Sustainment .............................................................................. 70 

Foreign currency fluctuation reductions ................................................. 70 

Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel ............................ 71 

Undistributed travel reductions ............................................................... 71 

Army National Guard readiness funding increase ................................. 71 

Army National Guard advertising reduction .......................................... 71 

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases ........................................ 72 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests .............................................. 72 

Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds ............................................... 72 

Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase ............................................. 72 

Marine Corps tuition assistance .............................................................. 73 

Museum reduction ..................................................................................... 73 

RC–135 Rivet Joint ................................................................................... 73 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction ................. 73 

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command .................................................... 73 

United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities increases ............ 74 

U.S. Special Operations Command—National Capital Region .............. 74 

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers .................... 74 

U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness requirements 74 

Department of Defense STARBASE program ......................................... 75 

Procurement technical assistance program ............................................. 75 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 75 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 76 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request .................... 76 

Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment and closure 

support .................................................................................................... 76 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction .............................. 76 

Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to 

United States Africa Command ............................................................ 76 

Defense Clandestine Service .................................................................... 77 

Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service ...................... 77 

Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era ...................... 77 

Support for international sporting competitions .................................... 77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance —Continued 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 78 

Acoustic mixing ......................................................................................... 78 

Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training .............................. 78 

Additive manufacturing ............................................................................ 79 

Afghanistan retrograde costs .................................................................... 79 

Air tactical training ................................................................................... 80 

Army and Marine Corps equipment reset ............................................... 80 

Army Emergency Management Program ................................................ 81 

Availability of funds for readiness ........................................................... 81 

Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll ...................................................... 81 

Category I ammunition items .................................................................. 81 

Coal-to-liquid report .................................................................................. 82 

Combatant Command Support Agent accounting .................................. 82 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Department 

of the Army actions to determine the appropriate structure of 

the Army ................................................................................................. 83 

Comptroller General review of readiness ................................................ 83 

Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in the military 

working dog program ............................................................................. 84 

Depot capital investment program .......................................................... 85 

Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation access programs 

and systems ............................................................................................ 85 

Humanitarian Demining Training Center .............................................. 85 

Improving energy efficiency and performance of military platforms .... 86 

Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle refueling stations .. 86 

Jungle training .......................................................................................... 87 

Management of conventional ammunition inventory ............................. 87 

Marine Corps Prepositioning Program—Norway ................................... 88 

Measuring Department of Defense use of commercial cloud computing capabilities and services ............................................................ 89 

Mission-critical electricity infrastructure adoption of National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber Security Framework ......... 89 

Multi-modal retrograde contracts ............................................................ 91 

Navy fire control radar and replacement ................................................ 91 

Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison ........................................ 92 

Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting System .. 93 

Operational energy benefits ..................................................................... 93 

Soldier equipment modernization program ............................................. 94 

Strategic military infrastructure to support operation plans ................ 95 

Stryker sustainment ................................................................................. 95 

Training for the Air Force weather program .......................................... 96 

Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for military 

installations ............................................................................................ 96 

War reserve stocks .................................................................................... 97 

Warrior power executive agent ................................................................ 98 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 99 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 99 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 99 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 99 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 99 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 99 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 100 

Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 100 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 100 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 101 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 101 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 101 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 101 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 103 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 103 

Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for officers selected 

for selective early retirement (sec. 501) ............................................... 103 

Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be recommended 

for discharge during a fiscal year under enhanced selective discharge authority (sec. 502) .................................................................... 103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VIII 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy —Continued 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy —Continued 

Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight 

officer be in command of an inactivated nuclear-powered aircraft 

carrier before decommissioning (sec. 503) ........................................... 103 

Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by selective 

retirement boards to particular warrant officer year groups and 

specialties (sec. 504) .............................................................................. 103 

Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual reports 

on joint officer management and promotion policy objectives for 

joint officers (sec. 505) ........................................................................... 103 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 104 

Retention on reserve active-status list following nonselection for promotion of certain health professions officers and first lieutenants 

and lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing baccalaureate degrees (sec. 

511) ......................................................................................................... 104 

Database on military technician positions (sec. 512) ............................. 104 

Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience program 

for the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 513) ............... 104 

Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (sec. 514) ....... 105 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 105 

Enhancement of participation of mental health professionals in 

boards for correction of military records and boards for review 

of discharge or dismissal of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 

521) ......................................................................................................... 105 

Extension of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to 

enhance retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522) .......... 105 

Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational standards 

for all military occupations (sec. 523) .................................................. 106 

Comptroller General of the United States report on impact of certain 

mental and physical trauma on discharges from military service 

for misconduct (sec. 524) ....................................................................... 106 

Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of discharge of certain 

Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces (sec. 525) ....................... 106 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training ............................................... 107 

Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces to obtain 

professional credentials (sec. 531) ........................................................ 107 

Authority for Joint Special Operations University to award degrees 

(sec. 532) ................................................................................................. 107 

Enhancement of information provided to members of the Armed 

Forces and veterans regarding use of Post-9/11 Educational Assistance and Federal financial aid through Transition Assistance Program (sec. 533) ....................................................................................... 107 

Duration of foreign and cultural exchange activities at military service academies (sec. 534) ......................................................................... 108 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Matters ............................................ 108 

Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(sec. 541) ................................................................................................. 108 

Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence, relating 

to the privilege against disclosure of communications between 

psychotherapists and patients (sec. 542) ............................................. 108 

Enhancement of victims’ rights to be heard through counsel in connection with prosecution of certain sex-related offenses (sec. 543) ... 109 

Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for assistance of Special Victims’ Counsel (sec. 544) .......................... 109 

Additional enhancements of military department actions on sexual 

assault prevention and response (sec. 545) ......................................... 109 

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related offenses 

for trial by court-martial if requested by chief prosecutor (sec. 

546) ......................................................................................................... 110 

Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention of evidence 

in a sexual assault case to permit return of personal property 

upon completion of related proceedings (sec. 547) .............................. 110 

Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense Sexual Assault 

Incident Database (sec. 548) ................................................................. 110 

Technical revisions and clarifications of certain provisions in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 relating 

to the military justice system (sec. 549) .............................................. 111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IX 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy —Continued 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Matters —Continued 

Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response and related 

military justice enhancements to military service academies (sec. 

550) ......................................................................................................... 111 

Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses identified in unrestricted reports on sexual assaults in annual reports 

on sexual assaults in the Armed Forces (sec. 551) ............................. 111 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 552) ..................... 112 

Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice in efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault 

(sec. 553) ................................................................................................. 112 

Modification of term of judges of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces (sec. 554) ............................................................ 112 

Report on review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases (sec. 555) ......................... 112 

Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive management plan to address deficiencies in data captured in the Defense 

Incident-Based Reporting System (sec. 556) ....................................... 112 

Subtitle F—Decorations and Award ............................................................... 113 

Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees 

of the Department of Defense who were killed or wounded in 

an attack by a foreign terrorist organization (sec. 561) ..................... 113 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 113 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) ..................................... 113 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) ..................... 113 

Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012 (sec. 573) ... 113 

Authority to employ non-United States citizens as teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents’ School system (sec. 

574) ......................................................................................................... 113 

Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools 

among functions of Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education 

(sec. 575) ................................................................................................. 114 

Department of Defense suicide prevention programs for military dependents (sec. 576) ................................................................................. 114 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 114 

Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force Academy 

athletic programs (sec. 581) .................................................................. 114 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 115 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the sexual assault prevention activities of the Department of Defense and the 

Armed Forces ......................................................................................... 115 

Comptroller General report on access to on-base services by junior 

enlisted personnel .................................................................................. 115 

Comptroller General report on feasibility and advisability of longer 

tour lengths ............................................................................................ 116 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense progress in 

expanding service opportunities for women ........................................ 116 

Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program .................. 117 

Cyber career field ...................................................................................... 118 

Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and response 

to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces ......................................... 118 

Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps ......................... 119 

Military chaplains ..................................................................................... 119 

Online employment search-tool consolidation ......................................... 119 

Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention ..................................................... 120 

Standardized survivor experience surveys .............................................. 120 

Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees who are 

members of reserve components ........................................................... 120 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 123 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 123 

Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

X 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits —Continued 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances —Continued 

Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and Senior Enlisted 

Advisor to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior 

members of the Armed Forces for the purposes of pay and allowances (sec. 602) ...................................................................................... 123 

Modification of computation of basic allowance for housing inside 

the United States (sec. 603) .................................................................. 123 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of 

basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 604) . 123 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 123 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 123 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 124 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 124 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 124 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 124 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits .................. 125 

Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2013 who first become members prior to January 

1, 2016 (sec. 621) .................................................................................... 125 

Modification of determination of retired pay base for officers retired 

in general and flag officer grades (sec. 622) ........................................ 125 

Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain active 

duty or active service to reduce eligibility age for retirement for 

non-regular service (sec. 623) ............................................................... 125 

Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to transitional compensation for dependents of certain members separated 

for dependent abuse (sec. 624) .............................................................. 126 

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established 

for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support (sec. 

625) ......................................................................................................... 126 

Subtitle D—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ............................................................................... 126 

Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for resale 

by commissary stores (sec. 631) ............................................................ 126 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 126 

Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals ................................. 126 

Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary benefit ........... 127 

Secretary of Defense review of pay table ................................................ 128 

Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces regarding 

military pay and benefits ...................................................................... 128 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 129 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 129 

Annual mental health assessments for members of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 701) ................................................................................................. 129 

Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for the 

TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702) .............................. 129 

Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services with other 

inpatient medical services (sec. 703) .................................................... 129 

Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under 

the TRICARE program (sec. 704) ......................................................... 129 

Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging health 

care products and services (sec. 705) ................................................... 129 

Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service areas 

(sec. 706) ................................................................................................. 130 

Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of the United 

States reviews of viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE 

Extra (sec. 707) ...................................................................................... 130 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 130 

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 

matters (sec. 721) ................................................................................... 130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XI 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions —Continued 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration —Continued 

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 

722) ......................................................................................................... 131 

Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for health care 

professionals for the Department of Defense (sec. 723) ...................... 131 

Program on medication management in the Department of Defense 

(sec. 724) ................................................................................................. 131 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 131 

Report on military family planning programs of the Department of 

Defense (sec. 731) .................................................................................. 131 

Interagency working group on the provision of mental health services 

to members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 732) ........ 131 

Report on improvements in the identification and treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 733) .............................................................. 132 

Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute of Medicine on improvements to certain resilience and prevention programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 734) .................................. 132 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the Armed 

Forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations 

required by the Department (sec. 735) ................................................ 132 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Military Health 

System Modernization Study of the Department of Defense (sec. 

736) ......................................................................................................... 132 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 133 

Autism spectrum disorder services .......................................................... 133 

Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities under 

TRICARE ................................................................................................ 133 

Consolidated TRICARE health plan ........................................................ 133 

Department of Defense collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs on the disability claims processing backlog .................. 134 

Prosthetics for servicemembers ................................................................ 134 

Treatment for obesity ................................................................................ 135 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 137 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 137 

Open systems approach to acquisition of systems containing information technology (sec. 801) ...................................................................... 137 

Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated Information System programs (sec. 802) ........................................................................ 138 

Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense business 

system programs (sec. 803) ................................................................... 139 

Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804) ..................... 139 

Report on implementation of acquisition process for information technology systems (sec. 805) ...................................................................... 140 

Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to maintain defense 

research facility records (sec. 806) ....................................................... 142 

Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for United States Special Operations Command (sec. 807) .................................................... 142 

Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design review (sec. 

808) ......................................................................................................... 142 

Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on inventory (sec. 

809) ......................................................................................................... 142 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 143 

Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear 

defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 821) .. 143 

Extension and modification of contract authority for advanced component development and prototype units and modification of authority (sec. 822) ........................................................................................... 143 

Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive subcontracting 

plans (sec. 823) ....................................................................................... 143 

Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit electronic parts 

(sec. 824) ................................................................................................. 144 

Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview contractor 

employees in connection with examination of contractor records 

(sec. 825) ................................................................................................. 144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XII 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 

—Continued 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations —Continued 

Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of grantees 

(sec. 826) ................................................................................................. 144 

Prohibition on reimbursement of contractors for congressional investigations and inquiries (sec. 827) .......................................................... 144 

Enhanced authority to acquire certain products and services produced in Africa (sec. 828) ...................................................................... 144 

Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United States 

sources (sec. 829) ................................................................................... 144 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 144 

Program manager development strategy (sec. 841) ................................ 144 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development periods (sec. 842) .......................................................................... 145 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution periods (sec. 843) ............................................................................ 145 

Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary design 

review and post-preliminary design review before Milestone B (sec. 

844) ......................................................................................................... 145 

Comptroller General of the United States report on operational testing programs for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 845) ....... 145 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 146 

Extension to United States Transportation Command of authorities 

relating to prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 861) ...... 146 

Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance provided 

to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media producers (sec. 

862) ......................................................................................................... 146 

Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent Operational Needs 

Fund (sec. 863) ....................................................................................... 146 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 146 

Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative ........................... 146 

Business systems modernization ............................................................. 147 

Clarification on the use of energy savings performance contracts ........ 147 

Comptroller General of the United States report on counterfeit or 

suspect counterfeit electronic parts ...................................................... 148 

Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense audit readiness efforts for property, plant, and equipment ................................. 149 

Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy reporting 

requirements applicable to major automated information systems 

experiencing cost or schedule overruns ................................................ 149 

Joint Information Environment ............................................................... 150 

Next Generation Enterprise Network ..................................................... 150 

Performance Based Logistics .................................................................... 151 

Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess progress toward 

auditability ............................................................................................. 151 

Small businesses and the health of the U.S. defense industrial base .. 152 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 153 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 153 

Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and related 

matters (sec. 901) ................................................................................... 153 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 

(sec. 902) ................................................................................................. 155 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 156 

Modifications to requirements for accounting for members of the 

Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed 

as missing (sec. 911) .............................................................................. 156 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 156 

Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense ....................... 156 

Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs ....................................... 158 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 161 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 161 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 161 

National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002) ................................... 161 

Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003) .......................................... 161 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 161 

Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) ....................................... 161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIII 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities—Continued 

Extension and modification of authority for joint task forces supporting law enforcement agencies conducting activities to counter 

transnational organized crime to support law enforcement agencies 

conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1012) ............................ 162 

Extension of authority to provide additional support for counterdrug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1013) ................. 163 

Extension and modification of authority of Department of Defense 

to provide additional support for counterdrug activities of other 

governmental agencies (sec. 1014) ....................................................... 163 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 164 

Limitation on use of funds for inactivation of U.S.S. George Washington (sec. 1021) ................................................................................... 164 

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of Ticonderoga 

class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1022) .................................. 165 

Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployments (sec. 1023) ................................................................................... 166 

Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels providing 

transportation services under a shipbuilding or ship repair contract 

with the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 1024) .......................................... 166 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 167 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031) ... 167 

Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1032) ............................................................................................... 167 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States 

for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1033) ..................... 167 

Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 

1034) ....................................................................................................... 168 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 168 

Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and review 

of certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041) ...................................... 168 

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042) .............. 168 

Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support services (sec. 

1043) ....................................................................................................... 169 

Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among leadership 

of the Department of Defense provided physical protection and 

personal security (sec. 1044) ................................................................. 169 

Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for assignment of 

civilian employees of the Department of Defense as advisors to 

foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1045) .............................................. 169 

Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of activities 

for nongovernmental personnel at Department of Defense regional 

centers for security studies (sec. 1046) ................................................ 170 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 170 

Reports on recommendations of the National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force (sec. 1061) .................................................. 170 

Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam era (sec. 

1062) ....................................................................................................... 170 

Assessment of the operations research tools, processes, and capabilities in support of requirements analysis for major defense acquisition programs and allocation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets (sec. 1063) ............................................................ 171 

Review of United States military strategy and the force posture 

of allies and partners in the United States Pacific Command area 

of responsibility (sec. 1064) ................................................................... 173 

Department of Defense policies on community involvement in Department community outreach events (sec. 1065) ...................................... 173 

Comptroller General of the United States briefing and report on 

management of the conventional ammunition demilitarization 

stockpile of the Department of Defense (sec. 1066) ............................ 173 

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1067) ............ 173 

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States 

annual reviews and report on pilot program on commercial feefor-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1068) ........... 173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIV 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle G—Uniformed Services Voting ......................................................... 174 

Part I—Provision of Voter Assistance to Members of the Armed Forces .... 174 

Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071) ..................................... 174 

Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072) ................................. 174 

Part II—Electronic Voting Systems ................................................................ 174 

Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec. 1076) ............... 174 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 174 

Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian employees on 

workplace and gender relations matters (sec. 1081) ........................... 174 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from 

Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (sec. 1082) .................................................................... 174 

Authority to require employees of the Department of Defense and 

members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to 

occupy quarters on a rental basis while performing official travel 

(sec. 1083) ............................................................................................... 175 

Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use the Department of Defense reimbursement rates for transportation services 

provided to certain non-Department of Defense entities (sec. 1084) . 175 

Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of disabled and lowincome veterans (sec. 1085) .................................................................. 175 

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086) ...................................... 175 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 175 

Army force structure and installation alignment ................................... 175 

Comptroller General of the United States review of burden-sharing 

agreements and posture costs ............................................................... 176 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the National 

Guard Counterdrug Program ................................................................ 177 

Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan .......................... 178 

National Guard Counterdrug Program ................................................... 179 

Preparing for increased Arctic operations ............................................... 179 

Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire suppression 

and other purposes ................................................................................ 180 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 181 

Extension and modification of experimental program for scientific 

and technical personnel (sec. 1101) ...................................................... 181 

Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan relating to senior 

management, functional, and technical workforces of the Department of Defense (sec. 1102) .................................................................. 181 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian 

employees working overseas (sec. 1103) .............................................. 181 

Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the United States 

Cyber Command (sec. 1104) .................................................................. 181 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 182 

Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees with cyber 

skills ........................................................................................................ 182 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 183 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 183 

Modification of Department of Defense authority for humanitarian 

stockpiled conventional munitions assistance programs (sec. 1201) . 183 

Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds for assistance 

for units of foreign security forces that have committed a gross 

violation of human rights (sec. 1202) ................................................... 183 

Codification and enhancement of authority to build the capacity of 

foreign security forces (sec. 1203) ......................................................... 183 

Training of security forces and associated ministries of foreign countries to promote respect for the rule of law and human rights 

(sec. 1204) ............................................................................................... 185 

Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1205) .................................................................................. 185 

Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain 

military equipment to certain foreign forces for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206) ......................................................... 186 

Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel protection and personnel survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec. 1207) ... 186 

Extension and modification of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208) ................................................. 186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XV 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations—Continued 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training—Continued 

Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria 

(sec. 1209) ............................................................................................... 187 

Limitations on security assistance for the Government of Burma 

(sec. 1210) ............................................................................................... 188 

Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department of Defense to provide training, equipment, or other assistance or reimbursement to foreign security forces (sec. 1211) ................................. 188 

Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212) ...................................................... 188 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq .............. 189 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 

1221) ....................................................................................................... 189 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan 

(sec. 1222) ............................................................................................... 189 

One-year extension of authority to use funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223) ............................................................. 190 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 

coalition nations for support provided to United States military 

operations (sec. 1224) ............................................................................ 190 

One-year extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 1225) ........... 190 

Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and projects of 

the Department of Defense in Afghanistan that cannot be safely 

accessed by United States Government personnel (sec. 1226) ........... 191 

Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership between 

the United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227) ................................... 191 

Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan (sec. 1228) ...... 191 

Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United States 

training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229) .......................................... 191 

Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230) ............................ 192 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 

activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1231) ... 192 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 192 

Report on impact of end of major combat operations in Afghanistan 

on authority to use military force (sec. 1241) ...................................... 192 

United States strategy for enhancing security and stability in Europe 

(sec. 1242) ............................................................................................... 192 

Report on military and security developments involving the Russian 

Federation (sec. 1243) ............................................................................ 193 

Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports of United 

States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (sec. 

1244) ....................................................................................................... 193 

Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing on military 

to military engagement with the People’s Republic of China (sec. 

1245) ....................................................................................................... 194 

Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246) ............................ 194 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 195 

Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of 

Kurdistan under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sec. 1261) .. 195 

Notification on potentially significant arms control noncompliance 

(sec. 1262) ............................................................................................... 195 

Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign military liaison officers of foreign countries while assigned to the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1263) ............................................................................ 195 

One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1264) ............................................................... 195 

Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265) .................................... 195 

Extension of limitations on providing certain missile defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1266) .......................................... 196 

Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter into contracts 

or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1267) ................................ 196 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 196 

Annual report on the military power of Iran .......................................... 196 

Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of 

Defense security assistance to the Republic of Yemen ....................... 197 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVI 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations—Continued 

Items of Special Interest —Continued 

Maritime security in West Africa ............................................................. 198 

Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram ........................................ 198 

Northeast Asian intelligence threats ....................................................... 199 

Plans for bases in Afghanistan ................................................................ 200 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the 

Lord’s Resistance Army ......................................................................... 200 

United States-India Defense Security Cooperation ................................ 201 

United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in Somalia ....... 201 

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction ............................................................ 203 

Subtitle A—Funding Allocations ..................................................................... 203 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301) .......... 203 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 203 

Subtitle B—Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes Relating to the 

Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ............. 203 

Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (secs. 

1311–1352) ............................................................................................. 203 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 205 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 205 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) .......................................................... 205 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402) ....... 205 

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1403) ....................................................................................................... 205 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) ..................................................... 205 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) ........................................................ 205 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters ..................... 205 

Report on development of secure supply of rare earth materials (sec. 

1411) ....................................................................................................... 205 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 206 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund 

for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois (sec. 

1421) ....................................................................................................... 206 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Captain James 

A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, Illinois (sec. 

1422) ....................................................................................................... 206 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1423) ............................................................................................... 206 

Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor for the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424) ....................................... 206 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 206 

Meals, ready-to-eat .................................................................................... 206 

Defense Commissary Agency .................................................................... 207 

Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to 

United States Southern Command ...................................................... 207 

Defense Health Program funding ............................................................ 208 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 208 

Defense working capital funds ................................................................. 208 

Department of Defense Inspector General .............................................. 208 

Title XV—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations .................................................................................................. 211 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 211 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 211 

Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502) ........................................ 211 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 211 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511) ............................... 211 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1512) ...................................................... 211 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters .................................. 211 

Plan for transition of funding of United States Special Operations 

Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring funding for future years defense programs 

(sec. 1521) ............................................................................................... 211 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522) ................. 212 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523) ........................................ 212 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524) .......................................... 213 

Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive devices 

(sec. 1525) ............................................................................................... 213 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVII 

Title XV—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations —Continued 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 213 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 213 

Title XVI—Strategic Programs, Cyber, and Intelligence Matters ....................... 215 

Subtitle A—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 215 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 

missile fuses (sec. 1601) ........................................................................ 215 

Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on plan for 

the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear 

weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command and control system (sec. 1602) ........................................................................... 215 

Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and communications systems at the United States Strategic Command headquarters (sec. 1603) ............................................................................... 215 

Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension program (sec. 

1604) ....................................................................................................... 216 

Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605) ............................................. 216 

Subtitle B—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 216 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611) ....................................... 216 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612) .......................................... 217 

Availability of funds for missile defense programs of Israel (sec. 

1613) ....................................................................................................... 218 

Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 

1614) ....................................................................................................... 219 

Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior to production and deployment (sec. 1615) ........................................................... 220 

Subtitle C—Space Activities ............................................................................ 221 

Update of National Security Space Strategy to include space control 

and space superiority strategy (sec. 1621) ........................................... 221 

Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense Program; 

Report on Space Control (sec. 1622) ..................................................... 221 

Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of critical space 

launch supplies for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (sec. 1623) ..................................................................................... 221 

Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 

1624) ....................................................................................................... 222 

Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program 

on foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625) ................................................... 222 

Availability of additional rocket cores pursuant to competitive procedures (sec. 1626) .................................................................................... 222 

Competitive procedures required to launch payload for mission number five of the Operationally Responsive Space program (sec. 1627) 222 

Limitation on funding for storage of Defense Meteorological Satellite 

Program satellites (sec. 1628) ............................................................... 222 

Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium or heavy 

lift launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds (sec. 1629) .................... 223 

Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec. 1630) .............. 224 

Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial space imagery 

(sec. 1631) ............................................................................................... 224 

Subtitle D—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters .............. 225 

Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641) .............................................................. 225 

Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement for cross 

domain solution strategy (sec. 1642) .................................................... 226 

Budgeting and accounting for cyber mission forces (sec. 1643) ............. 227 

Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption service 

for the Joint Information Environment (sec. 1644) ............................ 227 

Reporting on penetrations into networks and information systems 

of operationally critical contractors (sec. 1645) ................................... 228 

Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the .mil top 

level domain (sec. 1646) ........................................................................ 229 

Subtitle E—Intelligence-Related Matters ....................................................... 230 

Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in commercial 

activities as security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1651) 230 

Authority for Secretary Of Defense to engage in commercial activities 

as security for military operations abroad (sec. 1652) ........................ 230 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVIII 

Title XVI—Strategic Programs, Cyber, and Intelligence Matters —Continued 

Subtitle E—Intelligence-Related Matters —Continued 

Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over Department of 

Defense facilities for intelligence collection or special operations 

activities abroad (sec. 1653) .................................................................. 230 

Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654) .................................. 230 

Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of Department 

of the Army to an open system architecture (sec. 1655) .................... 232 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 232 

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites .............................. 232 

Mobile Ground System .............................................................................. 232 

Space Based Infrared System ................................................................... 232 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development .................... 232 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite ...................................... 233 

Operationally Responsive Space .............................................................. 233 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 233 

Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration collaboration on strategic systems ....................................................................... 233 

Ammonium Perchlorate ............................................................................ 234 

Analysis of satellites available for open competition ............................. 234 

Analytic support to cyber policy and planning ....................................... 234 

Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system .................. 235 

Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of Defense Inspector General ............................................................................................. 235 

Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on weather satellite ........................................................................................................ 236 

Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense technology . 236 

Information assurance and certified workforce training ........................ 236 

Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System .................................... 237 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor ..... 237 

Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals ................................. 238 

New START Treaty Force Structure ....................................................... 238 

Ohio Replacement Program ...................................................................... 239 

Processes for the secure provision of sensitive compartmented information to congressional committees ..................................................... 239 

Projected workload at wide band satellite operations centers ............... 240 

Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System ................. 240 

Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness .......................... 240 

Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas ..... 241 

Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control ..................................... 242 

Science and technology talent options for the Missile Defense Agency 242 

Security of Department of Defense industrial control systems ............. 242 

Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces ................................... 243 

Update on nuclear command, control, and communications systems 

acquisition .............................................................................................. 243 

Title XVII—National Commission on the Future of the Army ............................ 245 

National commission on the future of the Army (secs. 1701–1709) ...... 245 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 247 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 247 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 247 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 247 

Title XXI—Army Military Construction ................................................................ 249 

Summary .................................................................................................... 249 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 249 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 250 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 250 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 250 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 projects 

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 250 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 

2106) ....................................................................................................... 251 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2107) ....................................................................................................... 251 

Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2108) ................................................... 251 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIX 

Title XXI—Army Military Construction —Continued 

Limitation on funding for family housing construction at Camp Walker, Republic of Korea (sec. 2109) .......................................................... 251 

Title XXII—Navy Military Construction ............................................................... 253 

Summary .................................................................................................... 253 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 253 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 253 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 253 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 254 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 projects 

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 254 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2206) ............................................................................................... 254 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec. 

2207) ....................................................................................................... 254 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2208) ....................................................................................................... 254 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 254 

Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters 

restoration .............................................................................................. 254 

Title XXIII—Air Force Military Construction ....................................................... 257 

Summary .................................................................................................... 257 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 257 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302) .......................... 257 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project 

(sec. 2303) ............................................................................................... 257 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 

2304) ....................................................................................................... 258 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2305) ....................................................................................................... 258 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies Military Construction .......................................... 259 

Summary .................................................................................................... 259 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 259 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 259 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) .............................. 259 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 259 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 

2404) ....................................................................................................... 260 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2405) ....................................................................................................... 260 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 260 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) ............................................................... 260 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project 

(sec. 2412) ............................................................................................... 260 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 261 

Summary .................................................................................................... 261 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 261 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 261 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 263 

Summary .................................................................................................... 263 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 263 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 263 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 263 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 264 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 264 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 264 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 264 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XX 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities —Continued 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 264 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 

year 2012 projects (sec. 2611) ............................................................... 264 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 

(sec. 2612) ............................................................................................... 264 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 

2613) ....................................................................................................... 265 

Title XXVII—Base Realignment and Closure Activities ...................................... 267 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 267 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 267 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ...................................................................... 267 

HUBZones (sec. 2703) ............................................................................... 267 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions .................................... 269 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 269 

Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and in-kind contributions (sec. 2801) ............................................................................. 269 

Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802) ........................ 270 

Modification of minor military construction authority for projects to 

correct deficiencies that are life-, health-, or safety-threatening 

(sec. 2803) ............................................................................................... 270 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2804) ................................................................ 270 

Limitation on construction projects in European Command area of 

responsibility (sec. 2805) ....................................................................... 270 

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba (sec. 2806) ..................................................................................... 271 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 271 

Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative expenses relating to certain real property transactions (sec. 2811) .......................... 271 

Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial institutions 

operating on Department of Defense installations (sec. 2812) .......... 271 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment ......... 272 

Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region (sec. 2821) 272 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 273 

Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 

2831) ....................................................................................................... 273 

Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832) ......................... 273 

Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and 

Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833) .......................................................... 273 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma (sec. 

2834) ....................................................................................................... 273 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 274 

Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting at the 

Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec. 2841) ............... 274 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 274 

Design build contracts .............................................................................. 274 

Laboratory revitalization .......................................................................... 274 

Privatized lodging ...................................................................................... 275 

Report on military construction unfunded requirements ....................... 275 

Reprogramming packages for military construction projects ................ 276 

Scope of work variations ........................................................................... 276 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 279 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 279 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 279 

Overview .................................................................................................... 279 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 280 

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 280 

Directed stockpile work ..................................................................... 280 

Campaigns .......................................................................................... 281 

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations ....................................... 282 

Secure transportation asset ............................................................... 283 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXI 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs —Continued 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations —Continued 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) —Continued 

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer ............... 283 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs ................................... 283 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ........ 284 

Nonproliferation and international security .................................... 284 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation .......... 284 

Fissile Materials Disposition program ............................................. 284 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................... 284 

Naval Reactors ................................................................................... 284 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .................................... 285 

Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs ................... 285 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 285 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 285 

Savannah River Site .......................................................................... 285 

Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities ......................... 286 

Hanford Site ....................................................................................... 286 

Idaho National Laboratory ................................................................ 286 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ...................................................... 286 

Oak Ridge Reservation ...................................................................... 286 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................... 286 

Safeguards and Security .................................................................... 286 

Technology Development ................................................................... 287 

Program Direction and Support ........................................................ 287 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 287 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 287 

Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy defense capital 

assets (sec. 3111) .................................................................................... 287 

Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates on life extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3112) .................... 287 

Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities Replacement 

Project (sec. 3113) .................................................................................. 287 

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (sec. 3114) .............................................................................. 288 

Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3115) ..................................................................... 288 

Identification of amounts required for uranium technology 

sustainment in budget materials for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 3116) ..... 288 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 288 

Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program .................................. 288 

Environment Safety and Health .............................................................. 289 

Legacy Management ................................................................................. 289 

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health ................................................................................................ 289 

Inertial confinement facility operations and target production ............. 289 

Federal salaries and expenses .................................................................. 289 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 289 

Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities from the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility ....................................... 289 

Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment ....................................... 290 

National Nuclear Security Administration Governance ........................ 290 

Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for tritium 

production ............................................................................................... 290 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 293 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 293 

Title XXXV—Maritime Administration ................................................................. 293 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 293 

Division D—Funding Tables ................................................................................... 293 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 293 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) ............................................................ 293 

Legislative Requirements ................................................................................ 434 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 434 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 434 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 436 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 436 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 436 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXII 

Division D—Funding Tables —Continued 

Additional Views ............................................................................................... 436 

Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe ................................................................ 436 

Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte ................................................................ 441 

Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Vitter .................................................................... 443 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 402 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–176 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH 

FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 2, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2410] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2015 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, 

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2015; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2015; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2015; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2015; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2015. 

Committee overview 

Five years ago, the United States had almost 200,000 soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Now, after almost 12 years of continuous conflict, U.S. forces are 

drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. 

Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious security 

challenges around the globe. For example: • Russia has violated international law and undermined 3 decades of peaceful development in Eastern Europe by seizing Crimea 

and massing tens of thousands of troops near the Ukrainian border. • Al Qaeda leadership has been significantly degraded in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but terrorist organizations with links to al 

Qaeda continue to demonstrate an ability to exploit safe havens in 

ungoverned areas, including parts of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. • Despite an international agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria, the Assad regime continues to systematically attack civilian population centers, leading to thousands of casualties 

and millions of refugees and increasing the risk of regional instability. • In Iraq, the disturbing seizure by al Qaeda-affiliated militants 

of control in portions of Fallujah and Ramadi reflects in part the 

failure of a sectarian-influenced government to reach out to 

disenfranchised Sunni groups. • The new North Korean regime has adopted the same destructive policies as its predecessors, pursuing its nuclear weapons and 

ballistic missile programs with callous disregard for the well-being 

of its own people and the region. 

• China’s pursuit of new military capabilities raises concerns 

about its intentions, particularly in the context of the country’s increasing willingness to assert its controversial claims of sovereignty 

in the South China and East China seas. 

Here at home, the United States remains vulnerable to attacks 

on computer networks critical to our economy, to the provision of 

public services, and to our national security. 

The men and women of our Armed Forces—as well as the civilians and contractors who support them—have worked honorably 

and courageously to take on these challenges on our behalf, often 

at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and 

their families. The committee, Congress, and the American people 

owe them a debt of gratitude for this service. 

Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the men 

and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes reductions in force structure 

and compensation that increase risk for our nation and for the men 

and women who protect us. These reductions are driven by the top 

line of the budget—a topline that Congress dictated when we enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

acted the Budget Control Act of 2011 and reaffirmed (with minor 

relief in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for DOD and other agencies) 

in the Bipartisan Budget Act that we enacted earlier this year. The top line of $496.0 billion established in law for the fiscal 

year 2015 defense budget is unchanged from the funding level in 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and remains more than $30.0 billion 

below the funding provided to DOD in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 

2012. In real terms, the drop is even deeper, with a reduction of 

$75.0 billion since fiscal year 2010 and virtually no projected 

growth in inflation-adjusted dollars through the balance of the future years defense program. 

This shortfall requires painful trade-offs in just about every area 

of the defense budget. For example, the President’s budget proposes 

significantly lower end strengths for the ground forces, including a 

further reduction of 50,000 in active-duty Army end strength, with 

smaller reductions in the Guard and Reserve. The budget restricts 

the pay raise for servicemembers below the rate of inflation; freezes 

pay for general and flag officers; begins a phased reduction in the 

growth of the housing allowance that could result in increased out 

of pocket expenses for servicemembers’ housing costs; reduces support to commissaries; and makes significant changes to TRICARE 

benefits. 

The budget also calls for retiring the Air Force’s A–10 and U– 

2 aircraft, inactivating half of the Navy’s cruiser fleet, reducing the 

size of the Army’s helicopter fleet by 25 percent, and terminating 

the Ground Combat Vehicle Program. Military construction funding 

has been reduced by more than 40 percent compared to last year’s 

budget request and facilities sustainment accounts are funded at 

only 65 percent of the requirement in this year’s request. If the 

budget caps remain unchanged in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, 

DOD has informed us that it will request further reductions in end 

strength, the retirement of the entire KC–10 tanker fleet and the 

Global Hawk Block 40 fleet, reduced purchases of Joint Strike 

Fighters and unmanned aerial vehicles, the inactivation of additional ships, reduced purchases of destroyers, and the elimination 

of an aircraft carrier and a carrier air wing. 

The committee-reported bill attempts to address some of these 

issues, subject to the requirement that any increase to the proposed 

budget be accompanied by an offsetting reduction. The civilian and 

military leaders of DOD have cautioned us, however, that it will be 

extremely difficult to provide adequate funding for the national defense and for our men and women in uniform unless Congress acts 

to increase the budget caps established by the Budget Control Act 

of 2011, as amended. 

To date, in this Second Session of the 113th Congress, the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings and formal briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014, 

threats to our national security, and related matters. In order to 

provide a framework for the consideration of these matters, the 

committee identified 10 guidelines for its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows: 

(1) Ensure the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force 

by sustaining the quality-of-life of the men and women of the 

total force (active-duty, National Guard, and Reserves) and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

their families, as well as DOD civilian personnel, through fair 

pay, policies and benefits, and by addressing the needs of the 

wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families. 

(2) Reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action aimed 

at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military 

services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

(3) Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, 

training, technology, equipment, facilities, and authorities they 

will need to succeed in future combat, counterinsurgency, and 

stability operations. 

(4) Successfully conclude the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan, while enhancing the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces 

to support other nations in their efforts to increase their capacity to provide for their domestic and regional security and contribute to international security. 

(5) Enhance the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces and the 

security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, 

its affiliates, and other violent extremist organizations. 

(6) Improve the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to counter 

emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, 

cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

(7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials 

by strengthening nonproliferation programs, maintaining a 

credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear 

weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the nuclear 

infrastructure. 

(8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense expenditures in 

light of the Nation’s budget deficit problems. Ensure the future 

capability, viability, and fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force. 

(9) Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels 

and seek greater energy security and independence and pursue 

technological advances in traditional and alternative energy 

storage, power systems, operational energy tactical advantages, 

renewable energy production, and more energy efficient 

ground, air, and naval systems. 

(10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of DOD’s 

programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority implication 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2015 was $513.7 billion. Of this 

amount, $495.5 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs and $17.9 billion was requested for national 

security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $513.6 billion in fiscal year 2015, including $496.0 billion for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

base DOD programs and $17.7 billion for national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2015 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2015 and 

compares these amounts to the request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by 

including national defense funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the defense committees or are already authorized. 

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(7) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for procurement activities at the levels identified in 

section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Navy to take whatever steps the Secretary deems 

appropriate and are available to the Navy to ensure that the Navy 

retains the option of buying more EA–18G aircraft if further analysis of whether to expand the airborne electronic attack (AEA) 

force structure indicates the Navy should include more EA–18G 

aircraft in carrier air wings. The provision would also authorize the 

Navy, subject to appropriation, to use $75.0 million in funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2014 for advance procurement funds of F/A–18 E/F aircraft for the purpose of retaining such 

an option. The committee also recommends an increase of $25.0 

million in section 4101 for these purposes. 

The provision would direct the Secretary of the Navy to provide 

briefings to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 

2014, on the options available to the Navy for ensuring that the 

Navy will not be precluded from buying more EA–18G aircraft if 

that is what the Navy analysis concludes should be done. The provision would also require the briefings to include an update on the 

Navy’s progress in conducting its analysis of emerging requirements for airborne electronic attack. 

The committee is aware of the Navy’s recent efforts to assess 

emerging and future operational requirements for airborne electronic attack capability. Specifically, the Navy has conducted some 

preliminary analysis that indicates that there may be a requirement to have more than five EA–18G aircraft in each carrier air 

wing. Deploying aircraft carrier air wings with a five-plane EA– 

18G squadron was the basis for concluding that the EA–18G production should end in fiscal year 2014. If the Navy analysis indicates that EA–18G squadrons should be larger, the Navy may need 

to buy more aircraft. 

This preliminary analysis done by the Navy was the basis of the 

decision by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to include buying 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

22 more EA–18G aircraft at a cost of $2.1 billion as the number 

one item on his unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2015. Separately, the CNO has stated that the need for electronic attack capability is critical, and also testified before the committee that the 

operational requirement for airborne electronic attack capacity is 

increasing, not receding. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy may complete the 

analysis after the option of buying more EA–18G aircraft is closed. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to complete that 

ongoing analysis promptly and to report the study’s findings to the 

congressional defense committees. The committee also urges the 

Navy to provide the necessary funds in the fiscal year 2016 budget 

and future years defense program to meet its requirements for airborne electronic attack requirement, based on that analysis. 

In the meantime, the committee believes that the Navy should 

take action to delay the point at which a pending decision to close 

the EA–18G line may be made until the Navy makes a decision on 

the appropriate size of the AEA force structure. 

Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat 

Ship seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees on the test evaluation master 

plan for the seaframes and mission modules for the Littoral Combat Ship program. 

The report will include a description of the Navy’s progress with 

respect to the test evaluation master plan, and an assessment of 

whether or not completion of the test evaluation master plan will 

demonstrate operational effectiveness and operational suitability 

for both seaframes and each mission module. 

Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of aircraft 

carrier and construction of amphibious ship (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to transfer funds available in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), or other Navy procurement 

account for either or both of the following purposes: 

(1) Up to $650.0 million to conduct a refueling and complex 

overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN–73). 

(2) Up to $650.0 million to build a San Antonio-class amphibious ship. 

The provision would require that the Secretary make a determination that unobligated balances to be transferred are available 

due to slower than expected program execution, and the transfer 

of funds will fill a high priority military need and is in the best interest of the Department of the Navy. 

It is the committee’s intent that the Navy proceed with the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington 

(CVN–73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal year 

2015 for that purpose. 

Finally, the provision would authorize the Secretary to use incremental funding for a San Antonio-class ship if additional funds are 

made available in fiscal year 2015 for that purpose and the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

retary determines that such procurement will fill a high priority 

military need and is in the best interest of the Department of the 

Navy. 

The committee expects that, if the Secretary chooses to transfer 

funds for the San Antonio-class program in fiscal year 2015, the 

Secretary will use funds from fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 

to fully fund any new San Antonio-class ship put on contract during fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Prohibition on retirement of MQ–1 Predator aircraft (sec. 

131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Air Force from retiring any MQ–1 Predator aircraft during fiscal 

year 2015. 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air 

Force aircraft (sec. 132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report including an analysis 

and recommendations for not less than 80 percent of the Air Force 

missions and aircraft before retiring any Air Force aircraft. The 

Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 

testified to the committee that the Air Force would complete an 

analysis of 80 percent of the Air Force missions and aircraft by the 

end of calendar year 2014. That ongoing analysis is assessing the 

appropriate contributions of the regular Air Force, the Air National 

Guard, and the Air Force Reserve to the total force structure of the 

Air Force. The National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force found that the Air Force could save as much as $2.0 billion 

per year by realigning its forces between the active and reserve 

components. The committee wants to ensure that any planned retirements are reassessed in view of any savings that may be 

achievable as a result of that analysis. 

Temporary limitation on availability of funds for transfer of 

Air Force C130H and C–130J aircraft (sec. 133) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report before implementing 

any transfers of C–130H or C–130J aircraft. That report would include: (1) A recommended basing alignment of the C–130H2, C– 

130H3, and C–130J aircraft; (2) An identification of how that plan 

deviates from the basing plan approved by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239); (3) 

An explanation of what that plan deviates, if in any detail, from 

the plan approved by that Act; (4) An assessment of the national 

security benefits and any other expected benefits of the proposed 

transfers, including benefits for the facility or facilities expected to 

receive the transferred aircraft; (5) An assessment of the costs of 

the proposed transfers, including the impact of the proposed transfers on the facility or facilities from which the aircraft will be 

transferred; (6) An analysis of the recommended basing alignment 

that demonstrates that the recommendation is the most effective 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

and efficient alternative for such basing alignment; and (7) For 

units equipped with special capabilities, such as the modular airborne firefighting system capability, an analysis of the impact of 

the proposed transfers on the ability to satisfy missions that utilize 

those capabilities. 

The provision would also require that the Comptroller General 

conduct a review of the sufficiency of the Air Force report within 

45 days after the Air Force submits the report. It is the committee’s intent for Congress to have sufficient time to review the Air 

Force report and the findings of the Comptroller General’s review 

before the Air Force acts. 

The committee expects the Air Force to act in the spirit of this 

provision for the rest of fiscal year 2014 until enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A–10 

aircraft (sec. 134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent using 

any funds during fiscal year 2015 to retire, prepare to retire, or 

place in storage any A–10 aircraft. 

The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal year 

program in accordance with the spirit of this provision. Specifically, 

the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Air Force 

does not close or consolidate A–10 units, make changes to standard 

sustainment processes; or reduce A–10 pilot training or A–10 flying 

disproportionally to reductions applied to pilots or flying hours for 

other Air Force aircraft. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is making this decision purely on a basis of the fiscal environment and not on grounds 

of effectiveness of the forces. The National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force indicated that shifting to a greater reliance on the Air Reserve components could save roughly $2.0 billion 

per year that could be reinvested to maintain greater capabilities. 

The committee does not want the Air Force to execute any decision 

to retire the entire A–10 fleet until the Air Force has an opportunity to chart a specific course for implementing the Commission’s 

recommendations. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $256.5 million for 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $82.8 million for Air 

Force military personnel accounts. 

Limitation on transfer of KC–135 tankers (sec. 135) 

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the Air 

Force’s plan to transfer KC–135 aircraft from Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor-Hickam, pending a report on the costs and benefits of that 

transfer. 

It has come to the attention of the committee that the Air Force 

intends to move four KC–135 tanker aircraft from a forward-based 

position at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to base in the continental United States (CONUS). 

With the administration’s stated goal of rebalancing to the AsiaPacific region and the continued need for tanker support throughout the region, the Air Force’s planned transfer may not make economic sense. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

With the Department of Defense’s emphasis on energy and costs 

efficiencies, the Air Force should consider the resources required to 

move CONUS-based KC–135s to the Asia-Pacific region for exercises and requirements versus the cost of maintaining the assets in 

theater. 

Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft 

(sec. 136) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire any Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS) aircraft or making any significant changes in manning levels in AWACS units in 2015. 

The committee is concerned about the Air Force’s plans to retire 

aircraft from some of its high-demand, low-density (HD/LD) weapon systems. Aircraft such as the E–3 AWACS, the E–8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance System (JSTARS), and the 

EC–130 Compass Call have been under constant, heavy demand, 

supporting overseas contingency operations as well as homeland 

defense missions for the past two decades. The committee believes 

these systems will continue to play a critical role in our national 

defense until the Department of Defense is able to field capabilities 

to replace these HD/LD systems. 

The committee understands that the proposed cuts are a result 

of the budget caps enacted by Congress. However, the planned retirement of seven E–3 AWACS in fiscal year 2015 from a total fleet 

of 31 aircraft without a planned replacement is risky and should 

be reconsidered. Accordingly, the committee recommends provision 

that would delay this action for 1 year to give the Air Force time 

to fully consider the recommendations of the National Commission 

on the Structure of the Air Force and determine whether additional 

savings made available by shifting force structure from the active 

component to the reserve component could free up additional resources to make the premature retirement of these critical aircraft 

unnecessary. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $34.6 million for 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $24.9 million for Air 

Force military personnel accounts. 

Report on status of air-launched cruise missile capabilities 

(sec. 137) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires a report on 

the existing air-launched cruise missile system (AGM–86) and the 

plan for the replacement of the system referred to as the longrange standoff missile. 

Report on C–130 aircraft (sec. 138) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Air Force to submit a complete fielding plan for the C–130 aircraft, 

and specific details of the Air Force’s plan to maintain intra-theater 

capacity within both the active and the reserve components, including its modernization and recapitalization plan for all C–130H and 

C–130J aircraft. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

One of the recommendations in the report of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was recommendation 

number 11: ‘‘As the Air Force acquires new equipment, force integration plans should adhere to the principle of proportional and 

concurrent fielding across the components.’’ 

The committee wants to ensure that there will be concurrent and 

proportional fielding of new aircraft and new capabilities across the 

components. Elsewhere in another provision in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Air Force to 

report on its implementation plans for recommendations of the 

Commission. The committee will review closely how the Air Force 

plans to implement recommendation number 11. 

Report on status of F–16 aircraft (sec. 139) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense 

committees on the status of the F–16 fleet, including the status, location, and planned actions across the future years defense program for all F–16s in the Air Force inventory. This report shall be 

delivered not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Report on options to modernize or replace the T–1A aircraft 

(sec. 140) 

The committee is concerned about the Air Force’s aging fleet of 

training aircraft used in its specialized undergraduate pilot training. The committee supports the Air Force’s plan to develop a T– 

X aircraft to replace its 45-year-old T–38C trainer. However, there 

is currently no plans or budget to replace the T–1A, used to train 

all future tanker and transport pilots. 

While the T–1A came into service after the T–38C, it has not received similar upgrades and service life extensions. The T–1A now 

requires an avionics upgrade for the aircraft to be certified to fly 

in the National Airspace past 2020. The committee understands 

that the Commander of the Air Education and Training Command 

has questioned the Air Force’s ability to afford both the T–X program and an upgrade to the T–1A at the same time. 

The committee is aware of an ongoing study by the Air Force to 

determine whether the Air Force will return to generalized training, with all pilots training in both T–6s and T–38s (or the replacement T–X), in lieu of maintaining a separate training syllabus for 

tanker and transport pilots. However, the committee believes it 

prudent for the Air Force to conduct a near-term evaluation of options to replace or modernize the T–1A capability. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report on the options for replacing or upgrading the T–1A aircraft’s capability, to include options 

of leased aircraft or services, not later than 90 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Budget Items 

Army 

Light Utility Helicopter 

The budget request included $416.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for the UH–72A Light Utility Helicopter (LUH). 

The committee recommends an increase of $196.0 million in APA 

for procurement of additional LUH. The committee notes that during analysis and development of options for program and force 

structure savings required under the Budget Control Act, the Army 

would divest its aviation force of all single engine helicopters, including its older TH–67 Creek training aircraft at the aviation 

school at Fort Rucker, Alabama. To replace the TH–67, the Army 

selected the LUH aircraft that has been procured over the last 6 

years and is now widely used by the Army and the Army National 

Guard (ARNG). 

To quickly divest itself of the TH–67 and provide its training 

base with sufficient numbers of LUH, the Army initially considered 

transferring 100 LUH aircraft from the ARNG to the aviation 

school. The committee understands that the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau expressed concerns about the loss of LUH in the 

ARNG and the resulting reduction in capability to provide domestic 

helicopter support to civil authorities. The Secretary of Defense responded by directing that the ARNG keep its aircraft and authorizing the Army instead to procure 100 new LUH. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76), 

included an additional $75.0 million in APA for the procurement of 

10 more LUH aircraft for a total of 20 in that year. The fiscal year 

2015 budget request would procure another 55 of the 100 LUH authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The committee’s recommendation would allow the Army to complete procurement of the needed 

additional aircraft and reduce future operational and fiscal risk to 

replace older legacy training aircraft with new build LUH. By funding the procurement of 35 more LUH in fiscal year 2015, the Army 

would replace all of its legacy training aircraft and reduce the risk 

of having to take any from the ARNG should procurement funds 

not be available in fiscal year 2016 or beyond due to full sequestration. 

UH–60 Black Hawk M model 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Army (APA) for the UH–60M Black Hawk helicopter. The committee recommends an increase of $145.0 million in APA for procurement of additional UH–60M Black Hawks only for the Army 

National Guard. Additional funding was included in the Chief of 

Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Common Missile Warning System 

The budget request included $107.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for the Common Missile Warning System 

(CMWS). At the Army’s request, the committee recommends a decrease of $47.2 million for CMWS. Also at the Army’s request, the 

committee recommends an increase in APA of $7.8 million for adVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

vanced threat infrared countermeasures in aircraft survivability 

equipment and $32.4 million for radio frequency countermeasure in 

survivability countermeasures. 

Bradley program modifications 

The budget request included $107.5 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M2 

Bradley modifications. The committee recommends an increase of 

$37.0 million in WTCV for M2 Bradley modifications. Additional 

funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded 

priorities list. The committee directs the Army to use the additional 

funds to reduce risk in the armored vehicle industrial base. 

Improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request included $50.5 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the improved recovery vehicle (M88A2 Hercules). The committee recommends an increase of $75.9 million in WTCV for M88A2 Hercules. Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the 

Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Joint assault bridge 

The budget request included $49.5 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the 

joint assault bridge. Funds requested are early to need; therefore, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $41.2 million in WTCV 

for joint assault bridge. 

M1 Abrams tank modifications 

The budget request included $237.0 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M1 

Abrams tank modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million in WTCV for M1 Abrams tank modifications. Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the 

Army’s unfunded priorities list. The committee directs the Army to 

use the additional funds to reduce risk in the armored vehicle industrial base. 

Carbine 

The budget request included $29.4 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the 

M4A1 carbine, $4.6 million for M240 medium machine gun modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle modifications. At the 

Army’s request, the committee recommends decreases of $8.8 million for M4A1 carbine, $2.0 million for M240 medium machine gun 

modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle modifications. 

Also at the Army’s request, the committee recommends increases 

in WTCV of $3.0 million for M4 carbine modifications, and in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in PE 63872A of 

$3.0 million for soldier systems advanced development and in PE 

64601A of $6.7 million for infantry support weapons small arms 

improvement. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Modular handgun reduction 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $9.6 million was for handgun ammunition, all types, of which $3.1 million was for modular handgun 

ammunition. 

The committee is concerned that the request for modular handgun ammunition is ahead of need and is not approved for service 

use. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 million in PAA, handgun ammunition, all types, for modular handgun 

ammunition. 

40mm reduction 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $40.9 million was for 40mm ammunition, of which $1.9 million was for 40mm day/night/thermal 

ammunition. 

The committee is concerned that the request for 40mm day/night/ 

thermal is ahead of need and is not approved for service use. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9 million in PAA, 40mm, for 40mm day/night/thermal ammunition. 

Precision Guidance Kit reduction 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $94.0 million was for artillery propellants, fuses and primers, of which $61.2 million was for artillery 

fuse, precision guidance kit (PGK). 

The committee notes that PGK failed its first article test and experienced a schedule delay. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PAA, artillery propellants, fuses, and primers for PGK. 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical, increment 2 

The budget request included $763.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN–T), increment 2. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $125.0 million in OPA for WIN–T, increment 2, due to development delays in the Point of Presence and Soldier Network Extension components of the program. 

Joint tactical radio system 

The budget request included $175.7 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the joint tactical radio system (JTRS). The 

committee recommends a decrease of $88.0 million in OPA for 

JTRS due to slow execution of available prior year funds. 

Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio 

The budget request included $9.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio (MNVR). 

The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 million in OPA for 

MNVR due to program delays and slow execution of available prior 

year funds. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

Family of weapon sights 

The budget request included $49.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the family of weapon sights. Funds requested are 

early to need; therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$12.0 million in OPA for family of weapon sights. 

Joint Battle Command—Platform 

The budget request included $97.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Joint Battle Command Platform (JBC–P). The 

committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in OPA for 

JBC–P due to program delays and slow execution of available prior 

year funds. 

Counterfire radars 

The budget request included $209.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for counterfire radars. The committee recommends a decrease of $80.4 million in OPA for counterfire radars 

due to the availability of prior year funds and excessive concurrency through low rate initial production (LRIP). 

The committee notes that the Army has been buying and fielding 

the AN/TPQ–53 counterfire radar using LRIP to meet operational 

needs even though the system’s design, configuration, and performance have matured over time. This has resulted in a retrofit requirement for systems already fielded that will cost $85.0 million. 

The committee believes that there is no operational urgency to continue to produce and field systems that provide some but not all 

needed capabilities, and that the Army can manage production 

rates with funds available from prior years without creating additional requirements and costs for retrofit. 

The committee is concerned the Army continues to acquire 

counterfire radars through LRIP acquiring over 50 percent of its 

Army Acquisition Objective while the full rate production decision 

has slipped almost a year as compared to the fiscal year 2014 

schedule. The committee also notes the Army’s counterfire radar 

sustainment concept is interim contractor support. 

The Secretary of the Army is directed to submit a report that 

outlines the sustainment concept for counterfire radars including 

the results of the core depot assessment and type I/II business case 

analyses to determine the best mix of organic depot and contractor 

logistics support. The report shall address the Army’s plan to compete contract logistics support activities. The report is due to the 

congressional defense committees not later than April 30, 2015. 

Army information technology 

The budget request included $155.2 million in Other Procurement, Army Line 106 for automated data processing equipment. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to this program. The committee recommends that the Army, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Chief Information Officer should coordinate efforts to ensure 

that Army information technology procurement are not redundant 

with capabilities available under joint, other Service, or other agency programs. Further, these procurements should be made in a 

fashion so as to permit the Army to re-compete contracts for indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

vidual elements of the enterprise as necessary, in order to maximize cost savings due to competition and to enable the Army to 

have a flexible enterprise services modernization strategy. 

Modification of in-service equipment 

The budget request included $98.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the modification of in-service equipment. Funds requested for the modification of the Army’s watercraft are early to 

need; therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $18.0 million in OPA for the modification of in-service equipment. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED Defeat 

Organization’s (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure expenses. 

As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO’s inception, the committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the base 

budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1 million in 

the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding for the 

Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency operations budget request later this year. 

The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done 

but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo in U.S. 

Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a review, 

captured in another title of this Act, that should lead to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of organizations, such as 

JIEDDO, that provide response to emergent warfighter needs. 

Navy 

EP–3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System 

The budget request included $32.9 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), line 39, for the EP–3E Airborne Reconnaissance 

Integrated Electronic System (ARIES). The Navy has been pursuing spiral upgrades for the fleet of EP–3 aircraft for a number 

of years. The budget request did not include funds to install Spiral 

3 upgrade kits on the 11th and 12th EP–3E aircraft, or for the installation of electronic intelligence sensor upgrade kits on the last 

eight EP–3E aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of 

$20.0 million to install these upgrade kits. 

The committee appreciates the progress that the Navy has made 

in answering the concerns of the committee and the Joint Staff regarding the Navy’s plans for shifting EP–3E and Special Projects 

Aircraft (SPA) capabilities to the multi-intelligence variant of the 

TRITON unmanned aerial vehicle and a quick reaction capability 

(QRC) upgrade of the P–8A maritime patrol aircraft. 

However, the committee has a number of concerns about the 

Navy’s plan. The Navy’s transition plan would still involve eliminating personnel from the existing systems well before replacement 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

systems are available to maintain that capability. This situation 

could create significant gaps in the ability to meet the needs of the 

combatant commands. Secondly, there is a real possibility that the 

Navy would be tempted to make even greater reductions in current 

capability if they need to pay for potential schedule delays in the 

development of the new signals intelligence (SIGINT) payload for 

TRITON while continuing to add orbits of the current version of 

TRITON that has only modest SIGINT capability. Finally, the committee notes that there is a mismatch between the operational concept for the P–8A QRC, which would depend on remote operations 

and wide-band communications, and the plan that would install 

wide-band communications capability on the P–8A aircraft much 

later than the fielding of the P–8A QRC capability. 

Aircraft spares and repair parts 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Navy for buying spares and repair parts for all Navy and Marine 

Corps aircraft. This total included a request for $956.0 million in 

replenishment spares, an increase of $341.2 million from the fiscal 

year 2014 amount for replenishments spares. The committee has 

strongly supported efforts to improve readiness in Navy aviation 

programs. The committee, however, also believes that the Navy 

will be able to increase readiness and manage the Department’s replenishment spares portfolio with a smaller resource increase in 

fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction 

of $35.0 million to the budget request. 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests by two. Given the importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic submarine 

force, the committee recommends $11.0 million to procure one additional Strategic Programs Alteration Kit to conduct an additional 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Test. 

Tomahawk 

The budget request included $194.3 million to procure 100 Tomahawk missiles. The future years defense program envisions shutting down the Tomahawk production line after the fiscal year 2015 

procurement. 

The Navy has been expending Tomahawk missiles on a fairly 

regular basis of more than 100 missiles per year. The committee 

believes that it would be imprudent to ramp down and close Tomahawk missile production at this time. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $82.0 million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining rate 

of 196 missiles per year. 

The committee is concerned about the Navy’s abrupt decision to 

truncate production. The Tomahawk is combat-proven missile, having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades, and 

has a proven operational track record and capability. The Navy 

provided some limited information to support its proposal. However, the analysis supporting projected inventories and usage rates 

to be expected during the remainder of this decade was incomplete. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

Prior to making any decision to terminate new production and 

transition to a mid-life upgrade, the Navy must ensure the implications on production and recertification are fully examined and understood. 

The committee directs the Navy to provide, prior to submission 

of the fiscal year 2016 President’s budget, its complete analysis of 

alternatives, including an assessment of near-term and long-term 

threat analysis, impact on the industrial base and the needed timing of a mid-life certification/upgrade of the current Tomahawk inventory. This analysis must clearly show annual projected inventory usage, starting and ending inventory levels by fiscal year and 

what is budgeted for Tomahawk, as well as for all related development and production programs, with specific appropriation and line 

item/program element detail. The Navy should provide this information in an unclassified report with an accompanying classified 

annex. 

Navy enterprise information technology 

The budget request included $87.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy Line 161 for enterprise information technology (IT). The committee notes that much of this funding is supporting procurements 

related to the legacy Navy IT systems located around the world. 

The committee is concerned about the continued investment of 

funds into legacy IT infrastructure, and believes that the Navy 

should seek to leverage services, networks, and hardware available 

through the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Next Generation Enterprise Network, and other assets to the maximum extent possible. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to this program. 

Power equipment assorted 

The budget request included $8.9 million in Procurement, Marine 

Corps (PMC) for assorted power equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million in PMC for advanced power 

equipment. Additional funding was included in the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps’ unfunded priorities list. 

Air Force 

RQ–4 

The budget request included $54.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the RQ–4 Global Hawk program. These funds 

are not to buy new air vehicles, but are intended for miscellaneous 

procurement, to include equipment to support depot activation, initial spares, support to complete delivery of Global Hawk vehicles 

on contract, sensor operator trainer, and procurement to replace 

equipment supported by disappearing manufacturing sources. 

The committee believes that the sensor operator trainer is being 

requested ahead of need, and recommends a reduction of $10.0 million to the budget request. 

MQ–9 

The budget request included $240.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to buy an additional 12 MQ–9 air vehicles. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

The committee understands that the MQ–9 program has $37.8 

million in fiscal year 2013 APAF funds that are excess to program 

needs. These funds will remain available for obligation throughout 

fiscal year 2015, and can be used to offset other fiscal year 2015 

requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends reduction of $37.8 million 

to the MQ–9 budget request. 

C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program 

The budget request included $331.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the C–5M program, also known as the C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). Of that 

total, the request included $254.2 million for installing RERP kits 

purchased in prior years. 

The committee understands that there have been delays in the 

RERP kit installation program and recommends a reduction of 

$50.0 million in the C–5M program. 

U–2 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the U–2 program did not 

include any procurement funding for supporting the U–2 program 

but did include $5.5 million in PE 35202F for developing various 

safety of flight and vanishing vendor modifications. The budget request for the Global Hawk program included $86.8 million in procurement and $244.5 million in PE 35220F for developing various capabilities for the Global Hawk, including a total of 

$208.8 million for various Block 30 development efforts. Included 

in the Block 30 development efforts was $136.0 million specifically 

for enhancements for Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to provide the 

Block 30 aircraft with some level of capability that would be lost 

by retirement of the U–2 aircraft. The Air Force plans to spend 

$1.9 billion during the future years defense program (FYDP) for 

these enhancements to Block 30. 

The committee is skeptical of the Air Force’s plans to retire the 

U–2 in the near term and perhaps replace some of the U–2’s current capability after the end of the FYDP. First, this plan would 

reduce capability and leave a deficit in meeting combatant commanders’ requirements now. Second, there is no real guarantee 

that spending $1.9 billion in the FYDP will allow the Air Force to 

replace the capability of the U–2 fleet with capability from Global 

Hawk Block 30 fleet. Finally, the FYDP that includes this funding 

is $115.0 billion more that the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) 

totals would allow for the Department of Defense (DOD) during 

that period. If Congress does not enact changes to amend the BCA, 

enhancement programs like the Block 30 upgrades would be at 

great risk. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $64.3 million for various modifications and $5.8 million in research and development activities for the U–2 fleet as planned last year. The 

committee also recommends a reduction of $136.0 million in Global 

Hawk research and development activities targeted at replacing U– 

2 capability. 

The committee reminds DOD that the restrictions on retiring the 

U–2 aircraft in section 133 of the John Warner National Defense 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), as 

amended, remain in effect. 

C–130 aircraft modifications 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding for 

the C–130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but included 

$7.4 million for communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic 

management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $7.2 million for upgrading 

cockpit voice and digital data recorders (CVR/DVR) for legacy C– 

130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the legacy C–130 aircraft until the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request was the C–130 AMP. When the Air 

Force announced a decision to cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial production and had delivered five aircraft, 

four additional kits, and training devices. 

Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) prevented the Secretary of the Air 

Force from canceling or modifying the AMP effort for C–130 aircraft until 90 days after submission of a cost-benefit analysis comparing the original C–130 AMP with a program that would upgrade and modernize the legacy C–130 airlift fleet using a reduced 

scope program for avionics and mission planning systems. The Air 

Force submitted that report, but there were questions about the assumptions and conclusions of the report. For example, the original 

Air Force study also assumed life cycle costs covering only 25 

years. 

Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) prevented the Air Force from cancelling the AMP effort in fiscal year 2014 and directed the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the congressional 

defense committees a sufficiency review of the cost benefit analysis 

in the Air Force study. The committee received the Comptroller 

General’s report which pointed out that changes of fundamental assumptions in the report could change the outcome of the analysis, 

including the assumed length of time used for calculating life cycle 

costs savings. 

The Air Force will be operating approximately 150 C–130H aircraft for the foreseeable future, probably longer than the 25 years 

assumed in the Air Force study. The committee strongly supports 

modernization of this legacy C–130 fleet, and recommends an increase of $25.0 for procurement and installation of C–130 AMP 

kits. In addition, the committee directs the Air Force to obligate 

the fiscal year 2014 funds authorized and appropriated for this program to conduct such activities as are necessary to complete testing 

and transition the program to production and installation of modernization kits. 

C–130 engines 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding for 

making upgrades to C–130 engines. 

The Air Force has flight tested a contractor-developed upgrade to 

the current engine and determined that this upgrade would result 

in fuel savings of 7.9 percent compared to operating current engines. The Air Mobility Command (AMC) performed a business 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

case analysis of a potential upgrade program for the C–130H fleet. 

AMC found that an investment of $657.0 million would result in 

reduced maintenance and fuel expenditures that would save $2.0 

billion over the lives of those aircraft. 

The committee recommends an increase of $22.6 million to procure and install engine upgrade kits for the C–130H fleet. 

Lynx synthetic aperture radar 

The budget request includes $30.0 million in PE 25219F, line 66, 

in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for procurement of upgrades to the Lynx synthetic aperture radar (SAR) carried on the 

REAPER unmanned aerial system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113–66) eliminated funding 

for Lynx SAR retrofits on the grounds that the rare use of this 

radar does not justify substantial new investment. The committee 

is not aware of any change in the utilization of the Lynx SAR in 

the field, and therefore recommends a reduction of $30.0 million. 

Small diameter bomb 

The budget request included $70.6 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) to buy 246 units of the Small Diameter 

Bomb Increment II (SDB II). 

The committee understands that there have been delays in the 

Milestone C decision, and a resulting delay in awarding the contract for fiscal year 2014 production. As it stands now, the Air 

Force is likely to award the contract for the fiscal year 2014 production sometime during fiscal year 2015, and expects that the contract will include provisions for awarding options to the contract 

that would include for awarding the next option on the contract 

during fiscal year 2016. This means that the Air Force will not 

need additional production funds in fiscal year 2015. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.5 million in this program. 

General purpose bombs 

The budget request included $177.2 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for general purpose bombs. The 

committee recommends an increase of $8.8 million in PAAF for 

general purpose bombs. The need for additional funding was identified in the Commander of the United States Pacific Command’s unfunded priorities list. 

Base information transportation infrastructure transfer 

The budget request included $81.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force for information transport systems, and $122.2 million in 

Other Procurement, Air Force for Air Force Network (AFNET). To 

correct an error in the budget materials, and at the request of the 

Air Force, the committee recommends a transfer of $31.3 million 

from the AFNET account to the information transport systems account for the purposes of supporting base information transportation infrastructure. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funds for the 

procurement of additional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) 

trainers at the 381st Training Group (TRG). This lack of training 

equipment limits the availability of qualified ICBM officers, which 

are in high demand. The committee recommends $23.6 million to 

Other Procurement Air Force, Line 60, Base Procured Equipment 

for expansion of the 381st TRG Missile Procedures Training Capability for Combat Mission Readiness and to procure Computer 

Based Training/Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting standalone trainers. 

Defense-wide 

MC–12 aircraft 

The budget request includes $40.5 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for the modification of 24 MC–12 aircraft being 

transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to support the manned intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of U.S. Special Operations 

Forces. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the transfer of these MC–12 aircraft from 

the Air Force to SOCOM until the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination 

with the Commander of SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees an analysis and justification for such actions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in PDW for 

modification of MC–12 aircraft. As noted elsewhere in this report, 

the recommended reduction does not apply to procurement in support of SOCOM aviation foreign internal defense missions, which 

are funded in a different budget line. Chemical, biol. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $15.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special operations-unique mission kits for the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 

for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out operations 

against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet 

of MQ–9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.7 million in PDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs through the MQ–9 Medium Altitude 

Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing the Lead-Off 

Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee understands this 

process has successfully fielded MQ–9 UAV capabilities at greatly 

reduced timelines when compared to traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ–9 UAVs in ‘‘find, fix, and finish’’ operations. The committee encourages SOCOM to continue to look for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

other opportunities to accelerate combat capability development 

through the Lead-Off Hitter approach. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force KC–46A Pegasus procurement 

The committee notes that the KC–46A Pegasus remains one of 

the Department of Defense’s most successful and important acquisition programs. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force described aerial 

refueling tankers as the lifeblood of the Joint Force’s ability to respond to crises and contingencies around the world. The KC–46A 

will replace the Air Force’s 1960s era KC–135s and will significantly enhance our current capability. The Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force has consistently stated that the KC–46 is the Air Force’s 

highest acquisition priority, and essential to the future of the Joint 

Force. 

The committee also notes that the development of the KC–46As 

continues to meet its technical performance goals on time and 

under budget. In April 2014, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) reported that the KC–46’s development cost has changed 

less than 1 percent since 2011, despite funding reductions in fiscal 

year 2013 associated with the Budget Control Act. Moreover, the 

aircraft’s fixed price incentive contract shifts liability for any future 

cost growth to the contractor. This structure not only incentivizes 

the contractor to cut costs in order to generate additional profits, 

it also ensures maximum value for the government and the taxpayer. To date, the Air Force reports it has saved $900.0 million 

in the KC–46 Aircrew Training System and other program risk adjustments compared to previous estimates. 

The committee notes that disrupting this well-performing program would negatively affect the ongoing development of the KC– 

46s and our national security. The Air Force estimates that reducing procurement from seven aircraft to six in fiscal year 2015 

would yield near-term savings of $139.6 million. However, the Air 

Force projects that this reduction in quantity would adversely affect contractual cost factors over the life of the program, ultimately 

increasing the cost to the taxpayer by more than $640.0 million. A 

reduction would also impose severe risk on the contractor’s ability 

to meet its contractual requirement to deliver 18 aircraft by August 

2017. Also, the government could risk losing the very favorable production pricing under the KC–46 contract by not living up to the 

government’s responsibilities under the contract to provide resources matched to contractor progress. In order to ensure the KC– 

46 program continues to meet is cost, schedule, and performance 

objectives, and ultimately meet our national defense requirements, 

the committee recommends fully funding the President’s request 

for procurement of seven KC–46 aircraft in fiscal year 2015, and 

keeping the program on a stable funding path. 

Armored vehicle transmission industrial base 

Over the last several years the committee has expressed its concern for the management of strategic risk in the armored vehicle 

industrial base. Strategic risk is that associated with the permanent or temporary loss of either public depot or private commercial 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

industrial capability or capacity to repair and upgrade the Nation’s 

current fleets or develop and produce the next generation of armored vehicles. 

The committee notes that this risk is apparent in the portion of 

the armored vehicle industrial base that designs, develops, and produces transmissions. The committee is aware of actions on the part 

of the Army to manage this risk through the procurement of some 

armored vehicle transmissions in excess of its usual repair parts 

supply and production requirements. Buying extra transmissions, 

however, may not be a sustainable risk management approach because of declining and uncertain budgets. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or 

designee, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, to conduct 

a business case analysis of the costs, benefits, risks, feasibility, and 

advisability of strategies to manage risk in the armored vehicle 

transmission industrial base including, but not limited to, increased competition, consolidation, or other industrial approaches 

across public depot, private commercial, and public-private partnership entities and facilities. 

The results of this analysis shall be briefed to the congressional 

defense committees by the Secretary, or designee, not later April 

30, 2015. 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense 

The budget request included $17.5 million in Other Procurement, 

Army for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defense but included no funding for personal dosimeter systems. 

The committee understands the Army has 10,000 personal 

dosimeters in its inventory consisting of 2,000 dosimeters purchased in 2013 and 8,000 dosimeters based on 1960s technology 

and are no longer in production. Additionally, these 8,000 systems 

are unable to be repaired due to a lack of spare parts. The committee is concerned that the Army may not have kept pace with the 

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear 

weapons and material to state and non-state actors. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report or briefing no later than March 15, 2015, on the requirements 

and, if necessary, the plan to upgrade and/or acquire personal dosimeter systems. 

Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements 

Demand for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) 

remains the number one shortfall identified by combatant commanders. The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing a number 

of initiatives to respond to these demands. 

One of these approaches is applying open systems architectures 

principles to current and new software systems. As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a number of programs to 

provide new ISR capabilities through an open systems architecture 

approach. This should provide DOD more flexibility to adapt new 

payloads or capabilities to varying environments and operational 

needs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

DOD is also modernizing and expanding ISR capabilities for systems with longer ranges and endurance. Combatant commanders 

frequently ask for systems with additional range and loiter times 

to simplify their scheduling and administrative efforts in providing 

on-station capability. 

The committee believes that it is important that DOD remain focused on its efforts to help simplify and reduce the costs of meeting 

combatant commanders’ ISR requirements. 

Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) uses commercial aircraft performing survey and mapping services. In the case of some 

of these aircraft, the USACE contracts directly with the private 

sector for use of the aircraft. In other cases, the USACE uses the 

services of commercial aircraft that are on retainer with the Air 

Force or the Navy. The committee is concerned about recent Army 

blanket requirements for the USACE. The committee is concerned 

about the issuance of new blanket requirements for Army-contracted aircraft that do not apply to those aircraft on retainer with 

the Air Force or the Navy. These new requirements apparently include a requirement that all commercial aircraft under Army contract be subject to oversight by the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation (PEO–AVN) and require an Air Worthiness Release (AWR). The committee has been made aware that the Army 

may not be applying these new requirements to such aircraft on 

loan from the Air Force or the Navy. 

Such aircraft on contract to the USACE for survey and mapping 

purposes were previously certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), since such aircraft are used for inherently non-defense purposes. The committee believes that the Army’s requirement for a blanket AWR for aircraft already certified by the FAA 

may not have a material impact on aircraft air worthiness unless 

the Army were to make major modifications to the aircraft or to 

make changes to the mission parameters. Such specific changes 

would dictate a more stringent air worthiness certification for these 

aircraft, but a blanket requirement that all aircraft require an 

AWR could result in unnecessary expenses for the taxpayer. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Army and USACE to provide the congressional defense committees a briefing on contract 

aircraft operated by or for the USACE modifications required to 

meet USACE missions, certification requirements for such aircraft, 

and what value the Army receives from insisting on an AWR for 

commercial aircraft performing for civil survey and mapping functions. 

Comptroller General of the United States review relating to 

remotely piloted aircraft 

Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are a critical capability the Air 

Force provides to combatant commanders and in response to growing mission demands, the Air Force has significantly increased the 

number of RPA and associated personnel since 2008. However, the 

committee is concerned that the Air Force has not adjusted policies 

to fully account for the high operations tempo and unique operating 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

environment that drive the RPA enterprise requirements. A recent 

review by the Comptroller General of the United States, ‘‘Air Force: 

Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned Aerial 

Systems Pilots; GAO–14–316,’’ details some of these challenges. 

The committee directs the Air Force to report to the committee no 

later than September 30, 2014, on its efforts to implement the first 

three Government Accountability Office recommendations concerning its crew ratio, recruiting, and retention strategy. 

Similar to units deploying to combat operations in Afghanistan 

and the Middle East, Air Force RPA pilots operate at a high operational tempo which constrains the time they have to train for the 

entire spectrum of missions in which they are required to maintain 

proficiency. Exacerbating this challenge, available simulators do 

not adequately replicate the environment of a RPA ground control 

station. Across the Department of Defense (DOD), as much as 90 

percent of training for RPA-related personnel occurs as part of a 

combat operations mission. 

As combat operations wind down in Afghanistan, the DOD will 

need to identify training opportunities to keep RPA personnel proficient. Two of the biggest challenges will be RPA access to military 

training airspace due to competition with other military aviation 

requirements, and access to civilian controlled airspace due to safety concerns. As RPA technology advances and RPA mission areas 

expand, the committee is concerned about DOD’s ability to keep 

pace with these changes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review DOD’s RPA training. The review should include, at a minimum: (1) Challenges DOD faces in training RPA personnel; (2) 

The extent to which DOD has planned for and taken steps to mitigate those challenges; (3) The extent to which RPA units are able 

to perform required missions; (4) The extent to which DOD has access to the national airspace structure for RPA training operations; 

and (5) Any other matters the Comptroller General determines are 

appropriate during the review. 

The Comptroller General shall submit the preliminary results of 

the review to the congressional defense committees no later than 

January 31, 2015, with a report to follow. 

Distributed mission operations 

The Air Force is providing its warfighters the ability to train and 

operate in a realistic virtual environment using the real-world 

operational systems they would use in an actual combat situation 

under its distributed mission operations (DMO) program. DMO 

training enables warfighters to simulate real operations in a safe 

training environment at multiple levels of classification and complexity without the concerns of range and airspace restrictions. By 

using this DMO training, the Air Force reduces flying hour costs, 

travel costs and other operations and support costs. 

The committee is concerned that the ability of Air Force to field 

and connect DMO simulators broadly across the total Air Force, as 

Air Force leadership would prefer, is being hampered in this fiscally constrained environment. The committee needs to understand 

the extent of these fielding problems. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a plan that identifies current and planned fielding of the 

DMO program across the total Air Force, including locations and 

schedules for installation of DMO simulators and associated equipment, current and future network distribution and connectivity, 

and a funding plan that would achieve full operational capability 

for DMO. The Secretary of the Air Force should provide this plan 

to the congressional defense committees not later than April 30, 

2015. 

Ejection seats 

Section 146 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) directed the Secretary of the Air 

Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

setting forth an assessment of the risks to the health and safety 

of the members of the Armed Forces of the ejection seats currently 

in operational use by the Air Force. The report is due to the congressional committees no later than June 2014. 

The committee looks forward to receiving that report. When the 

report is completed, the committee believes that the Secretary 

should develop a strategy to implement recommendations from the 

study to improve the safety and reliability of existing ejection seats 

in fighter and bomber aircraft as soon as possible, to include requesting any funding that may be needed in the fiscal year 2016 

budget request. 

Enhanced position location reporting system 

The committee notes that the Army is modernizing its tactical 

communications architecture, including divestment of the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) between fiscal 

years 2014 and 2017. The committee supports the Army’s plan to 

modernize its digital communications architecture and understands 

that replacement of the EPLRS system with the currently fielded 

more capable Blue Force Tracking System will provide units with 

an improved interim capability. The committee is aware that 

EPLRS will continue to be used in some units outside of the Army 

and by some allies. Given this potential mix of communications systems, the committee would be interested to learn how the Army 

plans to mitigate any operational impacts as it implements EPLRS 

divestment. 

Accordingly, the Secretary of the Army shall provide the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate with a briefing that outlines the potential interoperability risks, if any, for units still 

equipped with EPLRS and its plans to mitigate those risks. 

Family of medium tactical vehicles 

The budget request includes no funding in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV). 

However, the committee notes that the Army justification material 

for OPA included funding planned for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. 

The committee urges the Army to consider funding FMTV in the 

Oversea Contingency Operations request in order to help bridge 

the fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2017 funding gap. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

The budget request included $45.7 million in PE 65812A, $11.5 million in PE 65812M, $164.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, 

and $7.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps for research, development, and low rate initial production (LRIP) of the Joint Light 

Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The committee notes that, according to the 

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General John Campbell, JLTV is 

the centerpiece of the Army’s tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy. The committee further notes that fiscal year 2015 is 

a critically important year for this program. Over the last 3 years, 

the joint program office has been managing the development and 

testing of prototype vehicles provided by three competing tactical 

vehicle vendor teams. This competitive prototyping acquisition 

strategy is consistent with the requirements of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) and in 

2015 will result in the selection of a single vendor for award of a 

LRIP contract for up to 183 Army and Marine Corps vehicles. The 

committee recommends full funding as requested for JLTV and expects the program to remain on schedule for its Milestone C decision in June 2015. 

Joint Strike Fighter software development 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a rigorous assessment of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter’s software development program and report to the congressional defense committees on the specific capabilities, to include combat capabilities, to 

be delivered and those that will not likely be delivered to each of 

the military Services by the date at which the Service plans to declare initial operational capability. The Secretary shall submit this 

report not later than May 1, 2015. 

Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development 

The committee remains encouraged by the Department of Defense’s efforts and multiple ongoing projects to decrease the weight 

of cartridge cases and ammunition. The committee understands 

that polymers have the potential to act as better heat insulators, 

enabling the firing of more ammunition, and an added benefit of 

cost savings and decreased weight compared to conventional metal 

cartridge cases. The committee is also encouraged by the ongoing 

research and potential for cased telescoped ammunition which 

could decrease logistical weight by at least 50 percent and bulk 

storage volume by at least 40 percent. 

Accordingly, the committee urges the Department to conduct the 

necessary logistical impact assessments to explore additional efficiencies for light weight cartridge cases and ammunition. 

Lightweight robots 

The committee is aware that the Army has developed and fielded 

a variety of lightweight robots to conduct reconnaissance, to 

counter improvised explosive devices, and for other tactical uses by 

units deployed supporting overseas contingency operations. 

Over the years, the Army has rapidly acquired these lightweight 

robots in response to theater operational needs statements. The 

committee supports the continued research, development, and acVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

quisition (RDA) of lightweight robots to support the Army’s various 

tactical requirements. 

The committee is interested to learn, however, how the Army 

plans to transition lightweight robot RDA to a formal program of 

record. A program of record appears necessary to sustain momentum in the development of next generation lightweight robots as 

well as identify and field technical improvements to existing capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or 

designee, not later than September 30, 2014, to provide the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services a briefing on the Army’s plans, if 

any, for creation of a RDA program of record for lightweight tactical robots. The briefing should include discussion of the development and schedule for the review and approval of requirements 

documents necessary to establish a RDA program of record. Also, 

the briefing should include technology development and procurement schedules and related funding profiles through the future 

years defense program. 

MH–60R helicopters 

The budget request included $933.9 million to buy 29 MH–60R 

helicopters and $106.7 million in advance procurement. The last future years defense program (FYDP) indicated that the Navy intended to buy 29 MH–60R helicopters in fiscal year 2016 to fulfill 

the Navy’s part of the last year of the Army’s H–60 multiyear procurement contract. The latest FYDP projects that the Navy will not 

buy any MH–60R helicopters in fiscal year 2016. Absent action to 

revise the fiscal year 2016 plan for the Navy, or to apply additional 

resources to the Army procurement effort, this action by the Navy 

would cause a government default on the multiyear contract. 

The Navy has planned to budget $250.0 million in fiscal year 

2016 to cover termination charges. However, the Navy cannot assure the committee that this amount will cover all of the Navy’s 

early termination charges, nor have Navy officials been able to 

specify what additional costs will fall on the Army if the Navy were 

to fail to buy the 29 helicopters as planned. At a minimum, the 

Army would be forced to renegotiate the contract, which will probably delay deliveries and most certainly increase unit costs. 

The committee urges the Navy to reconsider this plan during the 

development of the fiscal year 2016 budget. If the Navy decides to 

opt out of the multiyear contract next year, the committee expects 

the Secretary of the Navy to explain how this aircraft reduction is 

related to the Navy’s ship force structure and whether the Navy 

will be able to meet its requirements with a smaller number of 

MH–60R helicopters in the future. In the meantime, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary 

of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy, to develop a better estimate of the likely effects if the Navy were to withdraw from the 

Army’s H–60 multiyear procurement contract in fiscal year 2016. 

The Secretary of Defense should provide that analysis to the congressional defense committees within 90 days. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

Modular handgun 

The committee is aware that the Army is in the process of an 

open competition for a commercial off-the-shelf non-developmental 

modular handgun that could result in the replacement of its existing M9 pistol. The committee notes that the Army has not replaced 

any of its current mix of small arms in several years and is interested to know how the Army will ensure the stability of the modular handgun program. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or 

designee, to provide the congressional defense committees a briefing no later than March 1, 2015, that describes the modernization 

strategy for its handgun replacement program. The required briefing shall include a description of requirements for the replacement 

modular handgun and how the program’s critical performance requirements are linked to capabilities demonstrated in the small 

arms marketplace. The briefing should also include relevant schedule and funding profile information through the future years defense program. 

Report on the Navy’s shipbuilding industrial base 

In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of this committee, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition expressed concern about the fragility of the 

Navy’s shipbuilding industrial base. Other Navy officials, including 

the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have 

expressed similar concerns. The committee shares these concerns 

and requests the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, provide a report on the state of the Navy’s shipbuilding industrial base not later than February 1, 2015. The report should 

contain the following: 

(1) A comparison of shipyard capacities and capabilities with 

projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may produce 

in coming years in terms of capacity utilization and preservation of 

key design and construction skills. 

(2) Investments the shipyards have made in recent years to modernize their production facilities and to recruit, train, and retain 

their workers, and any challenges the shipyards may face in doing 

this in coming years. 

(3) Investments the shipyards could make to achieve cost reductions on Navy programs or to position the yards to survive a number of years on reduced Navy orders. 

(4) The shipyards’ construction processes and methods, and how 

these compare to best practices in shipyards around the world. 

(5) The prospects, by ship type, for using competition in the design and construction of Navy ships in coming years. 

(6) A comparison of supplier capacities and capabilities with projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may produce in 

coming years in terms of capacity utilization and preservation of 

key suppliers. 

(7) A comparison of shipbuilding research and development investments with projected shipbuilding workloads, and any challenges that deficiencies in investment may produce in future years 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

in utilizing capacity, preserving of key skills, and continuing innovation. 

(8) An analysis of the risks to the shipbuilding industrial base 

in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan in the 2015 future years defense 

program, and the risks to the industrial base if Congress does not 

amend the Budget Control Act to increase budget levels for the Department of Defense before fiscal year 2016. 

(9) A comprehensive funding section that includes: 

(a) An itemized listing of funds budgeted for support of the 

shipbuilding industrial base. This is to include all applicable 

Navy and Defense-wide appropriations. Detail must be by fiscal year at the Appropriation, line item/program elementproject level with a description of the effort. Detail should be 

provided over the future years defense program and include up 

to 10 years of prior fiscal year actuals. This detailed listing is 

to specifically include funding contained in current shipbuilding programs (detail design/plans), as well as the research 

and development funding for preliminary and contract design 

program elements, and any applicable science and technology 

funding, as well as applicable funding from the Industrial Preparedness and Manufacturing Technology programs. 

(b) Any recommendations in the report for additional funding 

should be identified at the same level of detail as described in 

the subsection above. 

(c) The report funding summary should also provide information on applicable efforts from other related agencies, such as 

the Department of Transportation, the Maritime Administration, and the Coast Guard. 

RQ–21 unmanned aerial systems 

The budget request included $70.6 million to procure three RQ– 

21A Blackjack unmanned aerial systems and to buy ancillary support equipment and provide interim contractor logistics support. 

The committee recognizes that this is not a very economical rate 

at which to buy the RQ–1A system and understands that the Marine Corps may be seeking to move funds within the account to add 

to the RQ–21A end item procurement plan. 

If the Marine Corps can identify additional resources to such a 

purpose, the committee would support buying more systems under 

a buy-to-budget approach. 

Solid state radar upgrades 

The committee is aware that most current Navy radars use 

1910s vacuum electronic devices technology and designs, such as 

traveling wave tubes and cross-field amplifiers. 

The committee also understands that corrective radar system 

maintenance typically occurs only after a component or system failure, or that components are proactively replaced to avoid suffering 

lower operational readiness due to low mean time between critical 

failure of the cross-field amplifier tube technology. These failures 

can undercut readiness and reduce the operational availability of 

naval vessels. 

The committee notes that upgrading existing radars with solidstate technology, such as components using gallium nitride (GaN), 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

may significantly improve performance and reliability, as well as 

result in significant potential cost savings over the life of the radar. 

The committee needs to understand the potential of technology improvements to result directly in increases in operational readiness. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Research to 

provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees, no 

later than September 30, 2014, that includes the following: 

(1) An inventory of current Navy radars, the technology 

Navy radars utilize, and the reliability of those radars; 

(2) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability, estimated 

costs, and potential performance benefits of upgrading radars 

on current Navy vessels with solid-state emitters that use solid 

state technology, such as GaN; 

(3) An assessment of ongoing efforts to prototype a generic 

solid state emitter as a potential upgrade for radars across 

Navy vessels. 

Technical study and business case analysis of body armor 

plates 

The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a technical study and 

business case analysis on the requirements, cost, benefit, feasibility, and advisability of the replacement and refurbishment of the 

various body armor plates used in personal protective equipment. 

The technical study will include an identification and evaluation of 

environmental or other conditions under which body armor plates 

will or could lose their required protective performance or properties and an identification and evaluation of the handling and 

storage for body armor plates to ensure the most cost-effective shelf 

life to retain the required protective performance properties. In addition to the technical study, the business case analysis will evaluate the full range of options for body armor modernization and 

sustainment. An interim report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015, and a final 

report submitted not later than March 1, 2016. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(35) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority of the Secretary of Defense to hold prize and challenge 

competitions to spur advanced technology achievements. The provision would give the Department of Defense (DOD) more flexibility 

in selecting prize award sizes to better match the awards to the 

technical challenge being addressed. 

Additionally, the provision would permit DOD to combine funding with other federal, state, or local government funding in order 

to leverage other resources to achieve goals of interest to defense 

missions and priorities. Finally, the provision would reduce the reporting requirement for the use of the authority. 

The March 2014 report to Congress on the prize authority indicated that prizes ‘‘have demonstrated the ability to stimulate and 

incentivize a broad spectrum of individuals to offer solutions to 

problems of significant interest to our Nation’s Warfighters.’’ The 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency have all successfully 

used prize competitions to develop innovative approaches to address technology challenges. 

Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 

212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel which coordinates manufacturing technology and research programs for the Department of Defense should receive oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics or his 

designees. Further, the provision reduces the frequency of mandated updates to the Manufacturing Technology program’s strategic 

plan, to better synchronize this effort with the Quadrennial Defense Review process. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target 

Attack Radar Systems aircraft (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire operational Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft until 

the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report to the congressional 

defense committees including an update of the results of the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for recapitalizing the current JSTARS capability; an analysis of life cycle supports costs of maintaining the 

current fleet of JSTARS aircraft versus replacing the current fleet 

JSTARS aircraft with a new aircraft and radar system employing 

mature technology; and an assessment of the cost and schedule of 

developing and fielding a new aircraft and radar system employing 

mature technology to replace the current JSTARS aircraft. 

The budget request included $73.1 million in PE 37581F for developing a next generation system to replace the current JSTARS 

aircraft. The Air Force conducted an AoA 3 years ago to review options for modernizing the current E–8C JSTARS capability. That 

AoA concluded that a combination of Global Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted aircraft and a business class intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform was the least cost, highest performing alternative. The AoA reported that a modern business jet outfitted with fourth generation radar based on existing 

technology would be the desired capability. 

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force also informed the committee 

2 years ago that the Air Force could not afford to pursue the business jet alternative when he said, ‘‘We simply don’t have the resources.’’ 

This year, the budget request proposes to retire six of the current 

E–8C JSTARS aircraft in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and pursue 

a standard acquisition program and expend nearly $2.0 billion on 

a research and development program to develop and integrate new 

capability onto existing business jet airframes. This new radar and 

aircraft would not achieve initial operational capability until fiscal 

year 2022. 

The committee supports a rapid recapitalization program to replace the Air Force’s current JSTARS aircraft fleet. 

However, the committee has concerns regarding the Air Force’s 

ability to complete that new program due to future budget uncertainties. Given the importance of restoring the capability lost by retiring E–8C aircraft in the near term, the committee believes the 

Air Force should pursue an effort to integrate existing technology 

onto an airframe, rather than starting a new research effort to develop a new capability. The committee believes the Air Force 

should be innovative in its recapitalization approach by using modern, but existing, components and technologies and that this should 

be an integration effort rather than a research and development effort. 

Therefore, the committee denies the Air Force request to initiate 

a a new major research and development program to recapitalize 

the JSTARS fleet and instead recommends the Air Force pursue a 

program that pursues integration of existing systems and components onto commercially available airframes. The committee recVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

ommends a total of $10.0 million to begin that more modest integration and fielding effort. 

Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and 

evaluation capabilities (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center to report on significant reductions or consolidations of major test facilities. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Study and reports on the technological superiority of the 

United States military (sec. 221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board or other 

independent group to examine the potential specific challenges to 

U.S. military technological superiority within the next 10 years, 

and the specific planned responses by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to meet these challenges. The provision also requires DOD 

to provide an interim report to the committee on current acquisition and development programs, and policy changes that are being 

undertaken in response to these challenges. 

The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Hagel has indicated that ‘‘the development and proliferation of more advanced 

military technology by other nations means we are entering an era 

where American dominance of the seas, in the sky, and in space 

can no longer be taken for granted.’’ Similarly, Under Secretary for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall has indicated 

in public statements that in terms of ‘‘technological superiority, the 

Department of Defense is being challenged in ways that I have not 

seen for decades, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.’’ 

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a 

classified briefing and a series of staff-level briefings in order to 

better understand these developments and the DOD responses to 

them. As a result of these briefings, the committee is concerned 

that DOD has not adequately placed a priority on providing resources to programs that can address situations in which U.S. military capabilities will not be technically superior to those which may 

be potentially fielded by global peer adversaries. Further, the committee is concerned that only minimal efforts have been made to 

redirect military service and defense agency programs from legacy 

efforts into new programs better aligned to meet these near term 

emerging threats. 

Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the reporting requirement related to the systems engineering activities of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee believes this 

reduction will save resources for use in technical systems engineering work which can lead to system performance enhancements and 

acquisition cost savings. The committee notes the critical importance of effective systems engineering capabilities and activities in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

the development and deployment of complex technical systems. The 

committee expects that the Secretary of Defense will continue to 

keep Congress informed of systems engineering activities of interest upon request. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency of private sector personnel with critical 

research and development expertise (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) to carry out a pilot program to employ up to five individuals employed by the private sector on rotational assignments to 

lead research or development projects of the Agency. The committee believes that this authority will allow DARPA to leverage 

the considerable talent that resides in industry in key technical 

areas, including cybersecurity, robotics, cloud computing, and biotechnology, where technological leadership often is resident outside 

the government. The committee notes that this pilot program is 

modeled on the successful Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) 

Mobility Program which has been used successfully by federal 

agencies to exchange specialized personnel with state and local governments, academia, national labs, and other not-for-profit organizations. The committee understands that the Department of Defense has established procedures for monitoring and controlling salaries and expenses for the IPA program, including a limitation on 

salaries that may be paid or reimbursed for IPAs, and expects that 

such constraints will be applied to the pilot authorized by this provision. 

Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents of members of Armed Forces for careers in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pilot program to enhance the science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) educational opportunities for children of 

servicemembers. The committee believes that the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has a unique responsibility for the well-being of 

military children. These children are faced with a unique set of 

pressures and challenges relative to their peers, including the 

stresses of parental deployments and frequent relocations due to 

changes of duty station. Any successful effort to improve the quality of STEM education for military children would benefit both the 

children and their servicemember parents, but also help strengthen 

the pipeline of future personnel into civilian and military positions 

into DOD. 

The committee notes that (DOD) has a set of educational outreach programs and assets, largely managed by the DOD Educational Activity (DODEA) and science and technology organizations, which could be leveraged to create effective engagements 

with military children and help improve their STEM educational 

experiences. The committee recommends that the Under Secretary 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Under Secretary 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

for Personnel and Readiness work in partnership to develop activities under this program. Activities could include internships at defense laboratories, teacher training, curriculum enhancements, or 

other programs designed to address the challenges facing military 

children. The committee notes that the Department could also leverage research and development funding, including through the 

Small Business Innovation Research program, to develop new technologies and practices supportive of the goals of the pilot program. 

The committee directs that any educational activities undertaken 

through this pilot program only be established with metrics that 

can be used to evaluate the merits and benefits of such activities. 

The activities should also be closely coordinated with STEM educational activities in the private sector, state and local organizations, and other federal agencies to ensure use of best educational 

practices, and to limit duplication of efforts. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an additional authorization of funding to support some of the activities authorized by this provision. 

Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing in 

pilot program to include technology protection features 

during research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision, requested by the Department of Defense, that would modify the cost-sharing provision 

of section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). The underlying provision requires industry to bear a fixed portion of the cost for the 

development of features which could enable the exportability of systems, including measures to prevent tampering with export 

versions of major defense equipment. The recommended provision 

would allow the Department of Defense to adjust the cost-share requirement for industry partners to levels appropriate for the particular project. 

Budget Items 

University research initiatives 

The budget request included $69.8 million in PE 61103A, $113.9 

million in PE 61103N, and $127.1 million in PE 61103F for university research initiatives. The committee notes that the overall basic 

research program in the budget request has been reduced by 

roughly $150 million, or 7 percent, relative to the fiscal year 2014 

requested level. In testimony to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering testified that this would lead to a reduction of between 1,500 to 2,000 grants to university faculty and 

students. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused in 

technical areas of interest to Department of Defense missions lay 

the foundation upon which other technology development and new 

defense systems are built. These programs fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

To help address the significant reduction in basic research fund- ing in the request, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 

million in PE 61103A, $20.0 million in PE 61103N, and $20.0 million in PE 61103F. The committee directs that these funds be 

awarded through the well-established and competitive Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the plan to spend these additional resources no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Indirect fire protection capability 

The budget request included $96.2 million in PE 64319A for indirect fire protection capability. Due to program delays some of the 

funds requested are early to need, therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 64319A for the indirect 

fire capability. 

Infantry support weapons 

The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 64601A for in- fantry support weapons of which $7.8 million would be for the 

XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. The 

XM25 is a grenade launcher firing a 25mm projectile selectively 

programmed to detonate in the air at a designated range. The committee notes that the Army has invested $183.2 million 

in development, procurement, and assessment of the XM25 between December 2010 and August 2013. Prototypes of this weapon 

were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed to Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment. Malfunctions during 

this assessment, and during subsequent testing, have raised questions about the system’s safety, reliability, and effectiveness. A 

March 2014 report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) identified cost, performance, and schedule issues 

with the system. According to the DOD IG, reliability issues discovered during and after operational assessment have resulted in a 

program delay of over 2 years, cost growth for technical development and corrections, and Army program evaluators question the 

weapon’s lethality. The program is delayed pending resolution of 

weapon function and munition effectiveness testing. 

Due to the availability of unobligated prior year funds, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 64601A only 

for the XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. 

Furthermore, given the reliability and effectiveness issues discovered in development and testing of the weapon and munition, the 

committee designates as a congressional interest item the XM25 

counter defilade target engagement weapon system, or any of its 

derivative weapons or ammunition development or procurement 

programs, projects, or activities. 

Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational awareness operations support 

The budget included $176.0 million for PE 0605301A for Army 

Kwajalein Atoll. The committee recommends an increase by $11.0 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

million to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement 

for space situational awareness operations support. 

Marine Corps assault vehicles 

The budget request included $105.7 million in PE 63611M for 

Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the Marine Corps, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $52.0 million in PE 

63611M for the new amphibious vehicle project. 

Also, at the request of the Marine Corps, the committee recommends the following increases: 

(1) $45.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for 

Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) service life extension; and 

(2) $7.0 million in PE 24413N for surface connector research 

and LCAC stern ramp testing. 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development 

The budget request included $202.9 million in PE 64786N for developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon. This 

follows on an enacted funding level of $91.0 million in fiscal year 

2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to mature the development of a science and technology development effort of the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that is seeking to 

demonstrate a variant of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile 

(JASSM) in an anti-ship mission set. DARPA has called this variant the Long Range Anti-ship Missile, or LRASM. 

In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a request 

for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping contracts, 

and establish a government program office team. 

In fiscal year 2014, it became clear that the Navy planned to 

adopt the DARPA LRASM program without competition and to 

continue development of that missile, leading to fielding of an airlaunched version (increment 1) and surface-launched version (increment 2) of LRASM missiles to be delivered initially by B–1 

bombers or F/A–18 strike fighters. The Senate report accompanying 

S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113–44) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 directed the Navy to present a plan that 

would pursue a more competitive approach, yield a program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 before deciding on a particular technical solution. 

For fiscal year 2015, the Navy plan would continue that same 

non-competitive approach, but would field only a limited number of 

the air-launched version of the missile. The budget request and the 

future years defense program (FYDP) envision spending roughly 

$1.5 billion to acquire roughly 110 missiles. 

The committee is concerned that this program was created to respond to an urgent combatant commander need, but was done so 

with insufficient analyses of other available alternatives, and with 

insufficient regard for the costs of locking in a long-term commitment under a non-competitive program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $202.9 million for the OASuW program in fiscal year 2015, and directs the 

Navy to use available funds to conduct more thorough analyses of 

alternatives for meeting combatant commander needs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System 

The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 65018F for the 

Air Force integrated personnel and pay system. The committee 

notes that a planned contract award for development of an integrated pay system largely based on commercial software has been 

delayed by two fiscal quarters, relative to the program schedule 

and associated funding plan proposed in the budget request. As a 

result, the committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million to 

this program. 

F–15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System 

The budget request included $68.9 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for the F–15 Eagle Passive/ 

Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS). EPAWSS is 

expected to significantly improve the F–15’s capability to autonomously and automatically detect, identify and locate radio frequency threats, as well as provide the ability to defeat radio frequency, electro-optical, and infrared threat systems. 

The Air Force plans for fiscal year 2015 to award a pre-engineering and manufacturing development (pre-EMD) contract and prepare for awarding a full EMD contract in late fiscal year 2016. This 

program plan includes a schedule slip of roughly 15 months since 

last year’s plan. This was due in part to a delay of a year in the 

analysis of alternatives for EPAWSS. 

The committee understands that there have been additional 

delays in the schedule since the Air Force submitted the budget request, and recommends a reduction of $19.5 million to reflect that 

delay. 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 

The budget request includes $30.7 million in PE 34260F for development of the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 2C (ASIP– 

2C) for the REAPER unmanned aerial system. The Air Force has 

decided to sustain other signals intelligence capabilities on the 

REAPER in lieu of the ASIP–2C and does not require these funds. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $30.7 million. 

Network Centric Collaborative Targeting 

The budget request included $8.8 million in PE 35221F for Research and Development (R&D) for the Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program. The budget request also included $3.0 million in line 14 of Other Procurement, Air Force 

(OPAF) for NCCT procurement. The committee has long supported 

the goal of building a capability to create a tracking and targeting 

network across all of the major airborne intelligence collection platforms, and all sensor types (visible imagery, infrared/spectral imagery, synthetic aperture radar, moving target indicator radar, and 

all forms of signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensors), utilizing machine-to-machine tipping and cueing. However, the intelligence 

components supporting our military forces have never been willing 

to organize around this concept. 

The NCCT technology, architecture, and concept of operations 

were developed a long time ago, but the relevant program offices 

have not been willing to implement them. The committee relucVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

tantly concludes that it is time to try different approaches to this 

worthy goal. 

The intelligence community is now pursuing the concept known 

as activity-based intelligence (ABI), which involves inter alia 

layering or integrating geo-referenced data and metadata from any 

and all sources about places, events, and activity. It is anticipated 

that ABI will enable target discovery, correlation, patterns of activity, and cues or tips for further collection. 

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is investigating technology and processes for automated, machine-based tipping and 

cueing across programs and sensor types that it hopes to persuade 

its mission partners to adopt to support the ABI concept. The Joint 

Staff is conducting studies of methods and means to use integrated 

sensor collection operations to track mobile, strategically important 

targets. 

The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) is developing advanced technology for machine-to-machine networking that can 

support tipping and cueing and other coordinated operations for 

unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and manned platforms alike under 

the UAS Command and Control Initiative, Common Mission Control Center, and Open Mission Systems programs. 

The Navy is developing advanced machine-to-machine tipping 

and cueing capabilities under the Minotaur initiative. Minotaur’s 

goals are to detect, locate, and track targets either on the ground, 

at sea, or in the air. Minotaur is now or soon will be in operation 

on airborne platforms of the Navy, Coast Guard, SOCOM, and Customs and Border Patrol. 

These initiatives appear to be more promising than NCCT in ultimately achieving the original goals of the NCCT program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.8 million from 

the R&D request, and $3.0 million from the procurement request. 

The committee strongly encourages the Air Force RCO and the 

Navy Minotaur programs to collaborate with each other and the 

NRO. 

Cross-program, cross-agency, cross-service, cross-sensor networking, and cooperative operations are essential to modern military operations in large-scale conventional warfare and in irregular 

warfare and man-hunting operations. However, this goal will require cultural and organizational changes, as well as technological 

innovation. Just as the military learned how to conduct joint operations after Goldwater-Nichols, the intelligence community at the 

national and tactical levels must begin to practice jointness in the 

tasking of collection and the exploitation and analyses of collected 

data. 

The committee directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 

and requests the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration, to jointly conduct an assessment of the utility 

of fully integrating the operations of the tasking organizations for 

imagery collection and signals intelligence at the national level and 

within the service Distributed Common Ground Systems and Command Joint Intelligence Operations Centers. This assessment shall 

be briefed to the congressional defense and intelligence committees 

by June 1, 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

Logistics information technology 

The budget request included $109.7 million in PE 78610F for the 

Air Force Logistics Information Technology (LOGIT) program. The 

committee recommends a reduction of $12.5 million to this program. The committee notes that LOGIT is intended to partially replace the planned Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) 

program, which was terminated. The committee notes that two Department of Defense (DOD) analyses of the failure of the ECSS program, the ‘‘ECSS Acquisition Incident Team Final Report’’ and the 

‘‘Root Cause Analysis of the ECSS Program Report,’’ both highlighted a number of issues that led to the program’s failure. These 

included: an unclear process for coupling business process changes 

to planned technology changes; poor program management by government and industry personnel; unrealistic program timelines and 

expectations; and a lack of senior management attention to program challenges. 

The committee is concerned that these and other issues that 

plagued the ECSS program have not been adequately remedied in 

the LOGIT program. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD 

Chief Information Officer, jointly with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Secretary 

of the Air Force, to provide for an independent assessment of the 

current acquisition and test strategy, funding plan, goals, and 

schedule of the LOGIT program. The study’s focus should be to determine if the lessons of the ECSS program have been adequately 

incorporated into the LOGIT program. The study should clearly 

identify specific activities and processes that represent changes in 

the planning and execution of the LOGIT program as compared to 

the ECSS program, and are based on an understanding and analysis of that program’s deficiencies. Further, the report should make 

recommendations on improvements to the LOGIT program strategy 

and execution, or on specific actions the program should take, to 

improve acquisition program outcomes. The committee directs that 

the independent study team be provided access to all records, data, 

and other relevant information as needed to develop the required 

study. The committee directs that the study be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2015. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs 

The budget request included $2.91 billion for the research and 

management activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA). The committee commends DARPA on its efforts 

to support high risk, high payoff research programs that often can 

introduce revolutionary capabilities into the technology development programs of Services and agencies. When well-coordinated 

with Service efforts, DARPA programs often result in significantly 

enhanced operational capabilities. To support these efforts, the 

committee recommends two provisions elsewhere in this report 

which attempt to enhance the quality of DARPA’s technical personnel. 

The committee notes that funding for DARPA was increased in 

the fiscal year 2015 budget request, at a time when the overall 

science and technology program was decreased relative to fiscal 

year 2014 levels. Further, the request included a decrease of over 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

$150 million in basic research programs at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that DARPA shift its investments to support increased efforts in basic research that engage universities and other research communities in the unique 

programs managed by DARPA and recommends an increase of 

$20.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose. The committee recommends that DARPA consider funding efforts that engage a 

broader set of researchers, including those from non-traditional defense contractors, universities, Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories, and small businesses, in partnership with other funded 

DARPA initiatives. For example, the committee believes that 

DARPA-managed basic research activities in cybersecurity, robotics, development of systems engineering and software development 

tools, advanced learning and training technologies, and modeling 

and simulation would be of great benefit to supporting the achievement of DOD research and development goals. The committee also 

believes that DARPA is best enabled to engage the basic research 

community in addressing fundamental science challenges underlying efforts to develop new systems to address anti-access/area denial capabilities of potential adversaries. The committee directs 

DARPA to provide the congressional defense committees with a 

plan for execution of these funds no later than 180 days after the 

enactment of this Act. The committee reaffirms the requirement by 

law that all such funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based 

selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar 

competitive process. 

The committee further recommends a reduction of $20.0 million 

in PE 63766E. The committee recommends reducing funding for 

the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, which has 

been funded at DARPA for over 10 years, with over $200 million 

expended to date. This program history is inconsistent with the 

traditional DARPA model of successfully proving the technical feasibility and military value of disruptive, innovative technologies in 

shorter periods of time. The program still has no identified commitments for a transition pathway to a Service program for further development, and seems to have a low probability of transition, even 

if current technical challenges are overcome. 

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for military children 

The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z for 

the National Defense Education Program (NDEP), but no funding 

for pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK–12) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education activities, 

which have been traditionally funded at approximately $10.0 million per year. In support of a provision described elsewhere in this 

report, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for 

support of activities that enhance the STEM educational opportunities for military children. The committee reaffirms the requirement 

by law that all such funding be allocated on the basis of a meritbased selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

The committee notes that the NDEP has historically funded 

three activities related to STEM education: (1) The Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program, established in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 108–375); (2) the National Security 

Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF); and (3) 

PK–12 STEM education activities. In the fiscal years 2014 and 

2015 President’s budget requests, in response to an administration 

initiative to consolidate STEM educational activities, the NDEP’s 

PK–12 STEM education program was terminated, with much of the 

funding transferred to the NSSEFF. The committee notes that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has a unique responsibility for the 

well-being of military children and responsibility to their servicemember parents, and believes that DOD is well-positioned to help 

enhance their STEM educational opportunities. 

The budget request included $44.6 million in PE 61110D8Z for 

Basic Research Initiatives. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $10.0 million for the NSSEFF program to return the program 

back to historical funding levels. 

Historically black colleges and universities and minority 

serving institutions 

The budget request included $24.4 million in PE 61228D8Z to 

support basic research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI). The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support activities 

that enhance efforts to increase the numbers of HBCU/MI students 

and graduates working in defense laboratories and defense industry; increase the number of research partnerships established between HBCU/MI research staff and faculty and their counterparts 

in government laboratories, industry, and academia; support the 

development of advanced research infrastructure at HBCU/MI 

schools, especially facilities that can be leveraged by other research 

universities; and increase the number of undergraduates funded 

who graduated with degrees in STEM fields and who will continue 

to pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields. The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all such funding be allocated on 

the basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process. 

The committee notes that this program had been historically 

funded at a level of approximately $35.0 million per year, but was 

reduced without sufficient justification. In testimony to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, witnesses highlighted the value of this program in performing valuable basic research, as well as in training the next generation of scientists and 

engineers who may work in defense laboratories or defense industry. 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology 

The budget request included $42.0 million in PE 62251D8Z for 

applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security Research 

The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 62668D8Z for 

Cyber Security Research. The committee is concerned that the proliferation of cyber security research programs in the Department of 

Defense (DOD), intelligence community, and other federal agencies, 

both in classified and unclassified programs, has created inefficient 

redundancy and duplication of efforts. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a reduction of $7.5 million in PE 62668D8Z. Further, 

the committee directs that this program prioritize investment in 

activities that support research by university centers, small businesses, and non-traditional defense contractors, so as to help promote a diversity of innovative concepts and ideas into the set of 

programs striving to address DOD and national cyber security 

challenges. 

Foreign technology testing 

The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63133D8Z for 

comparative testing of foreign technologies. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in this program to reduce 

growth. The committee directs that efforts under this program reflect testing of technologies in the advanced technology development stage, given the realignment of this account into the defense 

science and technology budget. Further, the committee notes that 

the Department of Defense should invest similar resources in programs that ensure that domestically-produced technologies which 

may provide superior capabilities to existing or developmental systems are comparatively evaluated and develop policies to ensure 

that if appropriate, these technologies are adopted. 

Science and technology analytic assessments 

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63288D8Z for 

science and technology analytic assessments, $60.0 million in PE 

63289D8Z for advanced innovative analysis and concepts, and $4.9 

million in PE 65798D8Z for defense technology analyses. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million in PE 63288D8Z, a 

reduction of $15.0 million in PE 63289D8Z, and a reduction of 

$4.75 million in PE 65798D8Z for these efforts. The committee supports analyses that can better inform research and technology efforts that will address Department of Defense concerns related to 

a reduction in military technological superiority of global peers, but 

notes that robust funding in program offices, military services and 

defense agencies, and in federally funded research and development centers can be used for these purposes. 

Concept and technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $132.0 million in PE 63648D8Z for 

the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) program. 

The committee is concerned over the limited transition success rate 

of past JCTD programs and recommends that the Department of 

Defense focus efforts on a smaller number of programs which represent revolutionary and disruptive technology capabilities and 

operational concepts that would otherwise not be funded in service 

development and acquisition programs. Therefore, the committee 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in this program to reduce 

the number of new-start efforts. 

Advanced sensor applications program 

The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 2014 of 

$19.2 million. 

The committee believes that this reduction will cause the program to postpone important testing and experiments. The committee believes that these efforts are too important to postpone or 

cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of $4.0 million for 

ASAP. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system 

The budget request included $299.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, PE 63881C, for continued development of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

(THAAD) system, including for development of the THAAD 2.0 concept. The committee believes the concept for the THAAD 2.0 is not 

sufficiently defined to warrant the level of funding requested. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million 

in PE 63881C for development of THAAD 2.0 as early to need. 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and maintenance funding 

The budget included $1.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63882C, for the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense (GMD) system that provides homeland ballistic 

missile defense. However, the committee is aware that a recent 

independent assessment of the GMD system indicated that a number of important reliability and maintenance functions are not included in the current GMD program of record. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 63882C for 

the following activities: (1) Failure mitigation actions and upgrades 

for the Capability Enhancement II Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle; 

(2) Upgrades to the Command Launch Equipment and the GMD 

Fire Control System; and (3) Improvements to the GMD Stockpile 

Reliability Program, including rocket motor life assessments. 

The committee believes these are necessary functions for the 

GMD program to work effectively and be sustainable for the 

planned life of the system. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to develop a plan for executing 

these funds, and for completing the remainder of the work required 

to accomplish these functions within the GMD program of record. 

The committee further directs the Director of MDA to report to the 

congressional defense committees on this plan by no later than November 15, 2014. As part of this planning process, the committee 

expects MDA to consider the full range of funding options, including re-prioritization of funds, reprogramming actions, and adjustments to budget plans for fiscal year 2016. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile 

defense programs 

The budget request included $96.8 million in PE 63913C for the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile 

defense programs, including $10.7 million to improve the existing 

Arrow Weapon System; $54.4 million for continued development of 

the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor missile; and $31.7 million for 

continued co-development of the David’s Sling short-range ballistic 

missile defense system. These systems are part of Israel’s layered 

defenses against missiles and rockets of varying ranges, from 

longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria, to short-range missiles 

and large-caliber rockets such as those fired from Lebanese territory, to the very short-range rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. 

The United States is jointly developing and co-managing these systems to ensure they are compatible and interoperable with U.S. 

missile defense systems. The budget request also included $175.9 million in Procurement, 

Defense-wide for the MDA, for Israel to procure additional Iron 

Dome short-range rocket defense systems, including co-production 

of Iron Dome parts and components in the United States by U.S. 

industry in accordance with the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome production 

agreement signed on March 15, 2014. The Iron Dome system, 

which was developed by Israel, proved highly effective at defending 

against hundreds of short-range rockets launched from Gaza in 

2012, and has been provided Israel with an alternative to launching large-scale military offensives to counter such rocket attacks. The Government of Israel has requested an additional $175.0 

million for Iron Dome in fiscal year 2015. The committee is supportive of the Iron Dome program and is aware that short-range 

rocket attacks are a continuing threat to Israel’s security. The committee also supports the three cooperative missile defense programs, and recognizes that Israel may determine that it is a higher 

national security priority to use additional funding for these programs, given the continuing threat of rockets and missiles that 

could be launched from Iran, Syria, and from Lebanese territory. 

Therefore, as provided in a legislative provision described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an increase of 

$175.0 million in PE 63913C for Israel to produce Iron Dome systems, including co-production of Iron Dome parts and components 

in the United States by U.S. industry, in accordance with the 

terms, conditions, and co-production targets for fiscal year 2015 in 

the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome production agreement. However, if Israel 

determines that it would be a higher priority for its national security, it may use part or all of the additional $175.0 million for the 

three U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs: the Arrow 

System Improvement Program; the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor 

missile development program; and the David’s Sling short-range 

ballistic missile defense system. 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase 

The budget request included $6.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced Component Development & Prototypes, of which $2.9 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

The committee continues to be concerned that DOD has consistently underfunded the Corrosion Program since fiscal year 2011. 

DOD estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost approximately $20.8 billion annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of 

its assets, including military equipment, weapons, facilities, and 

other infrastructure. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in RDT&E, line 101, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion 

Program. 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) has been funded at decreasing 

levels over the last few fiscal years, dropping from a high of $439.0 

million in fiscal year 2011, to $175.0 million in fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $75.0 million in PE 

64775D8Z to continue activities under this program. This decrease 

from previous levels of authorization reflects the need for the DOD 

and the Government Accountability Office to complete reviews of 

the program and its effectiveness, while balancing the need to 

maintain the program continuity and maintaining engagement 

with industry and acquisition program offices. The committee notes 

that the DOD has increased the number of organizations participating in the program, while streamlining management processes, 

enabling earlier solicitation of proposals from small businesses and 

other potential contractors. The committee further notes that preliminary evaluation of program results have identified a number of 

RIP-funded technologies which have transitioned into acquisition 

programs. 

The RIP is a competitive, merit-based program established by 

section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) that is designed to fund 

innovative technologies, reduce acquisition or life-cycle costs, address technical risks, improve the timeliness of test and evaluation 

outcomes, and rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical 

national security needs. The committee notes that $175.0 million 

was appropriated for the RIP in the DOD Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–6); however, no funds were requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2015. 

In the 3 fiscal years during which the program has been executed, 17 defense components (including U.S. Special Operations 

Command, the military services, the Missile Defense Agency, U.S. 

Transportation Command, and others) have used the additional 

funding through 12 different open calls for industry proposals. The 

competitions resulted in over 8,600 technology-concept white papers and over 500 full proposals for funding, which were evaluated 

for their responsiveness to defense technology requirements and 

their ability to effectively transition technologies to acquisition program offices, depots, logistics, contractors, or other relevant organizations. Investments in the program have prioritized proposals that 

have the ability to: deliver nearer-term emerging technologies to 

current military operations in areas such as electronic warfare, cybersecurity tools, robotics, and dismounted force protection; conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

tribute to breakthrough technologies for future military capabilities 

in areas such as countering weapons of mass destruction, space 

systems, and hypersonics; or improve the affordability of defense 

operations through technologies that reduce the cost of energy and 

other logistical items or increase interoperability across platforms 

and systems. 

Through this rigorous process, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 263 

awards of less than $3.0 million each were made to innovative companies, over 90 percent of which were made to small businesses, 

and a majority of which leveraged previous investments made by 

the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. DOD estimates that 90 to 100 projects will be awarded through the fiscal 

year 2013 competitive process. Successful projects to date include, 

but are not limited to: enhanced ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire detection systems for combat outposts, automated intelligent training systems, low cost missile launchers, advanced body armor, and intrusion detection systems for port security missions. 

DOD has reported that the program has increased the effectiveness of technology development activities in a number of ways, including: allowing acquisition program managers to have the flexibility to develop, test, and possibly incorporate higher performance 

and lower cost capabilities into programs that traditionally are unable to fund or evaluate disruptive and novel technologies; creating 

competitive pressures on existing defense contractors through the 

potential introduction of new technologies; enhancing the return on 

investment on the roughly $1.0 billion DOD SBIR program; and 

providing a new avenue for commercial industry, small businesses, 

and other non-traditional contractors to develop solutions to defense technology challenges. 

The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all such 

funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue to 

refine and enhance program management and industry engagement practices to maximize the ability of the RIP to deliver new 

technologies to acquisition programs and operational units that 

would otherwise not be funded or evaluated, given resource constraints and traditional program management processes. 

Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution 

The budget request included $345.9 million in PE 64384BP for 

the Chemical and Biological Defense Program engineering and 

manufacturing development. The committee notes that this program funding line received an increase of $158.0 million—nearly 60 

percent—from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014, and with this 

substantial increase the program execution rate for the fiscal year 

2014 funds is slower than expected. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for PE 64384BP for prior year under-execution delays. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

Combatant Command exercise engagement and training 

transformation funding decrease 

The budget request included $887.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for RDT&E Management 

Support, of which $44.0 million was for Combatant Command Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2). 

The committee is concerned that historical under-execution has 

occurred in the CE2T2 program with respect to the percentage of 

validated combatant command joint exercise transportation requirements executed in support of the joint exercise training program. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in RDT&E, line 174, Program Element 0804767D8Z, for 

CE2T2. 

Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program 

The budget request included $125.9 million for research and development (R&D) for the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G, conducted 

by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD). 

The budget request includes no funds in fiscal year 2015 for the 

Sharkseer program. Sharkseer has been funded in previous years 

at the direction of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

and has been identified by the CIO as among the highest priority 

cybersecurity initiatives under its purview. The committee is informed that the CIO intends in future budget submissions to transition this initiative to a permanent program of record. Sharkseer 

is the first concerted attempt by the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to buy advanced commercial technology to defend DOD networks 

against cyber attacks that have not been seen before—for which no 

signatures are available to block against. These attacks, popularly 

called zero-day attacks, are increasingly prevalent as adversaries 

employ simple morphing techniques to mask the appearance of 

malware that is already well-known. 

The first generation of commercial products for enterprise-level 

zero-day detection and response capabilities that the Sharkseer 

program office has assembled has been deployed to a DOD Internet 

Access Point (IAP) for demonstration and testing. By all accounts, 

it has performed very well. Funds on hand, authorized and appropriated in prior years, are sufficient to deploy these capabilities 

operationally to three IAPs. Neither NSA nor the Defense Information Systems Agency has followed through to make funding available to deploy this capability to all the other IAPs, or for beginning 

work with other vendors on next-generation capabilities, or to extend capabilities to hosts. 

The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million for 

Sharkseer to extend deployments to additional IAPs and further 

develop a closed-cycle concept of operations and technical capabilities to quickly translate detections at network boundaries into 

blockable signatures, rapidly disseminate them, and directly interact in near real-time with endpoints/hosts. The committee expects 

the newly forming Cyber Protection Teams to rely heavily on 

Sharkseer tools and capabilities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

The committee encourages the CIO to establish Sharkseer as a 

sustained activity to procure innovative commercial cybersecurity 

products and to refresh them with new products and capabilities in 

the same way that the DOD routinely programs funds for technology refresh on network equipment like routers, switches, and 

load balancers. 

Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research and development 

The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35103K for research and development (R&D) of cybersecurity solutions by the 

Mission Assurance Directorate of the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (DISA). The DISA Information Systems Security Program 

PE 33140K has no R&D funds requested at all. 

A strategy of procuring only mature commercial or government 

cybersecurity solutions is sound, but DISA has multiple, high-priority unfunded needs, and needs some R&D funding to work with 

industry to identify, test, and integrate commercial security solutions. In past years, the committee provided funds for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) through DISA to conduct pilot programs 

with advanced technology cybersecurity companies, which were 

very productive and valued by the CIO. This funding, too, has not 

been sustained. 

The committee urges the DISA Director, the CIO, and the Principal Cyber Advisor to assess the lack of R&D funding for cybersecurity at DISA, and include appropriate amounts in future budget 

submissions. The committee recommends an authorization of $9.4 

million in PE 33140K for one of DISA’s highest priorities, building 

out the analytic platform for cyber situational awareness at the 

community data center. This analytic platform, analyzing a diversity of big data sources, such as full packet capture, netflow, and 

log data, will be a critical tool for the Cyber Protection Teams coming on line at U.S. Cyber Command. In addition, the committee 

recommends transferring the $3.2 million R&D request from PE 

35103K to PE 33140K. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $9.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for the development, integration, and testing of special operations-unique 

mission kits for the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). U.S. 

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible for the rapid 

development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, 

among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet 

of MQ–9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.2 million in RDTEDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs through the MQ–9 Medium Altitude 

Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing the Lead-Off 

Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee understands this 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

process has successfully fielded MQ–9 UAV capabilities at greatly 

reduced timelines when compared to traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ–9 UAVs in ‘‘find, fix, and finish’’ operations. The committee encourages SOCOM to continue to look for 

other opportunities to accelerate combat capability development 

through the Lead-Off Hitter approach. 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced training technologies 

The committee believes that the appropriate application of advanced technologies can help improve the effectiveness of training, 

while reducing overall costs. The committee notes that the Department of Defense has made significant progress in the development 

of augmented reality and augmented virtuality technologies to enhance training experiences through the use of advanced computer 

simulation techniques. These technologies are used to mix virtual 

and real-world experiences, so as to improve training outcomes. 

Continuing work in these areas holds the promise of developing increased virtual training capability, with resulting enhanced force 

readiness at reduced cost. The committee is unaware of any independent study comparing the benefits of live, virtual, augmented, 

and mixed reality training systems. 

To help determine the value and possible need for increased emphasis on these technical areas, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide for an independent review to assess 

the effectiveness, in terms of cost and performance, of augmented 

reality and augmented virtuality training methods and tools. In 

particular, the study should examine the ability of these deployed 

or developing systems and methods to enhance the acquisition and 

retention of skills needed to complete critical missions, as compared 

with exclusively live or virtual training exercises. The report 

should be delivered to the congressional defense committees no 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Air Force Office of Scientific Research 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force announced the decision to not relocate the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) in testimony. The committee commends 

the Secretary on the decision. AFOSR plays a vital role in the development of new Air Force capabilities, by funding basic research 

programs at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories in areas including advanced materials, cybersecurity, 

hypersonics, robotics, and computer science. AFOSR investments in 

the past have led to a range of deployed and commercial systems 

ranging from the computer mouse to lasers to stealth materials 

used on tactical aircraft. The committee notes that AFOSR has 

funded research by 73 scientists and engineers who have earned 

Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, or economics. Further, AFOSR plays a leading role in Air Force engagement with the 

global scientific community, and in supporting the training of the 

next generation of scientists, engineers, and technology entreVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

preneurs through science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and graduate fellowship programs. 

The research community collaborates with AFOSR at its present 

location, and has expressed concern to the committee about the potential adverse impact of relocation on both the mission of AFOSR 

and on its current federal and non-federal partners. The committee 

notes that AFOSR moved to its present location in the late 1990s, 

specifically to be physically close to other key federal research offices, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and Office of Naval 

Research (ONR). This co-location was endorsed as a Center of Excellence by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. The Commission further cautioned that placing AFOSR 

onto a military installation could restrict access by key partners. 

The committee is concerned that any relocation could risk the Air 

Force losing the advantages of AFOSR’s current location, which 

likely enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization 

in the performance of its Air Force-designated missions. Finally, 

the committee has yet to receive any detailed budget information 

justifying a potential move on the basis of cost savings. Accordingly, the committee directs the Air Force to put on hold any further plans for the relocation during fiscal year 2015. 

Further, the committee directs the Air Force to report to the 

committee on AFOSR programs and activities, no later than 180 

day after the enactment of this Act. The report should include information on planned activities to maintain and strengthen 

AFOSR’s basic research function, policies, and activities being developed to ensure AFOSR can shape a workforce best-qualified to 

manage the Air Force basic research portfolio, activities intended 

to continue and expand AFOSR outreach to universities and the 

U.S. and global scientific community to support Air Force missions, 

and specific examples of coordinated research and other activities 

with peer federal research agencies. 

Airborne signals intelligence enterprise 

Due to the importance of the mission, the Air Force continues to 

invest heavily in signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection capabilities for multiple platforms. SIGINT is a key component of airborne 

collection systems that exploit multiple phenomenologies in contested and denied environments. As the Air Force moves forward 

with system modifications and upgrades of its SIGINT assets and 

capabilities, the Air Force needs to be able to leverage investments 

made by programs across the Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce life cycle costs of these systems. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a number 

of efforts to apply open systems architecture principles for modernization and sustaining existing systems, as well as for new developments. Implementation of open systems architecture standards should enable just such sharing and help achieve the best 

value to the warfighter through ensuring competition throughout 

the lifecycle of defense acquisition programs, as directed by the 

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

23). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

The committee encourages the Air Force to continue its efforts to 

move to open systems architectures that will facilitate open competition at all levels for future system modifications and upgrades. 

Anti-submarine warfare research and development 

The committee notes that continued advancements in submarine 

technology present significant challenges for the United States and 

the international community. The Navy’s Maritime Strategy lists 

the proliferation of submarines, both advanced diesel-electric and 

nuclear-propelled submarines, as potentially the principal threat to 

future maritime security. 

Modern diesel-electric submarines are increasingly capable and 

lethal. Advanced air independent propulsion (AIP) systems have 

exponentially increased diesel submarines’ underwater endurance, 

which provides greater survivability and freedom of movement. Additionally, diesel-electric submarines allow for smaller submarine 

designs, which permit greater access to littoral areas than their 

larger nuclear-powered counterparts. Finally, many of these submarines are capable of carrying advanced torpedoes and cruise missiles, which could threaten maritime commerce and civilian shore 

installations. These advanced capabilities, coupled with diesel submarines’ relatively low-cost, have resulted in rapid expansion of 

submarine programs in nearly every region around the world. 

The committee commends the Navy’s proactive approach to this 

growing challenge, including specific training exercises designed to 

address modern diesel-electric submarines’ unique capabilities. 

However, the committee also encourages the Navy to continue to 

pursue new technologies that could provide the next generation of 

undersea warfare advantages, including detection of sea-floor scarring and other non-acoustic signature. 

Cargo unmanned aerial system 

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to demonstrate the 

military utility of a cargo unmanned aerial system (UAS) to support intra-theater operational logistics where the use of manned 

aircraft or ground convoys to resupply troops is uneconomical or 

dangerous. The committee understands that since December 2011, 

the Marine Corps has been conducting a Military User Assessment 

(MUA) of cargo UAS helicopters for supply missions in Afghanistan. The committee believes that sufficient information should be 

available to support the analysis associated with a formal requirements development process and decision on whether or not to transition cargo UAS helicopters to a program of record. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later 

than April 1, 2015, on the results of the MUA and the Department’s plans, if any, for establishing a program of record for the 

development, procurement, fielding, and sustainment of cargo UAS 

helicopters. 

Clear technical communications 

The committee is concerned with the limited ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) in communicating the values, goals, 

successes, and impacts of its science and technology programs to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

external audiences, including Congress, the public, and government 

policy and decision makers. Communication of these science and 

technology (S&T) developments is vital to an external understanding of innovations within the DOD. Clear descriptions of support for military missions and measurable reductions in operational 

and acquisition costs should be key goals of communication. 

The committee commends the DOD for its efforts in its ‘‘Armed 

With Science’’ blog. The web site highlights S&T developments 

within the DOD and is dedicated to making these developments 

relevant to internal and external audiences alike. ‘‘Armed With 

Science’’ operates under the mission of making science matter to 

everyone, and the committee believes that the DOD needs to dedicate more resources to this goal. 

Combat rescue helicopter 

The Air Force has announced an intention to move forward with 

the combat rescue helicopter (CRH) program to replace existing 

HH–60 helicopters that fulfill the combat search and rescue function in the Air Force. The Air Force also has informed the committee that the future years defense program (FYDP) plan for the 

CRH program includes a shortfall of $436.0 million needed to execute the CRH program. 

The committee recognizes the importance of replacing the aging 

HH–60 airframe, a heavily used helicopter whose readiness rates 

are persistently low. The committee commends the Air Force on 

moving forward with the CRH program, but remains concerned 

that the Air Force properly budget for the program in the outyears. The committee directs the Air Force to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees not less than 90 days after 

enactment of this Act on how it will correct that funding shortfall 

for the CRH program in the FYDP. 

EC–130H Compass Call aircraft 

The committee is concerned about the plans of the Air Force to 

retire almost one half of the EC–130H Compass Call fleet starting 

in fiscal year 2016. The EC–130H Compass Call is an airborne 

electronic attack (AEA) platform which has proven its value in 

every major combat operation since Operation Just Cause in 1989 

through today’s conflict in Afghanistan. 

The EC–130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled capability 

for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy command and 

control communications and limit adversary coordination essential 

for enemy force management. As a manned platform, Compass Call 

is able to operate independently in a communications degraded environment. The Compass Call is also flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers and linguists who can make realtime decisions in the execution of electronic warfare. 

To ensure support for combatant commander needs, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan, including milestones and resource requirements, to replace, modernize, or rehost the current Compass Call capabilities. The Secretary’s plan will include a detailed assessment of what the new 

objective system or systems should be, what upgrades or enhancements of existing Compass Call aircraft systems will be pursued for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

those aircraft remaining in the force, and how the Air Force will 

meet combatant commander requirements until a new objective 

system achieves full operational capability. The Secretary should 

deliver this plan to the congressional defense committees not later 

than September 30, 2014. 

Electronic warfare threat emitters 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has initiated development and fielding of new electronic warfare testing 

and operational training capabilities to ensure that weapon systems and aircrews, including the F–35, are able to be appropriately 

tested and trained against emerging threats. The committee notes 

that both the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) 

and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) 

are funding efforts to develop and field realistic electronic warfare 

threat simulators for use in developmental and operational testing. 

The committee also understands that the Air Force is currently 

fielding the Joint Threat Emitter that can simulate the multiple 

threat scenarios of modern integrated air defense systems to support operational training missions. The committee supports the appropriate and realistic testing and operational training of weapon 

systems and aircrews to meet current operational requirements, as 

well as emerging threats. The committee is concerned however that 

these well-intentioned efforts may be duplicative, not well coordinated, and not aligned with the schedule, testing, and operational 

training requirements of currently fielded weapons systems and 

the F–35. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense develop a coordinated plan, among the OT&E, TRMC, Air 

Force, Navy, and relevant program offices and organizations, for 

the development and fielding of a usable set of electronic warfare 

threat simulation capabilities that meet current and future operational training and testing requirements and program schedule 

needs that sufficiently simulate all realistic threat scenarios. The 

plan should identify actions that promote the rapid development, 

fielding, and leveraging of test and operational training assets to 

support the most efficient deployment of capabilities on current 

and future weapon systems to defeat existing threats and mitigate 

impact of emerging threats. Further, the plan should also identify 

a lead agency for this coordinated effort. The committee directs 

that this plan be submitted to the congressional defense committees before fiscal year 2015 funds are expended on further development of these test capabilities. This restriction does not prohibit 

funding of threat emitters being fielded to meet current weapon 

system operational training requirements. 

Improved turbine engine program 

Over the last 3 years the committee has consistently expressed 

its support for the Army’s Improved Turbine Engine Program 

(ITEP). The committee recognizes that ITEP faces the same challenges and fiscal risks impacting all Army research, development, 

and acquisition programs under the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

The committee understands that the Army would prefer to take 

ITEP competitive prototyping beyond the technology development 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

phase and into engineering and manufacturing development, however, future resources may not be available to do so. Nonetheless, 

providing adequate and stable funding for ITEP sufficient to carry 

at least two engine developers over the next few years and through 

completion of the technology development phase is important to reduce risk, achieve appropriate technology maturity, and set the 

conditions for ultimate program success. The committee supports 

the current program funding profile and schedule and encourages 

the Army to maintain stability and therefore momentum in the 

program as resources and technical progress allow. 

Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures development 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has a robust research and development (R&D) program to provide 

bio-defense medical countermeasures for military and civilian personnel to protect them against biological threats. The Department 

of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also conducts significant 

R&D of bio-defense medical countermeasures for public health. The 

committee understands that the two departments have established 

an interagency process for coordination and collaboration on bio-defense medical countermeasure development, to ensure that the biodefense needs of both military and civilian populations are met 

while avoiding duplication of effort and maximizing the benefits of 

limited resource allocation. 

The committee believes such coordination and collaboration are 

essential, and believes it is important to understand the mechanism and process by which the two departments manage this process with other interagency partners. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees an unclassified report, not later than November 

1, 2015, describing the process and mechanisms by which the DOD 

coordinates its bio-defense medical countermeasures development 

with those of the DHHS. The report should describe the roles of the 

various interagency partners in deciding R&D priorities and responsibilities, and how the process avoids duplication of effort. 

National Security Agency cybersecurity research and development 

The budget request included $125.9 million for research and development (R&D) for the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G, conducted 

by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), a reduction of onethird from the $181.6 million appropriated in fiscal year 2014. 

This steep R&D reduction resulted in part because of the NSA 

IAD’s insistence, despite the recommendation of the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Office of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation, on maintaining the level of funding in its 

operations and maintenance budget to protect its government 

workforce. 

The committee urges the Principal Cyber Advisor and the CIO to 

review the IAD cybersecurity R&D budget and to augment that 

budget, as appropriate, through reprogramming actions. The committee also urges the CIO and NSA’s leadership to determine IAD’s 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

sustainable government workforce levels in connection with future 

budget submissions. 

Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory technologies 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) executes a number of activities to promote the transfer of technology 

from DOD laboratories or agencies to commercial entities, for potential further technology development or commercialization. These 

activities can support the development of new military capabilities 

that can be incorporated into acquisition programs, and also enhance the return on taxpayers’ investments in defense research 

programs, while creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The 

committee notes that the administration has established a major 

technology transfer initiative, ‘‘Lab-to-Market,’’ with a goal of establishing policies and programs that streamline the ability for the 

private sector to leverage the inventions and innovation that occur 

inside federal laboratories to support national missions. Further, 

the committee notes that the recent Institute for Defense Analyses 

study, ‘‘Exemplar Practices for Department of Defense Technology 

Transfer,’’ identified a number of best practices that enhance the 

efficiency of technology transfer processes, including the establishment of partnerships between labs, universities, and industry, marketing laboratory technologies and capabilities to industry, and 

using existing technology transfer mechanisms and authorities to 

full potential. Finally, the committee notes that DOD recently established a ‘‘Technology Transfer Center of Excellence,’’ which will 

help DOD transfer technologies developed at its defense laboratories to the commercial marketplace. Consistent with these efforts 

and findings, the committee recommends that DOD continue to expand its technology transfer activities, including through the use of 

expertise in university centers, industry associations, and government organizations to identify and proliferate best technology 

transfer practices. 

Technology transition of successful research initiatives 

Since its inception more than 55 years ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invested in a number of groundbreaking new technology advances, some of which 

have resulted in significantly enhanced military capabilities as well 

as commercial products that benefit the nation. DARPA has a 

unique role within the Department of Defense (DOD) and is intended to be a specialized technological engine for pursuing radical 

innovations and high-payoff research projects that can transform 

military capabilities beyond near-term needs and requirements. 

The committee fully supports the important role that DARPA 

fills in pursuing cutting edge concepts and technologies that improve military capabilities. The committee believes that continued 

investment in high-risk, high-payoff research and development 

projects is critical, given the broad and complex range of current 

and emerging security threats facing our nation. In addition, with 

current fiscal constraints driving reductions in force structure, 

readiness, and modernization in DOD, it is essential that we sustain a robust science and technology enterprise to support military 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

readiness and to deliver advanced technologies and capabilities to 

operational forces. 

Based on the nature of research endeavors, it is expected that 

some technology projects may not achieve their intended goals and 

objectives or are just the first steps towards proof of concept and 

development. However, the committee is concerned that some technology projects may be successfully completed, but fail to transition 

into acquisition programs of record or directly into operational use. 

This may be because of administrative, funding, cultural, and/or 

programmatic barriers that make it difficult to bridge the gap from 

science and technology programs to acquisition programs, as well 

to the expected users of the technology. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have previously reported, 

transitioning technologies from defense science and technology organizations to military users has been a long-standing challenge for 

DOD. These reports have found that sometimes technologies are 

not ready to transition when needed because they may still be too 

risky or too costly to adopt or have not been adequately demonstrated. In other cases, promising technologies are not taken advantage of because of insufficient processes and mechanisms to expedite their transition to users. These transition barriers and failures reduce the return on investment for science and technology 

funding, and create severe funding challenges for research performers in industry and government, who must strive to sustain a 

skilled workforce, and specialized equipment and facilities, during 

periods of funding discontinuities. 

The committee further notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and defense agencies manage over $2.0 billion in 

science and technology programs aside from those in the DARPA 

budget. The committee is concerned that these programs are facing 

the same technology transition challenges that DARPA faces. 

The committee directs the GAO to review DARPA, OSD, and the 

defense agencies technology transition processes, practices, and results. In conducting this review, GAO should assess: (1) The policies, processes, and mechanisms that have been established to plan 

for and facilitate the transition of technologies to users; (2) The extent to which organizations use existing DOD and military department technology transition programs and initiatives such as the 

Rapid Innovation program, Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations, and the Small Business Innovation Research program; 

(3) DARPA projects considered technically successful that were not 

transitioned, directly or indirectly, into operational use or service 

acquisition programs and the underlying reasons for those transition failures; (4) How organizations track and measure technology 

transition; and (5) The factors that hinder the transition of promising technologies. 

The committee further directs that the GAO submit a report on 

this review to the congressional defense committees no later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards 

In the House report accompanying H.R. 1960 (H. Rpt. 113–102) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 

Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

pressed its belief that in order ‘‘to maintain undersea dominance in 

maritime regions of significant economic and military importance 

to the United States, the Navy requires disruptive technologies 

that can be rapidly developed, demonstrated, evaluated, and fielded 

to counter expanding undersea capabilities by peer and near-peer 

maritime nations and to extend the Navy’s reach and persistence.’’ 

The committee expressed its concern that, under the Navy’s acquisition plan, the Navy would not have the new technologies it needs 

to meet these requirements until after 2020. 

The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate agrees with the 

views expressed by the House. Unmanned underwater vehicles 

(UUV) will be critical to the protection of U.S. economic and national security interests. Integrating them and other autonomous 

undersea technologies and payloads into the undersea warfare mission area will expand the technology base and more rapidly provide 

warfighting options that are not currently achievable. 

The committee remains concerned that the Navy may not be able 

to develop the necessary capabilities to achieve its goal of deploying 

large displacement UUV (LDUUV) from an operational UUV 

squadron on independent missions by 2020. Further, the committee 

believes that budget constraints may further hamper the development of these critical capabilities. For these reasons, with respect 

to the development of UUVs, the committee believes that the Navy 

should look for opportunities to capitalize on existing resources and 

assets within the Navy enterprise to expedite the development of 

these vehicles and their technology at the lowest possible cost. 

Particularly with respect to the LDUUV project, the committee 

encourages the Navy to take full advantage of existing expertise 

and infrastructure at the public shipyards. The committee believes 

that the public shipyards may be able to assist the LDUUV project 

with engineering, configuration management, acquisition support, 

technical problem solving, and operations and logistics support, including life-cycle maintenance and mission package support. 

Therefore, no later than September 30, 2014, the committee directs the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees detailing how the Navy is currently utilizing, and plans 

to utilize, the public shipyard infrastructure and expertise for UUV 

research, development, engineering, configuration management, acquisition support, technical problem solving, and operations and logistics support, including life-cycle maintenance and mission package support. In addition, the report should identify all funding by 

fiscal year, appropriation, and line item/program element budgeted 

in support of this effort. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(63) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels 

identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment 

Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the 

Sikes Act (sec. 311) 

The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a–670o) provides the secretary of a 

military department the authority to enter into cooperative agreements with the states, local governments, Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and the heads of other federal departments 

and agencies to maintain and improve the natural resources on or 

off military and National Guard installations. 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend this 

section of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670c–1) to allow the funds for 

such a cooperative agreement to be paid in a lump sum that includes an amount to cover future costs of the activities provided for 

under the agreement. The provision would also allow the funds be 

placed in an interest-bearing account provided that the interest or 

income is applied for the same purpose as the principal. 

Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station, 

Chincoteague, Virginia (sec. 312) 

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has the administrative jurisdiction over the Wallops 

Flight Facility, Virginia. The site includes the area formerly known 

as the Naval Air Station Chincoteague, Virginia, including the 

Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station, Virginia. 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to undertake an environmental restoration 

project in the area with regard to pollutants or contaminants that 

are solely attributable to Department of Defense activities while 

the property was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. The project may be entered into either jointly 

or in conjunction with an environmental restoration project of the 

Administrator. 

The provision also provides that the Secretary and the Administrator may enter into an agreement to provide for the effective and 

efficient performance of environmental restoration projects in the 

area. The Secretary may use funds available in the Environmental 

Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites account for these environmental restoration projects. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of dropin fuels (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit Department of Defense funds to be used for bulk purchases of dropin fuel for operational purposes during fiscal year 2015, unless the 

cost of that drop-in fuel is cost competitive with traditional fuel, 

subject to a national security waiver. The committee notes that the 

phrase ‘‘cost competitive’’ in this section generally refers to prices 

that are equal to or lower than prices offered by competitors for 

similar goods or services. However, the committee notes that terms 

and conditions for particular purchases may vary; in particular, 

long-term energy purchases are likely to have different pricing 

structures from short-term or spot-market purchases. Accordingly, 

the committee believes some flexibility in the application of this 

phrase is anticipated, where necessary to address such differences. 

The committee understands that average prices over the period of 

a long-term contract would be cost competitive. 

Study on implementation of requirements for consideration 

of fuel logistics support requirements in planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes (sec. 

314) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act, on the implementation of section 332 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417). The report shall describe the implementzation to 

date of the requirements for consideration of fuel logistics support 

requirements in the planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes for: (1) Acquisition solicitations that incorporate 

analysis established and developed pursuant to section 332; (2) The 

fully burdened cost of energy and energy key performance parameters in relation to other metrics; (3) The total fuel costs avoided 

as a result of inclusion of the fully burdened cost of energy and energy key performance parameters, including an estimate of monetary savings and fuel volume savings; and (4) The extent to which 

the energy security requirements of the Department of Defense are 

enhanced. 

Comptroller General study of Department of Defense research and development projects and investments to increase energy security and meet energy goals requirements (sec. 315) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General to conduct a review of Department of Defense 

projects, strategy, resourcing, research, development, and investment in pursuit of increasing energy security, decreasing energy 

consumption and logistical burdens, reducing tactical and strategic 

vulnerabilities, and meeting renewable energy goals set forth in 

section 2911(e) of title 10, United States Code. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area 

on island of Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that certain limited portions of the former bombardment area on the Island of Culebra should be available for safe 

public recreational use while the remainder of the area is most advantageously reserved as habitat for endangered and threatened 

species. 

The provision would also change a legislative restriction in section 204(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1974 

(Public Law 93–166) which provides that section shall not apply to 

the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos Rosario Trail, as defined in the provision. 

The provision would also allow, notwithstanding the quitclaim 

deed, the Secretary of the Army to expend funds available in the 

Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites 

(FUDS), established pursuant to section 2703(a)(5) of title 10, 

United States Code, to decontaminate the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos Rosario Trail of unexploded ordnance. 

The committee notes that the purpose of this provision is to lift 

the statutory restriction that is barring the Secretary of the Army 

from decontaminating this part of Culebra Island. This decontamination project should be prioritized within the regular process 

with all other FUDS. 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment 

Modification of annual reporting requirement related to 

prepositioning of materiel and equipment (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2229(c) of title 10, United States Code to sunset after 3 years, 

the Comptroller General’s annual review of the Department of Defense’s progress in implementing its strategic policy and plan for its 

prepositioned stocks. 

Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement 

(sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and streamline 

the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC). The committee also strongly urges the Department of Defense (DOD) to remove Supplement One from future QRRCs as the information 

therein is readily available in the public domain. The committee 

notes that the recommended provision would include a separate assessment for the United States Cyber Command. 

The committee also notes that while the recommended provision 

strikes the reporting requirement on major exercise assessments, 

the committee directs DOD to report on an after-action assessment 

of any major exercise related to nuclear command, control, and 

communications for 3 years after enactment of this Act, beginning 

with the first QRRC of fiscal year 2015. The report may be in classified format, as appropriate. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

The committee strongly urges DOD to move the information captured in Supplement Two of the QRRC to Annex B in order to 

avoid duplication and maximize efficiency. 

Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4532 of Title 10, United States Code, the Arsenal Act, and 

eliminate the ability of the Secretary of the Army to abolish any 

U.S. arsenal considered to be unnecessary.The provision would also 

make it the objective of the Secretary of the Army, in managing the 

workload of the arsenals, to maintain the critical capabilities identified in the Army Organic Industrial Base Strategy Report, and to 

ensure cost efficiency and technical competence in peacetime, while 

preserving the ability to provide an effective and timely response 

to mobilizations, national defense contingency situations, and other 

emergent requirements. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense operation and financial support for military museums (sec. 

331) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD), that would repeal section 489 of title 

10, United States Code, which requires the Secretary of Defense to 

submit annually to Congress a report on DOD operation and financial support for military museums. The committee notes that preparation of this report requires extensive data collection, but the 

DOD components do not use the information in the report to manage their programs. Repeal of the report will save the DOD $39,000 

per year. 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority 

Limitation on MC–12 aircraft transfer to United States Special Operations Command (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

transfer of 24 MC–12 aircraft from the Air Force to U.S. Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM) for manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) until the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander of SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees with an analysis and justification for 

such a transfer. 

The committee notes that since 2005, SOCOM has spent more 

than $524.0 million to field 33 U–28 ISR aircraft to support nearterm ISR requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as longerterm ISR requirements in Asia-Pacific, Africa, and elsewhere. The 

committee is concerned that SOCOM now plans to divest most of 

these aircraft in favor of MC–12 aircraft without sufficient analysis 

and justification. For example, the July 2005 Aircraft Selection Report supporting SOCOM’s decision to acquire single engine U–28 

aircraft as opposed to other available multi-engine aircraft indicated that ‘‘engine failures in multi-engine aircraft are much more 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

likely to cause an accident according to the Federal Aviation Administration.’’ The committee is concerned appropriate safety analysis has not been conducted to support the change to a multi-engine ISR aircraft and has included additional information on this 

matter in the classified annex accompanying this bill. Furthermore, 

the committee understands that MC–12 aircraft may require significant investment to support integration of sensor capabilities 

similar to those provided by the U–28 without meeting its longterm manned ISR requirements. 

The committee believes that until further analysis is completed 

and presented to the congressional defense committees, SOCOM 

should continue to use available operation and maintenance funding to resource flying hours for its existing inventory of U–28 and 

MC–12 JAVAMAN I/II aircraft. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends no funding for MC–12 modifications in fiscal 

year 2015. The committee notes that the budget request included $41.8 mil- lion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $10.5 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, to support aircraft to be flown 

by the Air National Guard in support of SOCOM aviation foreign 

internal defense (AvFID) missions. The committee supports this effort and notes that the limitation included in this provision and the 

reduction in funding for MC–12 modifications contained elsewhere 

in the bill do not apply to the AvFID program. 

Limitation on establishment of regional Special Operations 

Forces Coordination Centers (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for fiscal year 2015 

to establish Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers (RSCC) by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) included a similar 

prohibition and required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to submit a report on the purpose, cost, 

and the authorities necessary for the establishment of RSCCs. 

While the required report was submitted on April 16, 2014, it left 

a number of questions unanswered related to the long-term funding 

required to support RSCCs in each geographic combatant command 

(GCC); the relative funding that would be provided by SOCOM, the 

GCCs, and the host nation or other participating nations; and coordination with other engagement activities conducted by the GCCs 

and the Department of State. Additionally, the report states that 

‘‘Providing confirmed and sustained out-year support is critical to 

realizing the full potential of an RSCC.’’ However, the report also 

identifies additional legislative authorities that would need to be 

addressed for such ‘‘confirmed and sustained’’ support to occur 

while indicating ‘‘there are currently no plans to seek these additional authorities.’’ 

The committee believes issues related to funding and authorities 

need to be resolved before RSCCs are established. The committee 

also believes that SOCOM should focus its efforts and resources on 

supporting regional special operations engagement activities that 

are hosted in and led by partner nations. For example, the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

mittee understands that Colombia is working to establish the 

‘‘Centro Regional de Estudios Avanzados de Seguridad’’ or CREAS, 

that will, among other things, bring together regional special operations forces for educational, training, and other events. The committee notes that the recommended provision would not prohibit 

the provision of support to regional special operations coordination 

activities, like CREAS, led by and established in partner nations, 

provided they are consistent with broader military-to-military objectives and coordinated with the Department of State and relevant 

country teams. 

Further, the committee believes that SOCOM has not fully explored the viability of expanded cooperation with the regional security studies centers and believes that expanded cooperation with 

the existing centers should be prioritized. As such, the committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) to conduct a review of the existing regional centers and establish a process through which the SOCOM Commander’s priorities are more 

effectively incorporated in their activities. Once this review is complete, the committee directs the USD(P) to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees. 

Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$1.8 million from the requested amount in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for RSCC concept development, study, and 

planning in fiscal year 2015. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Repeal of authority relating to use of military installations 

by Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractors (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

9513 of title 10, United States Code, relating to the use of military 

installations by commercial air carriers doing business with the Department of Defense. Under this program, the Secretary of the Air 

Force has been authorized to enter into contracts with air carriers 

authorizing the use of designated installations as: (1) Weather-related landing alternatives; (2) Technical stops not involving the enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo; or (3) In the case of 

an installation within the United States, for other commercial purposes. While the legislation envisioned such agreements as a potential incentive for obtaining air carrier commitment to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, the Secretary’s authority has not resulted 

in a single contract in its almost 20 years of existence. 

Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility 

uniforms (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (P.L. 113–66) that established a policy that the Secretary of 

Defense shall eliminate the development and fielding of Armed 

Forces-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and families-of-uniforms for specific combat environments to be used by all 

members of the Armed Forces. 

The committee notes that the guidance for the military services 

and combatant commands required to implement this policy has 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

not yet been delivered to the committee. The committee also notes 

that based on demand and price differentials, the average contract 

price for the current Marine Corps desert blouse is $33.70, compared to the Navy’s blouse contract unit price of $36.04. The average contract price for the current Marine Corps woodland and 

desert trousers is $35.82, compared to the Navy’s trousers unit 

price of $44.45. The committee notes that based on current annual 

demand, the Navy could save approximately $724,000 by simply 

fielding the Marine Corps combat uniform to sailors. Additional 

savings may be found by combining Navy and Marine Corps combat uniform planning, item production, warehousing, and follow-on 

sustainment efforts. 

The committee believes that an implementation plan is necessary 

to ensure that the Department of Defense develops a schedule and 

identifies the actions necessary to fulfill the Department’s policy on 

ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms. 

Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

the Secretary of the Navy will establish areas, to be known as the 

Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for national defense 

purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate boundaries in the 

provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and Sections 101 and 102 of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371, 1372) would not 

apply with respect to the incidental takings of any southern sea 

otter in the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas in the 

course of conducting a military readiness activity. For purposes of 

military readiness activities, the otters within the readiness areas 

would be treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that 

is proposed to be listed as an endangered species or threatened species under section 4 of that Act. 

The Secretary of Interior would be able to revise or terminate the 

exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act if the Secretary were to determine, in consultation 

with the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Mammal Commission, that the military activities occurring in the readiness areas 

were impeding southern sea otter conservation or the return of the 

sea otters to optimum sustainable population levels. 

The provision would also repeal Section 1 of Public Law 99–625 

(16 U.S.C. 1536 note). 

Budget Items 

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $33.2 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.0 billion was for land 

forces depot maintenance and $2.0 billion was for facilities 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM). The budget request also included $2.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, 

Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $58.8 million was for land forces 

depot maintenance. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that 

these recommended increases will restore some critical depot maintenance requirements for the Army and the Army Reserve. 

The committee also notes that these recommended increases will 

satisfy the Army’s 6 percent capital investment program, as required by law. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of 

$185.6 million for land forces depot maintenance and $94.3 million 

in SRM. The committee also recommends an increase of $15.0 million in OMAR for land forces depot maintenance. 

Facilities Sustainment 

The committee recognizes that facilities sustainment funding is 

often deferred in difficult budget times in favor of other priorities. 

However, underfunding of facilities sustainment accepts greater 

risk that facilities will fail prematurely and, in the longer term, result in higher restoration and replacement costs. The committee 

notes that requested funding for facilities sustainment has fallen 

from $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $6.4 billion for fiscal year 

2015, a decrease of 25 percent in only 3 years. 

On April 2, 2014, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment testified before the committee 

that, ‘‘Sustainment represents the Department’s single most important investment in the condition of its facilities . . . While the Department’s goal is to fund sustainment at 90 percent of modeled requirements, the funding level noted above supports an average 

DOD-wide sustainment funding level of 65 percent of the Facilities 

Sustainment Model requirement.’’ 

The committee believes that the dramatic decrease in facilities 

sustainment funding represents an unacceptable risk to the readiness of Department of Defense facilities. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an additional $105.0 million in Operation and Maintenance for facilities sustainment across the active, guard, and reserve components. 

Foreign currency fluctuation reductions 

The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.0 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $35.3 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $31.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2014, the Department has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2014 from 

a beginning balance of $970.0 million. A GAO analysis projects that 

the Department will experience a net gain of $351.9 million due to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

favorable foreign exchange rates and will lose $248.1 million in fiscal year 2015 in FCF. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $48.9 mil- lion to OMA, $74.2 million to OMN, $28.4 million to OMMC, $51.9 

million to OMAF, and $17.5 million to OMDW for FCF. 

Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel 

The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA). Army officials have informed the committee that they expect an average civilian personnel end strength 

for fiscal year 2015 that is 2,600 (1 percent) lower than planned in 

the budget, due to reductions in the workforce since the time that 

budget estimates were made last year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $250.0 million in OMA for overstatement of civilian personnel. 

Undistributed travel reductions 

The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $829.3 million was for travel 

of persons. The budget request included $39.0 billion for Operation 

and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $569.4 million was for 

travel of persons. The budget request included $5.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $183.2 

million was for travel of persons. The budget request included 

$35.3 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of 

which $673.8 million was for travel of persons. The budget request 

included $31.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defensewide (OMDW) of which $678.1 million was for travel of persons. 

The committee believes that a portion of the planned Department 

of Defense travel budget should be realigned to support higher priority readiness requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed de- crease of $21.1 million to OMA, $14.5 million to OMN, $4.8 million 

to OMMC, $17.3 million to OMAF, and $17.3 million to OMDW for 

travel. 

Army National Guard readiness funding increase 

The budget request included $6.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $198.3 million 

was for maneuver units. The budget request also included $128.9 

billion in Military Personnel Appropriations (MPA). 

The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million in 

OMARNG for maneuver units and $45.0 million in MPA. 

The committee notes that these recommended increases will ensure that two brigade combat teams will be able to attend combat 

training center (CTC) rotations in fiscal year 2015, which is the top 

request on the Army National Guard’s unfunded requirements list. 

These funding increases will also provide additional enabler support during CTC rotations for the active component which does not 

require personnel growth. 

Army National Guard advertising reduction 

The budget request included $274.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG). The committee 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

believes some of the advertising funding should be realigned to 

support higher priority readiness requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.8 million in OMARNG for advertising. 

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $39.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $814.7 million was for aircraft 

depot maintenance and $1.4 billion was for sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM). 

The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that 

these recommended increases will fund some of the Navy’s fiscal 

year 2015 unfunded requirements for aircraft depot maintenance. 

The committee further notes that the recommended funding increase for SRM will enable the Navy to meet the minimum capital 

investment threshold of 6 percent across all shipyards and depots, 

as required by law. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of $108.9 million in aircraft depot maintenance and $85.2 million in 

SRM. 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests by two. Given the importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic submarine 

force, the committee recommends $1.3 million to conduct an additional Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Test. 

Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds 

The budget request included $46.0 million in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) account for advance planning funding 

for defueling of the USS George Washington (CVN–73) in fiscal 

year 2017. 

It is the committee’s intent that the Navy proceed with the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington 

(CVN–73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal year 

2015 for that purpose. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $46.0 million in OMN, and an increase of $46.0 million for CVN Refueling 

Overhauls in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account. 

Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $905.7 million was for 

operational forces. 

The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset some negative impacts from sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes 

that this recommended increase will improve the Marine Corps 

ability to resource new Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task 

Forces in U.S. Central and U.S. Southern Combatant Commands 

areas of responsibility. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $33.8 million in OMMC for operational forces. 

The committee further notes that in a separate budget item, the 

recommended funding increase for facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization will enable the Marine Corps to meet the 

minimum capital investment threshold of 6 percent across all depots, as required by law. 

Marine Corps tuition assistance 

The budget request included $19.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for off duty and voluntary 

education programs. At the request of the Marine Corps, the committee recommends an increase of $15.7 million in OMMC for tuition assistance. 

The budget request also included $105.7 million in PE 63611M 

for Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the Marine 

Corps, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.7 million in 

PE 63611M or the new amphibious vehicle project. 

Museum reduction 

The budget request included $362.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for Administration, of which 

$9.1 million was for an expansion of the National Museum of the 

Marine Corps (NMMC). 

The committee believes that the funding should be realigned to 

support higher priority readiness requirements given the funding 

increase of $9.1 million is comparable to the entire cost of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program Norway in fiscal year 2015, and 

the baseline request for the NMMC is already $49.5 million. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.1 million in OMMC for the NMMC. 

RC–135 Rivet Joint 

The budget request included classified amounts in Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), PE 35207F, for the 

RC–135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence collection program. This request exceeds the amount requested in fiscal year 2014, when operational tempos and budgets were higher. The committee recommends a reduction of $8.0 million, which represents an increase 

over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount. 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction 

The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $871.8 million was for 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in OMAF 

for a classified program. Additional information is provided in the 

classified annex. 

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command 

The budget request included $237.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core 

Operations, of which $40.7 million was for Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

The committee believes this funding should be realigned to support high priority readiness requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in OMAF for JECC. 

United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.0 billion was in logistics operations. 

The United States Pacific Command (PACOM) has identified specific amounts in readiness accounts that could help offset the negative impacts of sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. 

The committee notes that this recommended increase will mitigate 

a critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3 million in OMAF for logistics operations. 

In the procurement of ammunition budget tables, the committee 

recommends a related funding increase to mitigate a critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM. 

U.S. Special Operations Command-National Capital Region 

The budget request includes $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the U.S. Special Operations 

Command-National Capital Region (SOCOM–NCR) initiative. The 

committee received notification on March 19, 2014, from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 

Conflict that SOCOM has discontinued efforts to develop and implement its concept for a SOCOM–NCR office. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in OMDW for 

the SOCOM–NCR. 

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers 

The budget request includes $3.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC). The committee believes that 

the requested funding is excessive for the purposes of concept development, study, & planning as outlined in the budget justification materials. Elsewhere in the bill, the committee recommends a 

provision that would prohibit establishment of RSCCs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $1.8 million in OMDW for 

RSCC concept development, study, and planning. 

U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness requirements 

The budget request included $4.76 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM). The committee notes that the Commander of SOCOM 

has identified $344.2 million in unfunded readiness requirements 

for U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee is concerned 

that current fiscal pressures have forced SOCOM to assume unacceptable risk in its training programs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $36.4 million to support aircrew training hours, the SOCOM Commander’s 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

top unfunded readiness requirement, and $20.0 million for high 

priority unit readiness training, which was also identified by the 

SOCOM Commander as an unfunded readiness requirement. 

Department of Defense STARBASE program 

The budget request included no funding for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is 

to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten 

through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM) subjects, to connect them to the military, and to motivate 

them to explore STEM and possible military careers as they continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at 76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 

primarily on military installations. To date, nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program. STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated servicemembers and strengthens the relationships between the military, communities, and local 

school districts. 

The committee notes that the budget request eliminated funding 

for this successful program due to a reorganization of STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes that 

STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the DOD STARBASE program. 

Procurement technical assistance program 

The budget request included $381.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Logistics 

Agency, of which, $23.0 million was for the procurement technical 

assistance program (PTAP). 

The committee notes that the purpose of the PTAP is to enhance 

the industrial base, improve local economies, and generate employment by assisting small businesses with help from the Department 

of Defense, federal agencies, and state and local governments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.7 million in OMDW for the PTAP. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request includes $544.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, of which $34.4 million is for the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP). While the committee remains supportive 

of this program, the committee is concerned about the expanding 

activities and increased operating costs of the CTFP at a time of 

fiscal challenges. The committee encourages the CTFP to focus its 

activities on its core counterterrorism training and education and 

a limited number of regions where the threat posed by terrorism 

is the most significant. As such, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $7.0 million for the CTFP. 

The budget request also includes $12.2 million for the Defense 

Institute Reform Initiative (DIRI) and $2.6 million for the Defense 

Institute for International Legal Studies (DIILS). While the committee recommends no funding reduction to the DIRI and the 

DIILS programs, the committee directs the Director of the Defense 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

Security Cooperation Agency to adjust, as appropriate, the budget 

documentation in the next fiscal year to redirect the funding from 

DIRI and DIILS to the human rights training initiative authorized 

in this Act. 

Funding for impact aid 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 

the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 

funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students .................. 25.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .................................. 5.0 

Total ................................................................................................. 30.0 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request 

The budget request included $186.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), of which $80.6 million was for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. The committee remains concerned that the funds requested for the OEA are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $80.6 million in 

OMDW for the OEA. 

Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment 

and closure support 

The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, of which $4.8 million was support for a 2015 round of base 

realignment and closure (BRAC). 

The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.8 million in OMDW for the 

2015 BRAC round. 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction 

The budget request included $1.8 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, of which $7.9 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program. 

The committee is concerned that the DOD rewards program has 

been hampered by historical under-execution for several years now. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million 

in OMDW for the DOD rewards program. 

Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

support to United States Africa Command 

The budget request includes $31.2 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). Within that amount for classified programs, the budget justification material identifies no specific funding to sustain intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to any of U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) 

ongoing operations. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

The fiscal year 2015 request includes no funding for contract 

ISR, which will mean that, absent congressional action, Operation 

Observant Compass ISR support will depend on the Global Force 

Management Allocation Process (GFMAP). The GFMAP has not resulted in adequate ISR support to AFRICOM in the past. Therefore, the committee recommends $60.0 million in OMDW to sustain 

ISR support to AFRICOM and further directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure the GFMAP is used to provide appropriate ISR support to AFRICOM operations. 

Defense Clandestine Service 

The budget request included classified amounts in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Human Intelligence 

Enabling project for the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) initiative in the Defense Intelligence Agency. The request represents an 

increase of $13.3 million for fiscal year 2014. The Department of 

Defense (DOD) has consistently maintained that the DCS initiative 

would be executed within existing planned resources, and the committee notes that DOD’s original plans for DCS have been scaled 

back. The committee does not support growth in this area and recommends a decrease of $13.3 million. 

Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service 

The budget request includes classified amounts in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Operational Human 

Intelligence project in the Military Intelligence Program budget of 

the Defense Intelligence Agency. The budget request for this 

project includes an increase of $5.1 million in support for the Defense Clandestine Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) has 

consistently maintained that the DCS initiative would be executed 

within existing planned resources, and the committee notes that 

DOD’s original plans for DCS have been scaled back. The committee does not support growth in this area and recommends a decrease of $5.1 million. 

Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era 

The budget request included $31.2 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). In a legislative provision located in title X of this committee report, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to 

review within 1 year of the date of enactment of this Act the logs 

of each Navy ship known to have operated in the waters near Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, to determine 

whether the ship operated in the territorial waters of the Republic 

of Vietnam during that period, and if so, when. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMDW of 

$5.0 million to reflect this provision. 

Support for international sporting competitions 

The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Miscellaneous Appropriations (OMMA), of which $10.0 

million was for Support for International Sporting Competitions 

(SISC), Defense account. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense expects to allocate approximately $1.0 million to $3.0 million in SISC 

resources in support of the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer 

Games. 

The committee is concerned that as of March 2014, the SISC account still has $3.8 million from fiscal year 2013 in unallocated carryover, in addition to $4.3 million in allocated but unobligated 

funds for sporting events that have since concluded from the 1990s 

and the early 2000s. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 million in OMMA to the SISC Defense account. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acoustic mixing 

The committee understands that the Army currently uses lowfrequency, high-intensity sound waves, in a technology called 

‘‘acoustic mixing’’ during the manufacturing of some munitions. 

Acoustic mixing makes it possible to efficiently mix a wide variety 

of materials, including highly viscous substances. The committee 

further understands that this process could have the potential to 

improve industrial efficiency and productivity. The committee encourages the Army to continue to evaluate acoustic mixing capabilities that could increase industrial productivity, decrease adverse 

environmental impacts, and enhance safety. 

Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training 

The committee understands that the pace of recent combat and 

contingency operations, the needs of the total force, and fiscal constraints have determined the Army’s use for brigade-level combat 

training at each of its three Combat Training Centers (CTC). Active duty brigade combat teams (BCT) conduct training at one of 

the CTC every 2 to 3 years on average, while Army National Guard 

BCT conduct collective CTC training every 7 years on average. 

The committee believes that there may be cost effective and efficient options for active component training using reserve component training facilities. For active component units not assigned to 

combat brigades, at echelons above or below brigade-level, and for 

those units not routinely participating in a CTC rotation, the committee is interested to learn if reserve component regional training 

institutes and centers may provide a cost effective means to provide access to enhanced training resources and improve or sustain 

readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

review current unit training funding mechanisms that do or could 

allow for possible integration and use of active component units at 

reserve component training facilities. The review should consider 

existing policies and processes for active and reserve component 

training and resources, and recommendations that may improve 

training effectiveness and cost efficiency. The review should also include an outline of all existing reserve component training facilities 

at which active component training might improve readiness. The 

Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this review to this 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

committee no later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Additive manufacturing 

The committee notes that Senate Report 113–44 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or report to the congressional defense committees on the potential benefits and constraints 

of additive manufacturing, how the process could or could not contribute to Department of Defense (DOD) missions, and what technologies being developed at the National Additive Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute (NAMII) are being transitioned for DOD use. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to: (1) Analyze 

and report to the congressional defense committees on the sufficiency of the DOD’s report in addressing the requirements; (2) Review the extent to which DOD has a process in place to ensure that 

additive manufacturing initiatives are coordinated across the DOD; 

and (3) Examine DOD’s methods for determining whether these 

initiatives will improve combat capability, achieve performance improvements, and/or cost efficiencies over conventional manufacturing techniques. The Comptroller General review shall be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than March 

30, 2015. 

Afghanistan retrograde costs 

The committee recognizes that the retrograde of equipment and 

personnel from Afghanistan is a significant logistical challenge for 

the Department of Defense (DOD). According to Department officials, there are three primary options for the retrograde and reduction of equipment in Afghanistan: removing the equipment from Afghanistan, transferring the equipment to another agency or government, or destroying the equipment in theater. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has reported in the past on the need for DOD officials to 

conduct and document analyses that compare the costs of and benefits of equipment retrograde, and that cost-benefit analyses should 

be a key factor in decision-making. Additionally, the committee 

notes that the GAO has also reported that one of the primary costs 

the Department should consider is the cost of equipment transportation, and that it is particularly important when considering what 

to do with equipment that exceed a Service’s approved acquisition 

objective (AAO). The committee believes that retrograde internal 

controls could be more efficient and cost-effective. Consequently, 

the committee is concerned about the potential accrual of unnecessary transportation costs resulting from the return of equipment 

from Afghanistan. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2015, demonstrating what actions the Department has 

taken to ensure that justifications for returning equipment from 

Afghanistan that exceeds their AAO are documented and receive 

management review, and that transportation and all other relevant 

costs are included in disposition decision-making for equipment returning from Afghanistan. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

Air tactical training 

The committee understands that the Active and Reserve Air 

Force and Navy components have successfully used contracted 

fighter aircraft to augment some aspects of air tactical training to 

replicate adversaries with electronic warfare capabilities and joint 

terminal attack controller training. The committee notes that 

outsourced air tactical training brings potential benefits of prolonging aircraft service life and decreased costs in flying hour programs, especially with respect to fifth generation fighters. Given 

the current climate of fiscal constraints coupled with the potential 

to preserve valuable readiness resources, the committee encourages 

the military services to consider expanding the use of contracted 

air tactical training to additional units for appropriate missions. 

Army and Marine Corps equipment reset 

The committee notes that billions of dollars’ worth of equipment 

has and continues to be retrograded from Afghanistan and the 

Army and Marine Corps continue to face a multi-year and multibillion dollar effort to reset this equipment to a combat-ready condition. Both the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army have testified to this committee that during fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the 

Army had reset approximately 87,000 pieces of equipment at the 

depot level and about 300,000 pieces of equipment at the unit level. 

But as a result of sequestration, the Army had deferred approximately $729.0 million of equipment reset, postponing the repair of 

nearly 700 vehicles, 28 aircraft, and over 2,000 weapons and 

prepositioned stock. The Army leadership further projects that its 

reset requirement of equipment will extend at least 3 years after 

redeployment and will cost approximately $9.6 billion. 

Conversely, the Marine Corps leadership has testified to this 

committee that while its equipment reset liability cost was approximately $3.2 billion last year, it had made significant progress to 

date and now estimates that its remaining reset liability will cost 

about $1.1 billion. The Marine Corps leadership has also testified 

to this committee that its reset requirements will continue at least 

2 to 3 years after its equipment has redeployed. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has reported in the past on the need for more accurate cost 

estimates and reporting of the Army and Marine Corps projected 

equipment reset liability requirements. Additionally, the GAO has 

reported on the need for a standard Department of Defense-wide 

definition of reset for use in the overseas contingency operations 

budgeting process. Consequently, the committee is interested in 

verifiable financial reset requirements reported by the Army and 

Marine Corps. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to provide the committee with an assessment of 

the Army and Marine Corps extended equipment reset liability 

costs and requirements. This assessment shall include, but not be 

limited to: the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps are 

using a consistent definition of reset in estimating their reset liability costs, the types of costs included in the Army and Marine 

Corps reset liability estimates, an analysis of any assumptions 

used in developing the Army and Marine Corps estimates, to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

clude the planned funding resources, and any other issue the 

Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to the 

Army and Marine Corps reset cost estimates. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 

briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than March 

15, 2015. 

Army Emergency Management Program 

The 2009 Army Emergency Management Program sought to integrate planning, execution, and response management to all-hazard 

incidents affecting Army installations and activities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief the congressional defense committees on the status of and plans for Army 

emergency management training no later than August 1, 2015. 

Availability of funds for readiness 

Over the course of the last year, senior Department of Defense 

(DOD) leaders, both military and civilian, have urged the committee to help DOD restore military readiness. The bill recommended by the committee seeks to achieve this objective by preserving the full amount of funding for operation and maintenance 

(O&M) requested by DOD, while shifting funds within O&M accounts to meet high priority readiness needs. The committee urges 

DOD, in executing the fiscal year 2015 defense program, to avoid 

any funding transfers that would reduce O&M funding. To the extent additional funds become available for reprogramming during 

the course of the fiscal year, for example, as unobligated funds become available from fact-of-life delays and under execution, then, 

the committee urges DOD to consider transfers that would help address high priority readiness needs. 

Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit with 

the fiscal year 2016 President’s budget submission a report for the 

Kwajalein Garrison on the type and level of funding over the future 

years defense program. The report should identify the performing 

Army agency for each category of funding and should also include 

a 10-year profile of planned facilities recapitalization. 

Category I ammunition items 

The committee notes that Category I ammunition items, including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are highly explosive, 

extremely lethal, and a potential threat if they were to be used by 

unauthorized individuals or groups. To help protect these items 

and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD), among other security measures, have 

sound inventory controls and accountability. The committee notes 

that recent Government Accountability Office reports on inventory 

management have found that DOD information systems used to facilitate inventory management have some limitations that prevent 

DODs ability to have Department-wide visibility of its inventory, 

including Category I ammunition items. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which the military 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

Services, in accordance with policies and procedures, have: (1) Established and maintained serial number registration and reporting 

of these assets; (2) Conducted physical inventories as a check 

against the accountability record, including recording adjustments 

to inventory and the rationale for such adjustments; and (3) Established procedures for maintaining proper accountability for shipped 

assets (i.e. when custody for the asset is transferred to another entity). 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide such 

a report to this committee no later than March 15, 2015. 

Coal-to-liquid report 

The Senate Report 113–44 accompanying S. 1197, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to 

submit a report to the committee on the feasibility of potential 

technologies that could enable coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to meet the 

requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) consistent with 

section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(Public Law 110–140) by February 1, 2014. 

The committee remains concerned that DOD has yet to provide 

that required report to the committee. The committee did receive 

an interim response delaying the report because DOD is working 

in consultation with the Department of Energy to ensure the most 

thorough examination occurs. 

Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to 

deliver the required CTL report no later than July 31, 2014, in accordance with the commitment made in the interim response. 

Combatant Command Support Agent accounting 

The committee reported in Senate Report 113–44 accompanying 

Senate bill S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) on page 85 that: 

The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget justification material within the Air Force’s Combatant Commander 

Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commanders Core Operations (Lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of multiple 

combatant commands under the purview of the Air Force as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee is concerned 

that due to this consolidation, the justification material lacks the 

level of detail necessary for this committee to make informed budget decisions. Accordingly, the committee directs the services to annually deliver independent, detailed budget justification for each 

combatant command they are assigned Combatant Command Support Agent responsibility. 

The consolidated manner in which combatant command material 

is presented provides an incomplete depiction of combatant command budgets, fails to provide the necessary detail required to justify the budget request, and introduces confusion into congressional 

processes. This lack of detail related to specific budget items was 

directly attributable to past misperceptions about unjustified increases. These perceived increases led to reductions to combatant 

command accounts in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA which necesVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

sitated reprogramming actions at considerable expense in time and 

effort. 

Language was explicitly inserted into the fiscal year 2014 NDAA 

to correct these shortfalls, but examination of the fiscal year 2015 

congressional justification material incorporated in the fiscal year 

2015 Budget Estimates, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 

Volume 1, clearly demonstrates the Air Force failed to make the 

corrective action as directed. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to brief the 

congressional defense committees on actions they will take to ensure that the level of detail is provided in the budget exhibits to 

ensure the needs of the combatant commanders are met. This briefing is to occur no later than October 1, 2014. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Department of the Army actions to determine the appropriate structure of the Army 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

on a comprehensive review of the Department of the Army’s data, 

analysis, decisionmaking processes, and plans for structuring, 

readying, and managing the forces of the Army, including the regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve. The 

required report will include a description and assessment of the 

manner in which the Department of the Army determines the size 

and force mixtures of the components of the Army in order to fulfill 

the national security missions of the Army, including any data on 

cost, readiness, effectiveness, and other factors available and used 

by the Department in making that determination. The Comptroller 

General shall provide an interim briefing not later than March 1, 

2015, and a final report on March 1, 2016. 

Comptroller General review of readiness 

The committee recognizes that for many years the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has used C-ratings to measure unit readiness of its 

forces. The Global Status of Resources and Training System 

(GSORTS) was created to measure unit readiness in terms of resources with respect to authorized and assigned or on-hand personnel and equipment, the operating status of equipment, and the 

level of training achieved. GSORTS was then able to capture 

‘‘ready with what.’’ Later, Defense Readiness Reporting System was 

intended to take readiness reporting a step further to capture and 

incorporate, ‘‘ready for what.’’ More recently, in support of combat 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some units have repeatedly 

been deployed and task organized to execute missions that have 

differed from their core functions or the types of military operations for which the unit is designed. Accordingly, the DOD added 

assigned mission and capability ratings to its traditional C-ratings. 

The Services and combatant commands also began reporting readiness assessment levels (RA-levels) to capture their strategic readiness. 

The committee is concerned that these metrics do not fully capture or articulate the time component of readiness. For example, 

the C-ratings and assigned mission ratings tend to emphasize readVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

iness at a particular point in time, or the day the rating is 

achieved. Meanwhile, capability and RA-ratings have an implied 

time component as they measure readiness against timelines required to support operation and contingency plans. However, the 

committee is concerned that none of these metrics clearly answer 

the question of when forces, if not fully manned, trained, equipped, 

and ready, will be ready for sourcing decisions or risk assessment. 

Throughout the last decade of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, too often the appropriate level of readiness for deploying 

active and reserve component units was achieved ‘‘just in time’’ 

prior to deployment. In some cases, training shortfalls or changes 

in mission required additional training in theater prior to operational employment of a unit. 

In an era of fiscal uncertainty and significant risk to resources, 

the committee believes ‘‘just in time’’ does not adequately inform 

strategic and operational risk assessments nor distinguish which 

units can provide ready forces to meet combatant commander requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 

1, 2015, analyzing the extent to which time is or has been incorporated as a quantitative or qualitative component of current and 

past readiness metrics. The analysis shall describe any efforts the 

Services, combatant commands, Joint Staff, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense have made to modify their readiness metrics or 

add any additional metrics to better address the question of when 

units or commands will be ready. 

Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in 

the military working dog program 

The committee recognizes the value of military working dogs 

(MWD) in support of the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. MWDs 

have been important to the Department of Defense (DOD) in support of military training and combat operations. The MWD program covers a broad range of military missions, including security 

and patrol, explosives detection, search and rescue, and guard duties. Furthermore, MWDs are expected to operate in the harshest 

of climates and support our troops in combat. The joint nature of 

the MWD program also requires a high level of interoperability. 

The 341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base consolidates training for MWDs across DOD and other federal agencies. 

This consolidation helps to ensure uniformity of training, promotes 

the valuable exchange of experience and ideas, and enhances interoperability. 

The committee believes that the MWD program should continue 

its current collaboration efforts in the field of training and research. The committee also believes that through a coordinated effort between DOD, federal agencies, the veterinary community, 

universities, and other research centers, the MWD program will 

continue to provide useful mission support. 

Finally, the committee encourages DOD to continue to develop its 

training and research to include expanding its interaction with outside entities in order to better serve our Nation’s security and combat capabilities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

Depot capital investment program 

The committee remains concerned that the Army and the Navy 

continually fail to appropriately invest in the capital budgets of the 

covered depots required by law. Section 2476, title 10 of United 

States Code, requires that at least 6 percent of the average total 

combined maintenance, repair, and overhaul workload funded at 

all the depots of a military department be reinvested into depot infrastructure and capital assets. 

The committee commends the Air Force for investing 7.6 percent 

in fiscal year 2013, planning 8.9 percent in fiscal year 2014, and 

9.5 percent in fiscal year 2015, despite the negative effects of sequestration. Conversely, the committee notes that the Navy plans 

to only invest 3.4 percent and the Army only 3.6 percent in fiscal 

year 2015. 

The committee strongly urges the Army and the Navy to adhere 

to their statutory requirements with respect to the minimum capital investment program. Furthermore, with the drawdown of combat operations and likely prospect of declining depot workload, the 

Department of Defense should engage with the committee if the 

previous 3-year average workload calculation is no longer an appropriate benchmark for capital depot investment. 

Lastly, the committee notes that in the operation and maintenance budget tables, the committee recommends funding increases 

which will meet the minimum capital investment threshold of 6 

percent across all the military services, as required by law. 

Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation access 

programs and systems 

The committee is concerned that there is a lack of coordination 

among the efforts of the military services and defense agencies to 

support credentialing at defense installations, which is a key component of addressing the insider threat problem. No single office in 

the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for this effort or 

even tracks all of the programs and systems used for credentialing 

throughout DOD. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

concurrent with the budget submission for fiscal year 2016 that 

identifies all DOD credentialing and physical access control programs and systems, including commercially contracted services and 

other commercially provided services. 

The report should cover all programs and systems intended to 

provide credentials and/or manage installation access of uniformed 

members, civilian employees, military dependents, military retirees, vendors, contractors, suppliers, service providers, and visitors. 

The report should also include all programs and systems the services and DOD have operationally deployed in research and development and in pilot or prototype demonstration. 

The report shall also include an estimate of the total cost to DOD 

for such credentialing, including both direct and indirect costs. This 

report shall be submitted in an unclassified form. 

Humanitarian Demining Training Center 

The committee recognizes and expresses its support of the Department of Defense (DOD) Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

gram and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Humanitarian Demining Training Center (HDTC) and its mission to train 

and prepare U.S. military forces and U.S. Government HMA stakeholders, who in turn train U.S. foreign partners to conduct HMA 

missions in the detection and clearance of landmines and other explosive remnants of war, as well as the disposal, demilitarization, 

physical security, and stockpile management of potentially dangerous stockpiles of explosive ordnance. This training delivers direct benefits to host nations while giving U.S. teams valuable field 

experience, given that U.S. forces might not otherwise deploy to 

these nations. HDTC works with many U.S. Government agencies, 

the United Nations, and non-governmental mine action organizations, as appropriate, serving as a clearinghouse and collector of 

mine action information for the U.S. Government. The HDTC also 

helps develop new demining methods and technology appropriate 

for lesser developed countries. 

The committee, therefore, encourages the HDTC and DOD HMA 

program to continue engaging with international partners and allies, when practical, including allies from the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization, to ensure a coordinated and holistic approach to 

achieve geographic combatant commander security needs. 

Improving energy efficiency and performance of military 

platforms 

The committee notes the critical role that fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, physics, and fluid dynamics play in support of Department of Defense (DOD) goals to enhance the energy 

efficiency of military platforms. For example, the design and development of systems that reduce the drag caused by turbulent air 

flow can often enhance the performance of military platforms and 

munitions, including reducing fuel consumption and enhancing 

flight performance. 

The committee notes that there exists only limited domestic laboratory experimentation and computer simulation capability to 

study these technical issues. The committee recommends that the 

Secretary of Defense coordinate, and to the extent appropriate, collaborate with government laboratories, universities, and other research facilities and organizations pursuing military-relevant aerodynamics, physics, fluid dynamics, and other related research to 

ensure that DOD derives maximum value and combat capability 

from ongoing advances in these important disciplines. 

Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle refueling 

stations 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the committee on options 

to support the development and deployment of alternative fuel vehicle refueling stations, to include electric, fuel cell, and compressed natural gas vehicles on Department of Defense (DOD) 

property. 

The committee is interested in an analysis of possible financing 

tools including, but not necessarily limited to, competitive federal 

research awards, contracts, credit assistance, public-private partVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

nerships, coordinated government purchase strategies, and membership-based cooperatives. 

The committee notes that DOD actions should be consistent with 

national security priorities and market conditions. 

The Secretary shall deliver the report to the committee no later 

than March 1, 2015. 

Jungle training 

The committee understands that after more than a decade of 

combat operations in the Middle East, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region. As a result, the 

committee is concerned with the potential challenges that the 

Armed Forces may face if operating in tropical environments which 

exist in the Asia-Pacific region. Among other challenges, triple canopy covers, dense vegetation, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance difficulties, and limited sources of potable water could 

make for difficult conditions where training and education will be 

vital for success in combat operations. 

The committee understands that the U.S. Army Jungle Operations Training Center (JOTC) at Fort Sherman, Panama, was 

closed in 1999. The committee notes that DOD does not currently 

have an organic ability to train soldiers for jungle operations, and 

has been sending military servicemembers in small numbers to 

various countries for jungle training. 

The committee also recognizes that the 25th Infantry Division 

(ID) at Schofield Barracks has recently begun training for jungle 

operations. The committee recognizes that there is a valid need for 

this type of training and appreciates the efforts of the 25th ID to 

prepare soldiers for jungle operations. The committee understands 

that the Army has not programmed resources specifically for jungle 

training and is conducting the training out of existing budgetary 

resources. It appears that sufficient resources may not be aligned 

and executed in a coordinated effort to provide this important 

training. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages DOD to allocate the appropriate amount of coordinated resources, if DOD determines that 

there is a valid need to continue to provide jungle training to military personnel. 

Management of conventional ammunition inventory 

The committee recognizes the efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) to modernize, transform, and integrate the Services’ 

ammunition logistics database. The committee has reviewed current inefficiencies that resulted in diminished accountability per a 

recent report by the Government Accountability Office. Accordingly, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Defense shall provide a report to this committee identifying an authoritative DOD-wide repository of data on conventional ammunition, together with the total cost and timeframe for 

implementation, that: (1) Uses a standard data exchange format 

consistent with the Defense Logistics Management Standards Office; (2) Provides a single source of conventional ammunition data 

as inputs into DOD decision support systems, such as those used 

for readiness reporting and operational planning; (3) Collects comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

prehensive, accurate data, consistent with federal internal control 

standards, from other service ammunition systems in order to provide real-time or near-real-time total ammunition asset visibility; 

(4) Enables quarterly stratified reporting through the Office of the 

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition or another authority; and (5) Meets the conventional ammunition data 

functionality needs of all DOD components that require visibility of 

these data. 

Additionally, the committee directs that all stratified reporting 

will include complete and detailed accounting for all ammunition 

that in a previous year was unclaimed by another service and categorize for disposal. 

Marine Corps Prepositioning Program—Norway 

The committee recognizes that the Marine Corps Prepositioning 

Program—Norway (MCPP–N) was established as part of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Cold War posture and relationship 

with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The committee notes 

that equipment use from MCPP–N has predominantly been for 

training and joint exercises in Europe rather than to supplement 

equipment shortfalls for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee is concerned that over the past 35 years, only 

11 percent of the total use of MCPP–N has gone to support major 

combat operations. 

In the past, the DOD has stated that the need for prepositioning 

materiel and equipment should be based on requirements for an 

approved operation plan, but the Marine Corps has stated that 

there is no direct operation plan impacts currently associated with 

MCPP–N. The committee recognizes the current situation in 

Ukraine could have an effect on future plans for MCPP–N. 

The committee also notes that over the next several years, the 

Marine Corps plans to transition MCPP–N’s equipment profile 

from primarily engineering and transportation equipment to support a capabilities-based Marine Aviation Group Task Force 

(MAGTF) as soon as the end of fiscal year 2015. The Marine Corps 

has indicated that the MCPP–N will include additional equipment 

to support specialized capability sets, security cooperation packages, and retain the ability to augment up to a Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized force. 

The committee is concerned that MCPP–N recently only had 48 

percent of its major equipment items on hand. Additionally, the 

committee is concerned that it is unclear what the full cost of the 

planned transition and operation to support MAGTF capabilities 

will be in the years to come. Lastly, the committee notes that the 

most recent Government Accountability Office review of MCPP–N 

was in 1989. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 

prepare a briefing or report to the committee no later than March 

1, 2015 on: (1) How MCPP–N supports the overall DOD and Marine Corps prepositioning program; (2) The Marine Corps’ 

prepositioning plans for MCPP–N, how they were developed, and 

the military requirements they address; (3) The unique capabilities, 

if any, that MCPP–N provides to meet the prepositioning requirements of EUCOM and AFRICOM; and (4) the funding plan to tranVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

sition MCPP–N to support MAGTF capabilities and the future projected costs to the United States and Norway. 

Measuring Department of Defense use of commercial cloud 

computing capabilities and services 

The committee believes that the use of cloud computing to support Department of Defense (DOD) computing missions can lead to 

significantly higher performance and reduced costs, while 

leveraging the innovative capacity of the commercial information 

technology (IT) sector, and maintaining required security and reliability to meet DOD needs. The committee notes that the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget materials indicated that ‘‘as a result 

of the Administration’s Cloud First policy, Federal agencies adopting cloud-based IT systems are increasing operational efficiencies, 

resource utilization, and innovation across the Government.’’ The 

committee is concerned that DOD is not moving expeditiously in 

evaluating and adopting market-tested commercial approaches to 

cloud computing to meet mission needs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the DOD Chief Information 

Officer to sponsor an independent study to develop metrics to assess DOD’s progress in evaluating and adopting commercial cloud 

capabilities. The committee recommends that metrics could include: 

cost savings or avoidance to DOD programs through use of commercial cloud services; the technical merit, relevance, and value of 

additional DOD security requirements on commercial cloud providers relative to the requirements mandated by the governmentwide and industry-supported Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program; the trends in new applications or services being 

hosted on military-unique clouds or computing centers versus commercial clouds; the time required to review, analyze, and accredit 

commercial cloud capabilities by DOD; and the application of DOD 

security and other controls to applications, systems, and services 

being hosted on military-unique clouds or computing centers relative to those being applied to potential commercial cloud systems. 

The study also should assess and compare the features, performance, costs, and functionality of the ‘‘milcloud’’ (military cloud) developed by the Defense Information Systems Agency using government contractors to the leading commercial cloud technology. 

The study should be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Mission-critical electricity infrastructure adoption of National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber Security Framework 

The committee notes that in a report delivered in January 2008, 

the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of Defense 

(DOD) Energy Strategy concluded that, ‘‘Military installations are 

almost completely dependent on a fragile and vulnerable commercial power grid, placing critical military and Homeland defense 

missions at an unacceptable risk of extended outage.’’ The report 

cited potential cyber-attack as a key source of risk to utility grids 

supplying power to mission-critical military facilities, noting that, 

‘‘U.S. grid control systems are continuously probed electronically, 

and there have been numerous attempted attacks on the SuperVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

visory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that operate 

the grid.’’ Additionally, the task force underscored the overwhelming consequences of electricity grid failures, finding that, ‘‘in 

addition to degrading national military and Homeland defense capabilities, failure of the grid for any extended period could significantly affect national economic and social stability. Pumps that 

move natural gas and oil through pipelines rely on electricity, as 

do refineries, communications systems, water and sewage systems, 

hospitals, traffic systems, first response systems, border crossing 

detection systems and major transportation hubs such as airports.’’ 

The committee remains concerned about DOD’s continued dependence on ‘‘a fragile and vulnerable commercial power grid,’’ particularly in light of proven cyber-attack capabilities and demonstrated intent of adversaries to use cyber means to target U.S. 

and foreign electricity infrastructure. While the committee recognizes that military installations that rely on commercial electricity 

utilities have made some important strides in bolstering cyber defenses, there is no question that electricity grids supplying power 

to mission-critical DOD facilities remain highly vulnerable to 

cyber-attacks by nation-states and other sophisticated actors. 

The committee notes that in February 2014, pursuant to Executive Order 13636, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued the initial iteration of a voluntary Framework 

for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, designed to leverage existing standards, guidelines, and best practices to reduce 

cyber risk to critical infrastructure. The framework articulates a 

‘‘framework core,’’ which ‘‘presents a set of cybersecurity activities, 

desired outcomes, and applicable references—including existing industry and governmental standards, guidelines, and best practices—that are common across critical infrastructure sectors.’’ 

The committee notes that the Department has begun to take 

some action to address electric power resilience for military installations, in response to section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (P.L. 112–81). 

The committee further notes that in February 2014, the Department of Energy issued the Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (ES–C2M2), which was designed to be ‘‘an 

easily scalable tool for the subsector’s implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cyber Security Framework.’’ 

The committee believes that the issuance of the NIST Framework and the ES–C2M2, as well as the positive embrace of these 

tools by many entities within the electricity subsector, are welcome 

signs that commercial electricity utilities are taking active measures to improve cyber defenses. However, the committee is concerned that the DOD may not have adequately assessed the extent 

to which these measures have, specifically, helped to address 

vulnerabilities in power grids serving mission-critical military installations. 

In order to assess continued vulnerability of mission-critical military installations to power grid cyber-attacks, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake an inventory of mission-critical electricity infrastructure. This inventory shall include: 

(1) Identification of each mission-critical military facility located 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

within the United States; (2) Identification of the electricity infrastructure, including the utilities or entities operating such infrastructure, upon which each identified mission-critical military facility is directly dependent for electricity (for the purposes of this inventory, such infrastructure should be limited to infrastructure 

which, if destroyed or degraded, would directly cause a power outage to a mission-critical military facility); and (3) A survey of 

whether each identified electricity infrastructure states that it has 

adopted or is adopting the framework core of the NIST Framework 

for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. 

The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a report 

to Congress, within 360 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 

summarizing the results of the inventory. The report shall be unclassified, with a classified annex, as appropriate. 

Multi-modal retrograde contracts 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) found that the DOD did not have effective 

controls over the storing and handling of retrograde equipment at 

aerial ports of debarkation (APOD) in Afghanistan. The DOD IG 

also found that U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) contracting officials did not establish effective security and oversight 

requirements to safeguard cargo staged for shipment at APOD in 

Afghanistan. The DOD IG stated that this occurred because contracting officials omitted specific security requirements, did not include effective monitoring and surveillance requirements, and did 

not appoint any oversight officials in Afghanistan. As a result, 

DOD has no assurance that contractors are properly securing cargo 

at Bagram and Kandahar APOD. Although existing contract language requires contractors to use commercial best practices for security of cargo, the DOD IG found that TRANSCOM was unaware 

of the existence and adequacy of each multi-modal contractor’s 

cargo safeguarding procedures. For example, the DOD IG report 

documented examples of military vehicles determined to be ammunition-free arriving in Dubai and Baku with live ammunition and 

trash inside. 

The committee notes that without stronger contract oversight, 

there is increased risk that equipment could be lost, damaged, or 

vandalized in transit. 

Accordingly, the committee directs TRANSCOM to prepare a 

briefing or a report to the committee no later than January 1, 

2015, on the contract modifications made to multi-modal contracts 

to better define security and handling requirements and a determination of the number and location of contractor officer representatives necessary to provide adequate contract oversight in Afghanistan. The briefing or report shall also include the steps taken to 

create and implement standard operating procedures and updates 

to the appropriate quality assurance surveillance plans to ensure 

proper securing and handling of equipment by military personnel, 

contractors, and their subcontractors. 

Navy fire control radar and replacement 

The committee encourages initiatives that increase operational 

availability rates and reduce the maintenance cost of warfighting 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

equipment, especially in the face of tightening resources from implementation of the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112–25). The 

committee understands that public-private partnerships can allow 

government entities and private industry to collaborate and develop unique efficiencies that may reduce costs to the taxpayers 

when appropriately implemented. 

No later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review 

and submit a report to this committee examining the Air Force 

public-partnership program for the repair of the dual mode transmitter in the F–16 fire control radar. The review shall determine 

the cost savings to date and the future estimated annual cost savings that this program may have achieved and to determine the 

feasibility and advisability of other services adopting similar programs. 

The committee notes that the Navy may benefit from pursuing 

a similar public-private initiative for Navy aircraft, including the 

F/A–18. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 

to examine the feasibility and advisability of establishing a publicprivate partnership for F/A–18 fire control radar module repair and 

refurbishment and submit a report summarizing the findings to 

this committee no later than September 30, 2014. 

Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison 

The Kwajalein Garrison is the Nation’s primary long-range missile test support facility. It also hosts a number of critical sensors 

supporting space situational awareness. It has supported both of 

these missions for over 60 years and will continue to do so for the 

foreseeable future given its unique location. This committee has 

long-recognized the strategic importance of this garrison and the 

surrounding atoll. 

A critical element of the garrison is the permanent workforce 

that maintains the unique sensor systems throughout the atoll. It 

has come to the attention of the committee that as late as January 

2014, despite the recent availability of broadband internet 

connectivity to the garrison, the workforce and their families are 

required to use dial-up modems to communicate with the mainland. 

This is a morale issue, given many of the families who live on this 

atoll must arrange for their children to apply online for college, 

some 5,000 miles away, using a dial-up modem. At the request of 

the committee, the U.S. Army’s Network Command has undertaken 

an assessment of the actions needed to upgrade the garrison’s network and has begun an implementation of these upgrades. 

The committee believes that the most pressing item is to ensure 

that the families who support this unique national security resource have the ability to communicate over the Internet comparable to that of their counterparts on the mainland. On March 

6, 2014, the Army reported to the committee that initial efforts are 

now underway to permit the families on the atoll to use high-speed 

capabilities resident with other facilities of the garrison. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report no 

later than September 30, 2014, on whether the families on the garrison have high speed Internet support and, if not, the reason why 

and what actions will be taken to remedy the situation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

The committee further directs the Secretary of the Army, based 

on the briefing given on March 6, 2014, to update the committee 

in the form of a briefing no later than March 31, 2015, on what 

actions have been taken and are to be taken over the future years 

defense program to upgrade the communications infrastructure of 

the garrison. 

Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting 

System 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2013 annual report conducted by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 

found that the Defense Readiness Reporting System—Strategic 

(DRRS–S) is not ready to proceed to initial operational test and 

evaluation (IOT&E) based upon the system deficiencies and lack of 

functionality demonstrated during an operational assessment. 

The committee remains concerned that despite congressional direction for the Department of Defense (DOD) to first establish 

DRRS–S to eventually replace the Global Status of Resources and 

Training System (GSORTS) in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261), 

the DOD has failed to progress to IOT&E. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the timeline and 

funding plan to provide DRRS–S with all the capabilities required 

for GSORTS retirement. Additionally, the briefing or report shall 

include a plan to have a certified red team to conduct penetration 

and exploitation testing to verify correction of the DOT&E’s information assurance findings and evaluate the ability of the DRRS– 

S to protect, detect, react, and restore against an operationally relevant cyber-security threat. 

Operational energy benefits 

The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2015 commitment to improving military capability, reduce 

costs, and decrease tactical risk through efforts to improve energy 

security and to better manage both operational and installation energy. 

For example, the committee understands that the Army’s 

planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent less 

fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers. Similarly, the 

improved turbine engine program for Blackhawk and Apache helicopters is expected to reduce fuel use by 22 percent, reduce maintenance costs by 35 percent, and increase engine life by 20 percent 

compared to current engines, saving almost 14.0 million gallons of 

fuel per year. The committee also notes the fleet-wide average fuel 

savings is 21 percent with the fielding of advanced medium mobile 

power sources generators. 

The committee also recognizes the role operational energy (OE) 

advisors have played on forward operating bases (FOBs). For example, one OE helped the Department save 2.5 million gallons in annual fuel avoidance, which equates to 1,000 fuel trucks not having 

to traverse dangerous roads and limits exposure to enemy attacks. 

Similarly, many FOBs require aerial resupply every 3 days with 

fuel and water making up 70 percent of the cargo. The investments 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

made to date in new and emerging OE technologies decrease resupply convoys to every 10 days, again reducing risk and vulnerability 

of attacks to troops. Additionally, the return on investment captured by energy savings with more efficient shelter and tent liners 

can pay for the upfront cost in less than 1 year. 

The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s focus on enhancing 

combat capability, increasing endurance and range, and using energy investments to increase readiness. Planned technologies such 

as improved ship hull coatings, more efficient stern flaps, and bow 

bulbs will create almost 1 week of additional steaming days on the 

same amount of fuel. Hybrid electric drives, currently installed in 

amphibious assault ships, can add 10 steaming days which would 

allow the Navy and Marine Corps more presence on station and to 

spend less time refueling and replenishing at sea. Additionally, the 

committee is encouraged by the Navy’s efforts to program for energy sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects which 

factor in an energy return on investment and a yearly cost avoidance of $15.1 million. 

Consequently, the committee strongly encourages the Department to continue the progress made towards improving the military services’ capabilities through appropriate investments in operational and installation energy. 

Soldier equipment modernization program 

The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2015 budget request 

the Army increased its soldier equipment modernization program 

by $33.3 million, in addition to a baseline funding request of $94.9 

million. The committee understands that fiscal year 2015 is the 

first year of a planned multi-year program to provide next-generation organizational clothing and individual equipment and personal 

protective equipment to soldiers. The goal of the program is to provide life-saving and mission-enhancing gear to soldiers with a lighter, scalable, and adaptable protective capability that allows a 

greater range of motion and more effective performance. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget request 

will fund the next increment of brigade combat teams with updated 

deployment equipment bundles containing enhanced combat helmets, load-bearing equipment, cold weather clothing, and flame resistant clothing. 

The committee recognizes that for several years the Army’s rapid 

fielding initiative program, using overseas contingency operations 

funding, has provided flame resistant clothing to all deploying soldiers to minimize the risk of burn injuries from improvised explosive devices. The committee notes that the Army’s flame resistant 

uniforms are approximately double the cost of non-flame resistant 

uniforms. However, the committee is encouraged that non-deployed 

soldiers who are the most at risk to fire hazards, such as aviators, 

armor vehicle crewmen, and fuel handlers, currently receive and 

will continue to receive flame resistant uniforms specifically designed for their military occupational specialty. 

The committee is also encouraged by the Navy’s recent decision 

to field flame resistant coveralls to sailors aboard ships that face 

an increased risk to fires in tight quarters. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

Strategic military infrastructure to support operation plans 

The committee remains concerned about the structural condition 

and readiness status of the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord 

(MOTCO) and the Lualualei (LLL) annex Oahu to support the 

operational requirements of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). 

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that while the Department of Defense (DOD) has considered 

alternatives for mitigating a capability gap at MOTCO, alternatives have not been coordinated among the appropriate stakeholders, and DOD has not developed a coordinated and detailed 

plan laying out alternatives. The GAO also found that DOD has 

not agreed upon which set of alternatives should be pursued. 

The committee notes that given the potential for delays to infrastructure repair work, the DOD could be accepting additional risk 

to executing its war plans by waiting to develop a plan to mitigate 

any potential capability gaps at MOTCO and other strategic military infrastructure within PACOM. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing or report to the 

committee no later than February 1, 2015, on MOTCO and the 

LLL annex, including: (1) The funding strategy and mitigation plan 

to address any structural and readiness concerns; (2) Any impacts 

to operation plans; (3) Alternatives to mitigate any shortfalls that 

may occur during a potential capability gap; (4) The status of intraservice collaboration; and (5) The status of any relevant environmental impacts statements. If appropriate, the briefing or report 

may be submitted in a classified format. 

Stryker sustainment 

The committee notes that the Department of the Army currently 

sustains the Stryker family of vehicles under a sole source requirement and task order contract for ‘‘manufacturing, fielding, sustaining, improving, reset, retrofit, recapitalization (recap) and overhaul of the Stryker Family of Vehicles.’’ The total estimated value 

of this contract is $5.1 billion. On January 30, 2012, the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 

determined that only one source was qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the government. 

In the justification for other than full and open competition, the 

Army delineated the $5.1 billion, 3-year contract into three broad 

categories: vehicles ($2.0 billion), engineering support ($0.6 billion), 

and logistical support ($2.5 billion). This contract is up for renewal 

in October 2015. The committee understands that the Army currently intends to award another contract for other than full and 

open competition. Of the three broad categories cited in the Army’s 

justification document, it appears that logistical support offers the 

Army an opportunity to compete this contract, especially given the 

fact that eventually Stryker sustainment is planned to be 

transitioned to an organic industrial base capability. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Army to compete the logistical support aspect of the next Stryker requirement 

and task order contract in order to maximize efficiencies and cost 

savings. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

Training for the Air Force weather program 

The Air Force Weather Agency makes a significant contribution 

to improving combat effectiveness of our warfighters. The Air Force 

needs to modernize its weather training programs to be able to continue that contribution. The Air Force may be able to take advantage of different training regimes as it modernizes its training programs, including reliance on organic training, entering into or expanding cooperative programs with other government agencies, 

such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

entering into or expanding cooperative programs with colleges and 

universities that have meteorological training programs. The committee believes that the Air Force needs to investigate whether the 

service could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its weather 

training programs by placing greater reliance on cooperative training programs. If this investigation shows promise for such programs, the committee encourages the Air Force to explore the options further. 

Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for 

Military installations 

The committee notes that on April 16, 2014, the Acting Deputy 

Secretary of Defense signed out Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 4180.01, ‘‘DOD Energy Policy,’’ to provide a common energy 

framework to guide the full range of defense energy activities, including operational energy, facilities energy, and energy-related 

elements of mission assurance. The Directive established the DOD 

policy to enhance military capability, improve energy security, and 

mitigate costs in its use and management of energy. 

The committee notes that in support of this policy, the DOD has 

increased the use of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA), in conjunction with the authority provided by section 2922a of Title 10, 

United States Code, to enter into long-term contracts of up to 30 

years in order to generate or provide power for a military installation. These contracts have the potential to achieve cost savings 

while improving energy security by ensuring a reliable power supply to a military facility or installation. 

The committee believes that PPAs, like authorities provided for 

military housing and other utilities, offer a substantial benefit to 

DOD by addressing the need for a reliable energy source with no 

upfront capital costs. The private sector finances and installs an 

energy generating system on land owned by DOD or on private 

land. A private entity owns, operates, and maintains the system 

and DOD agrees to purchase the power generated by the system 

over the life of the contract. A PPA generally shifts performance 

risk of the project from the government to the contractor. DOD is 

able to establish a known long-term electricity price for a portion 

of site load. A PPA provides a reliable power supply at a predictable cost for budget stability. 

The committee notes that DOD guidance on the use of section 

2922a recognizes the authority to enter into a contract for energy 

generating projects without the capital costs of construction either 

on a military installation or on private property. The committee 

also notes that, like housing privatization, regional or portfolio approaches in a contract that will provide energy to more than one 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

military installation may offer the potential for greater savings and 

best value. DOD also has the flexibility to enter into contracts that 

consider the availability of regional resources and use more than 

one energy source to achieve greater efficiencies and lower costs. In 

addition, section 2922a does not direct that a dedicated transmission line or other additional infrastructure be required for 

projects on private property if the availability and use of existing 

power distribution infrastructure will result in a lower cost over 

time. The committee encourages DOD to use the flexibility contained within the authority to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of each contract. 

The committee recognizes that Part 41.201 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations requires DOD to obtain required utility services 

from sources of supply which are most advantageous to the Government in terms of economy, efficiency, reliability, or service. While 

electricity prices are subject to market pressures, locking in a reasonable rate over a longer period of time will protect DOD from 

rate volatility. To that end, DOD guidance for the approval by the 

Secretary of Defense of the use of section 2922a requires the military service or defense agency to provide an economic/business case 

analysis summary to include the energy project cash flow display 

for each fiscal year included within the contract. The committee believes this analysis is critical to ensure that the projects enhance 

military capability, improve energy security, and mitigate costs. 

The committee encourages DOD to continue to use PPAs and the 

flexible authorities contained in section 2922a to take full advantage of private sector financing for projects that offer economy and 

reliability of service over time and ensure rates equal to or lesser 

than projected energy rates over the life of the contract. 

War reserve stocks 

The committee believes that a primary element of military readiness is the sound management of adequate war reserves and that 

an efficient and effective war reserve supply chain is critical to support the warfighter in any theater of operations and to serve our 

military personnel stationed around the world. Accordingly, each 

military service establishes and maintains a continuing war reserve program that reflects the policies and guidance of the Secretary of Defense regarding enemy threats and capabilities, along 

with the Nation’s current military strategy. 

The committee is concerned that as military force structure and 

combat operations decline over the next few years, coupled with sequestration effects, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) will need 

to carefully balance the necessity of accurately planning for contingency requirements and maintaining sufficient war reserves to 

meet military requirements, along with the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars to avoid excess procurement, storage, and 

transportation of war reserve stocks. 

Accordingly, the committee expects the DLA and the Services to 

maximize fiscal year 2015 resources with the utmost priority 

placed on maximizing cost-effectiveness in the planning, procurement, and management of war reserve stocks. The committee also 

directs the DLA and the Services to revisit and reevaluate their 

policies regarding the management of war reserve stocks in order 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

to meet warfighter needs while avoiding unnecessary excess, and to 

provide a report or briefing with recommendations to the committee no later than March 1, 2015. This reevaluation should focus 

on those elements of war reserve stocks that the DLA and Services 

determine are most likely to yield cost savings and efficiencies. 

Additionally, the Comptroller General is directed to review, report, and provide recommendations to the congressional defense 

committees no later than March 30, 2015, on the DLA’s and the 

Services’ efficiency and effectiveness of their war reserve supply 

chain, and whether those war reserve stocks accurately reflect revised end strength and force structure requirements and achieve 

cost efficiencies in the storage and transportation of such stocks. 

Warrior power executive agent 

The committee continues to be encouraged by the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) efforts to pursue increased combat capability, effectiveness, and efficiency to better support the warfighter. For example, the committee recognizes that significant progress has been 

made to date with respect to individual warrior power systems and 

programs which provide expeditionary power solutions designed for 

combat operations in the most austere environments by increasing 

mobility, range, and endurance. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

notify the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 

2015, of the direction to designate a DOD executive agent for warrior power to align and advance various ongoing efforts across the 

Department, who is assigned specific responsibilities, functions, 

and authorities to support designated activities that involve two or 

more of the military services. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(99) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 520,000 490,000 490,000 0 ¥30,000 

Navy ........................................................................... 323,600 323,600 323,600 0 0 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 190,200 184,100 184,100 0 ¥6,100 

Air Force .................................................................... 327,600 310,900 310,900 0 ¥16,700 

DOD Total ..................................................... 1,361,400 1,308,600 1,308,600 0 ¥52,800 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 354,200 350,200 350,200 0 ¥4,000 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 205,000 202,000 202,000 0 ¥3,000 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 59,100 57,300 57,300 0 ¥1,800 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 39,600 39,200 39,200 0 ¥400 

Air National Guard .................................................... 105,400 105,000 105,000 0 ¥400 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 70,400 67,100 67,100 0 ¥3,300 

DOD Total ..................................................... 833,700 820,800 820,800 0 ¥12,900 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................................ 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 0 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 32,060 31,385 31,385 0 ¥675 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 10,159 9,973 9,973 0 ¥186 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 14,734 14,704 14,704 0 ¥30 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 2,911 2,830 2,830 0 ¥81 

DOD Total ..................................................... 78,386 77,414 77,414 0 ¥972 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last day of 

fiscal year 2015, as shown below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 8,395 7,895 7,895 0 ¥500 

Air National Guard .................................................... 21,875 21,792 21,792 0 ¥83 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 10,429 9,789 9,789 0 ¥640 

DOD Total ..................................................... 67,909 66,686 66,686 0 ¥1,223 

Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2015, as 

shown below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 350 350 350 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 595 595 595 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 90 90 90 0 0 

DOD Total ..................................................... 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2015, as shown below: 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

Service FY 2014 

authorized 

FY 2015 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2015 

request 

FY 2014 

authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ..................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act. 

Budget Item 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs in section 421 of this Act includes the following changes 

from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Military Personnel Underexecution ..................................................... ¥761.7 

Reduction in meals-ready-to-eat ........................................................... ¥20.0 

Restore lost savings from COLA change repeal .................................. 500.0 

Restore anticipated savings for TRICARE consolidation ................... 78.0 

Increase CTC rotations for Army National Guard .............................. 45.0 

Additional ESGR State support specialists ......................................... 4.0 

Limit A–10 retirement .......................................................................... 82.8 

Limit AWACS retirement ..................................................................... 24.9 

Total ................................................................................................. ¥47.0 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $47.0 million. This includes: (1) 

A reduction of $761.7 million to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment of the average annual 

MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction of $20.0 million to reflect the Defense Logistics Agency’s overstatement of meals-readyto-eat inventory; (3) An increase of $500.0 million to restore retirement accrual savings that resulted from the revision in the costof-living adjustment to military retired pay contained in section 

403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (H.J. Res. 59), and which 

were lost when Congress grandfathered the current force from the 

effects of that provision in section 2 of Public Law 113–82; (4) An 

increase of $78.0 million to restore MILPERS savings anticipated 

by the Department of Defense relative to its proposal to consolidate 

the TRICARE program, which the committee did not adopt; (5) An 

increase of $45.0 million to support additional Combat Training 

Center rotations for the Army National Guard; (6) An increase of 

$4.0 million for the Office of Employer Support for the Guard and 

Reserve to increase the number of State support specialists; (7) An 

increase of $82.8 million to fund additional personnel required relative to a limitation on retiring A–10s contained elsewhere in this 

Act; and (8) An increase of $24.9 million to fund additional personnel relative to a limitation on retiring AWACS contained elsewhere in this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(103) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for officers 

selected for selective early retirement (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 581 and 638 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 

date by which warrant officers and regular officers on the activeduty list who have been selected for selective early retirement must 

retire. 

Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be recommended for discharge during a fiscal year under enhanced selective discharge authority (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 638a of title 10, United States Code, by deleting the limitation 

on the total number of officers that a selection board may recommend for early discharge under enhanced selective discharge authority. 

Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or naval 

flight officer be in command of an inactivated nuclearpowered aircraft carrier before decommissioning (sec. 

503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5942(a) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight officer serve as 

commanding officer of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that has 

been inactivated during the limited period between the inactivation 

and permanent decommissioning prior to disposal. 

Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by selective retirement boards to particular warrant officer 

year groups and specialties (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 581(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to establish selection objectives, by year group or specialty, 

or any combination thereof, for selection boards considering warrant officers for selective retirement. 

Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual 

reports on joint officer management and promotion policy objectives for joint officers (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 662 and 667 of title 10, United States Code, removing the requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit annual reports to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

Congress on joint officer management and promotion policy objectives for joint officers. 

The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would continue to oversee the success of the military departments in meeting 

joint officer management program requirements. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Retention on reserve active-status list following nonselection for promotion of certain health professions officers 

and first lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing baccalaureate degrees (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize consideration for continuation on the reserve active-status list of first lieutenant and lieutenant (junior grade) health professions officers who 

have twice failed of selection for promotion to the next higher 

grade. The provision would also require service secretaries to retain 

on the reserve active-status list health professions officers who 

would otherwise be required to be removed from the reserve activestatus list until the officer has completed his or her service obligation. 

Database on military technician positions (sec. 512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a centralized database of military technician positions within the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The committee notes that the September 30, 2013, Center for 

Naval Analyses report titled, ‘‘Report on the Termination of Military Technician as a Distinct Personnel Management Category,’’ 

criticized DOD for lacking data that clearly identifies military technicians as a ‘‘fundamental problem’’ inhibiting oversight of a complex personnel program. The committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by no later than January 1, 2015, on the 

numbers of military technicians within DOD, dual status and nondual status, where they are assigned, and a short description of 

their assigned duties, as of September 30, 2014. 

Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience 

program for the reserve components of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 513) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy for the development of a 

standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide 

data and suicide attempt data involving members of the National 

Guard and Reserves, and to submit this policy to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (sec. 

514) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve to take appropriate actions to increase the number of program support specialists in the States. 

To support this requirement, the committee recommends moving $4.0 million from funds available for research, development, test, 

and evaluation, Air Force, for the F–15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, to the military personnel appropriation. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Enhancement of participation of mental health professionals in boards for correction of military records and 

boards for review of discharge or dismissal of members 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that any medical advisory opinion issued to a board for correction of military 

records regarding a servicemember who was diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a mental health disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist if the individual’s request for correction of records relates to a mental 

health disorder. 

The provision would also amend section 1553 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require boards for review of discharge or dismissal: 

(1) To include a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional training and experience to provide advice on specialized medical or psychological matters relating 

to post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries, when 

the board considers a request for review of a discharge or dismissal 

by a former servicemember who was diagnosed as experiencing 

post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as a consequence of a deployment in support of a contingency operation; 

and (2) To include a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional training and experience to 

provide advice on specialized medical or psychological matters relating to mental health disorders, when the board considers a request for review of a discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember who was diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a mental health disorder. 

The committee expects that boards for review of discharge or dismissal would consider a new application for relief by a former servicemember when the member’s prior application was denied by a 

board whose membership did not include a clinical psychologist or 

psychiatrist, or a physician with additional training and experience 

as required by this provision. 

Extension of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as amended by section 

531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81), by extending the authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to December 31, 2018, with a deadline 

to return all participants to active duty by no later than December 

31, 2021, adjusting interim and final report due dates to reflect the 

extended authority and deadline, and by requiring certain additional elements of information in the final reports. 

Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational 

standards for all military occupations (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate concerning the development of validated gender-neutral occupational standards pursuant to the ongoing process 

of reviewing and opening positions and occupations to women that 

are currently closed. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on impact 

of certain mental and physical trauma on discharges 

from military service for misconduct (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on the 

impact of mental and physical trauma relating to post traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, behavioral health 

matters not related to PTSD, and other neurological combat traumas on the discharge of servicemembers for misconduct. 

Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of discharge 

of certain Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that Boards for Correction of Military Records, 

when considering a request for correction of a less-than-honorable 

discharge issued to a servicemember who served during the Vietnam era, should take into account whether the veteran was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of 

such service. 

Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

report within 180 days on the plans of the military departments to 

address requests for upgrades of discharges of Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces who may have suffered from service-related PTSD. The report shall include the following elements: 

(1) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military Records and 

Discharge Review Boards regarding the application of medically appropriate standards to evaluate discharge upgrade applications based in whole or in part on PTSD or other mental 

health conditions; 

(2) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military Records and 

Discharge Review Boards on use of information in military 

service records and consideration of post-discharge diagnoses of 

PTSD that are related to their military service that the boards 

may consider when evaluating a request for an upgrade of a 

discharge, and consideration of waiving any statute of limitaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

tions for either new applicants or those previously denied for 

upgrade applications covered by this section; 

(3) The feasibility of use of video conference capabilities by 

Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Boards, and other initiatives to increase the number of inperson hearings granted; 

(4) A resourcing plan for the timely consideration of applications from all eligible individuals; 

(5) Outreach initiatives to those eligible to seek a discharge 

upgrade and available pro bono legal services to assist them; 

(6) Information provided concerning the right to judicial review and the availability of free legal services, such as those 

established in collaboration with the Department of Justice’s 

Access to Justice Initiative, in letters from the Boards advising 

applicants of adverse decisions; and 

(7) Compliance with the requirement for inclusion in membership of the Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Boards of a physician, clinical psychologist, or 

psychiatrist when adjudicating applications based in whole or 

in part on PTSD or other medical condition. 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training 

Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces 

to obtain professional credentials (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect 

to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service of the 

Navy, to carry out a program to enable members of the Armed 

Forces to obtain professional credentials while they are serving 

that relate to training and skills acquired during military service. 

Authority for Joint Special Operations University to award 

degrees (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 108 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the President 

of the Joint Special Operations University to confer appropriate degrees upon graduates who meet degree requirements. A degree 

could not be conferred unless the Secretary of Education has recommended approval of the degree in accordance with the Federal 

Policy Governing Granting of Academic Degrees by Federal Agencies, and the Joint Special Operations University is accredited by 

the appropriate civilian academic accrediting agency or organization to award the degree. 

Enhancement of information provided to members of the 

Armed Forces and veterans regarding use of Post-9/11 

Educational Assistance and Federal financial aid 

through Transition Assistance Program (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, by no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, to provide additional information to 

servicemembers in the transition assistance program concerning 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

certain education benefits available to them, and to ensure that the 

higher education component of the transition assistance program is 

available to members of the Armed Forces on an Internet web site 

of the Department of Defense. 

Duration of foreign and cultural exchange activities at military service academies (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a of title 10, United States Code, to 

extend the period that foreign exchange personnel are authorized 

to attend the U.S. Military Academy, the Naval Academy, or the 

Air Force Academy when the service secretary determines that the 

attendance of such persons contributes significantly to the development of foreign language, cross-cultural interactions and understanding, and cultural immersion of cadets or midshipmen, from 2 

weeks to 4 weeks. 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Matters 

Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 49 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. 

849) to authorize the court-martial convening authority or the military judge to order a deposition only if the party requesting the 

deposition demonstrates that, due to exceptional circumstances, it 

is in the interest of justice that the testimony of the prospective 

witness be taken and preserved for use at an Article 32, UCMJ, 

preliminary hearing or a court-martial. 

Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence, 

relating to the privilege against disclosure of communications between psychotherapists and patients (sec. 

542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence be modified to: (1) Include communications with ‘‘other licensed mental health professionals’’ within communications covered by this privilege; (2) Clarify or eliminate the current exception to the privilege when the admission or disclosure of a communication is constitutionally required; (3) Require a party seeking production or admission of 

records protected by the privilege to show a specific factual basis 

demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the records or communications would yield evidence admissible under an exception to the 

privilege, demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

requested information meets one of the enumerated exceptions to 

the privilege, show that the information sought is not cumulative 

of other available information, and show that the party made reasonable efforts to obtain the same or similar information through 

non-privileged sources; (4) Authorize the military judge to conduct 

an in camera review only when the moving party has satisfied 

these requirements and an examination of the information is necVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

essary to rule on the production or admissibility of the records; and 

(5) Require that any admission or disclosure be narrowly tailored. 

Enhancement of victims’ rights to be heard through counsel 

in connection with prosecution of certain sex-related offenses (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize Special Victims’ Counsel to represent the victim of a sex-related offense at any 

proceedings in connection with the reporting, military investigation, and military prosecution of the alleged sex-related offense. 

The provision would also require that the Manual for Courts-Martial be modified not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act to provide that when a victim of a sex-related offense 

has a right to be heard in connection with the prosecution of such 

offense, the victim may exercise that right through counsel, and 

would also require service secretaries to establish policies and procedures to ensure that counsel for the victim of an alleged sex-related offense is provided prompt and adequate notice of the scheduling of any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in connection with 

the prosecution of that offense to afford victim’s counsel the opportunity to prepare for the proceeding. 

Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces for assistance of Special Victims’ Counsel 

(sec. 544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the assistance of Special Victims’ Counsel for a member of a reserve component who is the victim of an alleged sex-related offense and who 

is not otherwise eligible for military legal assistance under section 

1044 of this title. 

Additional enhancements of military department actions on 

sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 545) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) Require 

Special Victim’s Counsel to provide advice to victims of sexual assault on the advantages and disadvantages of prosecution by courtmartial or a civilian court with jurisdiction over the offense and 

would require that the victim’s preference be considered in the determination of whether to prosecute the offense by court-martial or 

by a civilian court; (2) Require service secretaries to ensure that all 

written performance appraisals of servicemembers include an assessment of the extent to which the servicemember being evaluated 

supports the sexual assault prevention and response program of 

the military service, and the performance appraisals of commanding officers indicate the extent to which the commanding officer has or has not established a command climate in which allegations of sexual assault would be properly managed and fairly evaluated and in which a victim can report criminal activity, including 

sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and 

group pressure; (3) Amend section 1743(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) 

to require that the 8-day incident report of an unrestricted report 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

of sexual assault include a review of the most recent climate assessment for the command or unit of the suspect and the command 

or unit of the victim, and an assessment of whether another climate assessment should be conducted; (4) Require the service secretaries to establish a confidential process, through boards for correction of military records, by which an individual who was the victim of a sexual offense while in the military can challenge, on the 

basis of being a victim of the offense, the terms or characterization 

of the individual’s discharge or separation; and (5) Require that the 

Military Rules of Evidence be amended, not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, to provide that the general 

military character of an accused is not admissible for the purpose 

of showing the probability of innocence of the accused for specified 

offenses. 

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related offenses for trial by court-martial if requested by 

chief prosecutor (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1744 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66) to require that in any case where a convening authority decides not to refer a charge of a sex-related offense to trial by court-martial and the chief prosecutor of the service concerned requests review of the decision, the service secretary 

must review the decision as a superior authority authorized to exercise general court-martial convening authority. 

Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention 

of evidence in a sexual assault case to permit return of 

personal property upon completion of related proceedings (sec. 547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) to authorize the return to the rightful 

owner of personal property retained as evidence in connection with 

an incident of sexual assault involving a service member after the 

conclusion of all legal, adverse action, and administrative proceedings related to the sexual assault. 

Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense Sexual 

Assault Incident Database (sec. 548) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue policies and procedures for the inclusion of certain information obtained from restricted and unrestricted reports of sexual assault, including known information 

about the alleged assailant, in a sexual assault database. 

The committee expects that the policies and procedures to implement this provision would ensure that information obtained from 

restricted reports of sexual assault is made available only to appropriate personnel for the limited purpose of identifying alleged suspects in multiple restricted reports of sexual assault. The committee expects that information in this database will assist law enforcement personnel to identify and investigate serial offenders. 

The committee also expects that victims who may later learn the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

alleged suspect in their report may have assaulted another person 

may be encouraged to change restricted reports to unrestricted reports of sexual assault to facilitate increased prosecutions of such 

serial offenders. The committee is mindful that failure to properly 

safeguard the privacy of the victim could risk the unintended and 

adverse consequence of undermining the confidence of victims in 

the use of the restricted report as a viable option for reporting sexual assault. Therefore, the policies and procedures developed to implement this provision should provide for including in the database 

only information freely volunteered by sexual assault victims who 

file restricted reports and to ensure that victims are not coerced 

into providing this information. 

The committee is also mindful that the failure to properly safeguard the identity of an alleged suspect resulting in disclosure 

could risk unintended and adverse consequences for the alleged 

suspects to include potential damage to their personal and professional reputations without the due process protections of the military justice system. Therefore, the committee directs that policies 

and procedures developed to implement this provision must also 

preserve the presumption of innocence for alleged suspects. 

The committee specifically directs that the information concerning the identity of an alleged suspect may not be used for any 

purpose related to assignment, training, or advancement. 

Technical revisions and clarifications of certain provisions 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 relating to the military justice system (sec. 

549) 

The committee recommends a provision would make technical 

and clarifying corrections to various provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) 

relating to the military justice system. 

Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response and 

related military justice enhancements to military service academies (sec. 550) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Service secretaries and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the sexual assault prevention and response provisions in 

title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66) and the sexual assault prevention and 

response provisions in this Act apply to the military service academies. 

Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses identified in unrestricted reports on sexual assaults in annual reports on sexual assaults in the Armed 

Forces (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to require that the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military 

include an analysis and assessment of the disposition of the most 

serious offenses identified in unrestricted reports of sexual assault. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 

552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a Defense Advisory 

Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual 

Assault in the Armed Forces to advise the Secretary on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual 

assault, and other sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces and to 

submit a report on an annual basis to the Secretary and to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. 

Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Justice in efforts to prevent and respond 

to sexual assault (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to jointly develop, 

not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 

strategic framework for ongoing collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice in their efforts to 

prevent and respond to sexual assault. 

Modification of term of judges of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 942 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the statutory termination date of the term of office of judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to align the termination 

date with the starting date of the Court’s annual term. 

Report on review of Office of Diversity Management and 

Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases (sec. 

555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1735 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66) to require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, a report on the Secretary’s review of the 

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity’s role in 

sexual harassment cases. 

Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive 

management plan to address deficiencies in data captured in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 

(sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 543(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to remove the requirement that data concerning domestic violence incidents be recorded 

in the Defense Incident Based Reporting System (DIBRS). DIBRS 

is a criminal incident uniform crime reporting system that does not 

lend itself to recording domestic violence incidents because domesVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

tic violence is not an enumerated offense under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice. The Department of Defense has developed an 

alternative method to accurately count domestic violence incidents 

and resulting disciplinary actions. 

Subtitle F—Decorations and Award 

Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense who were killed or 

wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist organization 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 1129a to title 10, United States Code, to require that the 

Secretary concerned treat attacks by a foreign terrorist organization as an attack by an international terrorist organization for the 

purposes of awarding the Purple Heart in certain circumstances. 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD civilian employees. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of Department of 

Defense assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe disabilities. 

Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012 

(sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) to extend the program modifications 

contained in that section by an additional 3 years. 

Authority to employ non-United States citizens as teachers 

in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents’ School 

system (sec. 574) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2(2)(A) of the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and 

Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901(2)(A)) to authorize employVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

ment of local nationals who are not United States citizens to teach 

host nation language courses in the Defense Dependents’ Overseas 

Education System. 

Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary 

schools among functions of Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education (sec. 575) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1411 of the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (20 

U.S.C. 929) to include in the functions of the Advisory Council on 

Dependents’ Education the responsibility to provide advice and information on the Department of Defense’s domestic dependent elementary and secondary school system. Currently this council provides advice and information on the Department of Defense Education Activity’s overseas school system, and does not provide advice and information on the Department’s domestic dependent 

schools. 

Department of Defense suicide prevention programs for 

military dependents (sec. 576) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to direct the service secretaries to develop and 

implement a program to track, retain, and analyze information on 

deaths that are reported as suicides involving dependents of members of the regular and reserve components of each respective military service and to submit a report on the programs developed to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force 

Academy athletic programs (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9362 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Air Force to: (1) Accept from third parties funds, supplies, 

equipment, and services for the support of the athletic programs of 

the Air Force Academy (Academy); (2) Enter into leases or licenses 

for the purpose of supporting the athletic programs of the Academy; and (3) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements for 

the purpose of supporting the athletic programs of the Academy. 

The provision would also authorize the corporation established to 

support the athletic programs of the Academy to enter into licensing, marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to trademarks 

and service marks identifying the Academy, subject to the approval 

of the Secretary of the Air Force. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the sexual assault prevention activities of the Department of 

Defense and the Armed Forces 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States, not later than February 27, 2015, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report on the sexual assault prevention activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), containing: (1) An assessment of the 

sexual assault prevention strategy of the DOD; (2) A description 

and assessment of the actions taken by each military service to implement the sexual assault prevention strategy of DOD and of that 

service; (3) A comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention activities of each military service as of submittal of the report and of those planned for the 12 months thereafter; (4) A comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention activities at 

joint installations, and an assessment of the collaborative efforts of 

the military services involved, as of submittal of the report and of 

those planned for the 12 months thereafter; (5) A comprehensive 

assessment of the sexual assault prevention activities of each military service, including an assessment of the extent to which any 

differences among such activities arise from unique qualities of a 

particular service or the efforts of a service, to pursue an innovative approach to sexual assault prevention; (6) A description and 

assessment of the procedures and mechanisms used by each military service to ensure that the sexual assault prevention strategy 

of each service, and the training provided pursuant to such strategy, are effective in achieving the intended objectives; (7) An assessment of the report of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the President on efforts of the 

DOD and the Armed Forces to improve the prevention of and response to sexual assault in the Armed Forces, as required by the 

President, to be submitted not later than December 1, 2014; and 

(8) Such other recommendations on the sexual assault prevention 

activities of the DOD as the Comptroller General considers appropriate. 

Comptroller General report on access to on-base services by 

junior enlisted personnel 

According to the Department of Defense, roughly 83 percent of 

the active-duty force is comprised of enlisted personnel. Of these, 

about 95,000 are in grades below E–5. Service policies require most 

junior enlisted personnel below the grade of E–5 to live on post. 

The committee recognizes the unique military value of requiring 

junior enlisted personnel to live on post, including improved unit 

cohesion, discipline, professional development, and esprit de corps. 

Many of these members, owing either to service policies, post restrictions, or financial reality, do not have a means of personal 

transportation other than public transportation. Accordingly, these 

members may be isolated from commercial amenities and services. 

The military services provide a wide array of services and programs on post to meet the needs of these members and others who 

choose to live on post, including dining facilities, health care clinics 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

and treatment facilities, commissaries and exchanges, legal assistance, recreation and leisure opportunities, physical fitness and 

other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities, and libraries. 

The committee is concerned that some junior enlisted personnel 

living on post are experiencing difficulties in accessing these services due to various factors such as inconsistent or inadequate hours 

of operation or lack of transportation. As a result, some members 

may be forced to forego meals or miss medical appointments simply 

because the dining facility closed early or transportation was not 

available to the health clinic on the other side of post. This is a 

leadership issue that the committee expects commanders to address. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the provision of services provided on military installations, and the policies and procedures for ensuring that junior 

enlisted personnel have ready access to those benefits. The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a report on the 

results of this review to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than April 1, 

2015. 

Comptroller General report on feasibility and advisability of 

longer tour lengths 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than January 1, 2015, assessing the feasibility and advisability of lengthening tour rotational goals within each military department. 

The report shall include: 

(1) A description of current spending on permanent change 

of station (PCS) moves and associated support costs; 

(2) A review of past changes to PCS policy and costs or savings associated with such changes for each military service; 

(3) A description of the extent to which each service is meeting existing rotational goals and, if not, the causes of major 

shortfalls; and 

(4) An assessment of the impact lengthened tour rotations 

could have on unit readiness, stability for servicemembers and 

their families, career progression, and potential cost savings in 

military service budgets. 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense 

progress in expanding service opportunities for women 

Women have served in the military services for over a half a century but have been mostly excluded from direct combat positions. 

Over time, women have been assigned to select positions in ground 

combat units at certain levels or under certain conditions. Despite 

these restrictions, women have served in combat environments 

while deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. During the wars over the 

past 13 years, more than 800 women have been wounded and more 

than 130 have died. Many women have received awards for their 

performance in combat environments. 

On January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the 

1994 direct ground combat exclusion rule for women, which opened 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

certain positions and units to women following service reviews and 

congressional notification procedures. The Secretary of Defense directed the military departments to submit detailed plans by May 

15, 2013, for the implementation of this change and to move ahead 

expeditiously, with the process to be completed by January 1, 2016. 

As a result, according to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, 

since 2012 the military services have opened approximately 57,000 

positions to women, and service efforts to validate gender-neutral 

occupational performance standards continue. 

The committee is concerned about what steps the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and the military services are taking to ensure the 

effective and successful integration of women into previously closed 

positions and units, as well as the methodology being used to validate occupational standards. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the progress of 

the services in opening closed positions and occupations to women, 

and their progress in developing and validating gender-neutral occupational standards. The report should include: (1) The status of 

service efforts to open previously closed positions and units to 

women; (2) The integrity and effectiveness of the services’ evaluation processes and testing in validating gender-neutral occupational 

standards; (3) The extent to which these processes consider the 

overall operational capability and combat effectiveness of units required to meet national defense objectives; (4) The extent to which 

the DOD is tracking and monitoring military service plans to complete the integration of women in direct combat positions by January 2016; and (5) Any steps DOD or the services have taken to 

mitigate potential challenges associated with integrating women 

into combat roles. The Comptroller General shall report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the results of this review by no later than February 1, 2015. 

Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

The committee notes that since 2008, more than 1.3 million National Guard and reserve servicemembers and their families have 

benefited from the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP). 

Information and counseling provided during Yellow Ribbon events 

help returning guard and reserve members and their families manage the unique challenges associated with transitions between military and civilian life. YRRP is designed to ensure guardsmen and 

reservists returning home, often to rural areas or locations far removed from military installations and traditional military support 

networks, have access to similar services as their active-duty counterparts. The program provides training sessions and information 

regarding family assistance programs, veterans’ benefits, resilience 

and suicide prevention, mental health outreach, and other medical 

information, for servicemembers and their families pre-deployment, 

during deployment, and up to 90 days post-deployment. YRRP also 

supports additional state-outreach programs that coordinate state 

and local resources to create a comprehensive network of support 

throughout the deployment cycle. These extended programs are 

particularly valuable given that servicemembers may continue to 

face reintegration challenges, including symptoms associated with 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

post-traumatic stress disorder, up to and exceeding 180 days after 

deployment. 

The committee believes the YRRP has enduring value, and encourages the Department of Defense to continue its support beyond 

the current conflict. The committee also directs the Office for Reintegration Programs Center for Excellence to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of adding additional Yellow Ribbon programming 180 days after deployment and throughout the deployment 

cycle. The evaluation should include an assessment of possible 

means to provide more efficient delivery of services, to include 

leveraging the value of State-based outreach programs. 

Cyber career field 

The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Services to recruit and retain military personnel with the skills and aptitude for 

our Nation’s cyber mission. However, the committee is concerned 

that military personnel in the cyber field have no clear, defined career path to success. To retain the very best officers and enlisted 

members with cyber skills, the Services need to provide a career 

track that includes progressive training, education, and assignments to prepare these servicemembers for positions of increased 

responsibility, including command and leadership positions. 

The committee directs the service secretaries to assess whether 

the cyber mission warrants new officer and enlisted specialty designators that are distinct from communications, signal, and intelligence specialties, and whether recruiting, retention, and assignment of servicemembers with cyber skills requires bonuses or special and incentive pays. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the results of this assessment to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than January 31, 2015. 

Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and 

response to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

has not complied with section 579 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) that required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than January 2, 2013, a report setting forth a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual harassment in 

the Armed Forces. The committee has not yet received this report. 

This legislative provision also required the Secretary to develop 

a plan to collect information and data regarding substantiated incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, including 

the need to identify cases in which a servicemember is accused of 

multiple incidents of sexual harassment. The Secretary was required to submit this plan to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than June 

1, 2013. The committee has not yet received this plan. 

The committee is aware that there is a correlation between sexual harassment and sexual assaults and believes that it is imperative to address incidents of sexual harassment before the perpetrator progresses to commit more serious sexual offenses. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than July 31, 2014, on the status of both 

of these requirements. 

Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps 

The committee recognizes that the United States Naval Sea 

Cadet Corps (USNSCC) makes significant contributions in the development of our Nation’s youth, the recruitment efforts of the 

United States Navy, and the awareness of the Navy and its mission. Since its inception in 1958, the USNSCC has trained over 

170,000 young Americans. Today, it continues to prepare America’s 

youth to become productive and patriotic citizens. Furthermore, the 

USNSCC contributes directly to the recruiting mission of the 

United States Navy. Over 11 percent of the most recent class at the 

United States Naval Academy were former cadets, and a total of 

626 cadets accessed into military service in 2013. 

The USNSCC plays a significant role in both the development of 

this Nation’s youth and the mission of the United States Navy. 

This committee supports its mission and encourages the Secretary 

of the Navy to continue funding the USNSCC at current programmed funding levels, to be augmented with additional funds, 

should they become available. 

Military chaplains 

The committee recognizes the historical and present-day significance of military chaplains. Since the Nation’s founding, military 

chaplains have provided spiritual leadership and guidance to 

servicemembers. Chaplains have served in every war in which 

America has fought, and many have been decorated, including numerous valor awards, and even the Medal of Honor. The committee 

acknowledges that the Chaplaincies of the Military Departments 

‘‘are established to advise and assist commanders in the discharge 

of their responsibilities to provide for the free exercise of religion 

in the context of military service as guaranteed by the Constitution, to assist commanders in managing Religious Affairs, and to 

serve as the principal advisors to commanders for all issues regarding the impact of religion on military operations.’’ Further, today’s 

force comprises a religiously diverse population, and chaplains 

serve everyone to the best of their abilities, attending to the spiritual needs of servicemembers, even in circumstances where the 

chaplain’s religion differs from the members they serve. 

The committee expresses its strong and continuing support of 

chaplains and their mission. 

Online employment search-tool consolidation 

The committee recognizes the importance of Department of Defense (DOD) investment in Internet-based job search programs to 

assist servicemembers who are transitioning from Active Duty into 

the civilian workforce. However, the committee is concerned that 

efforts to help servicemember transition have resulted in the creation of duplicative and overlapping online tools. The committee 

strongly believes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense should 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

identify ways to consolidate multiple existing online transitional 

tools into a single, concerted effort. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives by no later than October 1, 2014, 

that describes all current and projected DOD-supported Internetbased transitioning servicemember, reserve component and veterans job assistance tools, programs, and processes. 

The report should include the cost of sustaining the current 

array of Internet-based job assistance tools, programs, and processes, and the Secretary’s recommendations for standardizing, simplifying, and consolidating such programs. It is the intent of the 

committee that DOD maintain an efficient and effective online employment search-tool while avoiding duplication and redundancy. 

Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention 

The committee remains concerned by reports of pervasive sexual 

violence within military communities. To that end, the committee 

notes that non-governmental collaborations between practitioners 

and researchers have identified a growing need for expanded bystander education in sexual violence prevention as a means to enhance deterrence, and timely reporting and adjudication of sexual 

violence. The committee believes that the Department of Defense 

sexual violence prevention programs should utilize evidence-based 

methods that evaluate the impact of bystander prevention curricula 

on participant attitudes and behaviors in order to inform and 

strengthen ongoing prevention and response activities. 

Standardized survivor experience surveys 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s (DOD) development of standardized survivor experience surveys for survivors of sexual assault. Survivor responses may provide valuable 

insight to ensure that DOD policies and relevant legislation achieve 

expected results. The committee encourages DOD to promote broad 

survivor participation in the survey process to include participation 

by survivors in cases where sexual assault was alleged in the initial complaint regardless of whether the sexual assault allegations 

were disposed of through a military justice process, civilian criminal process, or through administrative disposition. 

The committee directs DOD to ensure that the annual report on 

sexual assault in the military required by section 1602 of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(P.L. 111–383) includes an update on DOD’s progress towards developing and implementing such survivor experience surveys and a 

report on responses received and associated lessons learned. 

Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees 

who are members of reserve components 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the use 

and adequacy of annual military leave used under section 6323 of 

title 5, United States Code, to meet reserve component readiness 

objectives, and to report to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives on the results of this 

review by no later than February 1, 2015. The review shall include: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

(1) A description of the average number of hours per fiscal year 

that Department of Defense (DOD) employees who are also members of reserve components spend in any leave status (including 

leave without pay) to cover periods of active duty for training or inactive duty for training; (2) A description of the average number of 

hours of military leave used per year by military technicians (dual 

status) in the fulfillment of their technician duties; (3) An assessment of whether the leave provided under section 6323 of title 5, 

United States Code, is adequate to meet the needs of employees, 

including military technicians (dual status), in light of the operational tempo of the reserve components; (4) An assessment of 

whether members of reserve components should continue to accrue 

and carry over military leave under section 6323 of title 5, United 

States Code, during periods of active duty or full-time national 

guard duty for which they volunteered; and (5) Any other matter 

relating to the use of military leave considered appropriate by the 

Secretary. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(123) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise of 1 percent for all members of the uniformed services in 

pay grades O–6 and below effective January 1, 2015. 

Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and Senior 

Enlisted Advisor to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior members of the Armed Forces for the 

purposes of pay and allowances (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide pay 

parity for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the other 

members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The provision would also provide pay parity for the senior enlisted advisor to the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau with the senior enlisted advisors of the 

Armed Forces. The changes made by this provision would be prospective to the date of enactment of this Act. 

Modification of computation of basic allowance for housing 

inside the United States (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to revise the method by 

which the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing 

(BAH) is determined by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to reduce the monthly amount by up to 5 percent of the national average for housing for a given pay grade and dependency status. 

Servicemembers will not see any reduction in their BAH until they 

undergo a permanent change of duty station. 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 

rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by 

natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, the contracting bonus for cadets and midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty training, 

and income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active duty service. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, 

the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 

pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 

specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions. The provision would 

also extend for 1 year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency 

bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical 

military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, the 

assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, the foreign language proficiency incentive pay, the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the 

incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between 

Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates. 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired pay 

for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 

under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 who first become members prior to January 1, 2016 (sec. 621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subparagraph (G) of section 1401a(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, 

to exempt those who first join military service prior to January 1, 

2016, from the reduced cost of living adjustment (COLA) applicable 

to military retired pay made by section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–67), as amended by section 2 of 

Public Law 113–82. Under current law, this reduced COLA is inapplicable to members who first join prior to January 1, 2014. 

This change better aligns the impact of the reduced COLA with 

Congress’s consideration of the report of the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission, due February 2015. 

Modification of determination of retired pay base for officers retired in general and flag officer grades (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1407a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate the cap on 

retired pay of general and flag officers at the monthly equivalent 

of level II of the Executive Schedule, as provided for in section 

203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code. The provision would ensure the equitable treatment of the service of general and flag officers serving on or after the date of enactment of this Act. The retired pay base for final pay retirees would be the greater of: (1) 

Their retired pay as determined by function of the pay tables existing on December 31, 2014, in the officer’s grade and years of service as of that date; or (2) Their retired pay as determined by applicable law at the time of their retirement (but subject to the cap in 

section 203 of title 37, United States Code). The retired pay base 

for high-36-month retirees would be based on applicable law at the 

time of their retirement, but would continue to account for uncapped months accumulated between October 1, 2006, and the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain 

active duty or active service to reduce eligibility age for 

retirement for non-regular service (sec. 623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 

qualifying days of service under that section to reduce the age at 

which a servicemember may receive reserve retired pay may be accumulated between 2 consecutive fiscal years, effective after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to 

transitional compensation for dependents of certain 

members separated for dependent abuse (sec. 624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1059 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the date 

on which a dependent child’s status is determined for the purposes 

of transitional compensation under that section, in the case of a 

member being administratively separated, is the date on which the 

separation action is commenced. This aligns the dependent status 

determination with the date on which transitional compensation 

payments begin under this section in these cases. 

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support (sec. 625) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1448, 1450, and 1455 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to a special needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 

1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the sole benefit of 

a disabled dependent child incapable of self-support because of 

mental or physical incapacity. 

Subtitle D—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 

Instrumentality Benefits and Operations 

Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for 

resale by commissary stores (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2484 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to purchase any commercial item, including brand-name 

and generic items, for resale in, at, or by commissary stores without using full and open competition procurement procedures. 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals 

The Department of Defense (DOD) proposes several measures intended to slow the growth of personnel costs within the DOD budget. These proposals include: 

(1) A 1.0 percent pay raise for most military personnel, lower 

than the 1.8 percent that would take effect under current law; 

(2) Limiting increases in the housing allowance below the 

rate of inflation, such that servicemembers will eventually pay 

5 percent of housing costs out of pocket, as measured by average national rental costs for a given pay grade and dependency 

status; 

(3) A phased reduction by $1.0 billion of the annual direct 

subsidy provided to military commissaries, starting with 

$200.0 million in fiscal year 2015, down from the current annual subsidy of $1.4 billion, a change that could significantly 

impact commissary savings that servicemembers and their 

families depend on; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

(4) A restructuring and consolidation of the TRICARE Prime, 

Standard, and Extra programs into a single TRICARE plan; 

(5) Establishment of enrollment fees for TRICARE for Life 

beneficiaries; and 

(6) Increased pharmacy co-pays for prescriptions filled outside of military treatment facilities. 

The committee reluctantly supports DOD’s proposals concerning 

the pay raise, the basic allowance for housing (BAH), and pharmacy co-pays. The committee does not support the proposals affecting the commissary benefit, TRICARE for Life, or the TRICARE reorganization. The committee views these latter proposals as structural in nature; as such, they are better left for consideration until 

after the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

Commission submits its report in February 2015. The pay raise, 

BAH, and pharmacy proposals, while undesirable, are necessary to 

produce a DOD budget that provides sufficient funding to address 

readiness and modernization deficits, authorizes a sufficiently sized 

and trained force to meet national defense objectives, and adheres 

to congressionally-mandated budget levels. 

Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary benefit 

Commissaries have a major positive impact on the quality of life 

of all servicemembers—active, reserve, and retired—and their families. Commissaries, on average, afford savings of more than 30 percent on items purchased. Additionally, commissary patrons frequently use base exchanges when they come on post to shop at the 

commissary. Increased usage of the base exchanges results in additional dividends that are returned to the military community for 

morale, welfare, and recreation activities. The cumulative effect of 

all of these benefits from commissary patronage is particularly important to junior enlisted servicemembers. 

The committee is concerned that consequences of the Department 

of Defense proposal to increase costs to patrons of the commissary 

benefit in order to reduce appropriated fund support for the Defense Commissary Agency have not been fully evaluated, and that 

other business models that may not have the same detrimental impact were not considered. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

Commission and to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than December 1, 

2014, that describes: (1) How changes to the financial structure 

and funding of commissaries would impact the purchasing power of 

military families, especially young enlisted members and their families; (2) The impact on commissary sales volumes if prices for groceries and other goods rise significantly under a new financial and 

funding structure; (3) The collateral impact of the Department’s 

proposal on sales volumes in the military exchange system; (4) The 

impact of lower sales volumes in military exchanges on monetary 

dividends provided to support the morale, welfare, and recreation 

programs of the military services; (5) An assessment of adoption by 

the commissary system of a business model similar to that of the 

military exchange system; and (6) Other options for consolidation 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

of commissary and exchange system functions. The committee expects the Commission to consider this report as it addresses the 

commissary benefit in the report that it submits to Congress and 

to the President. 

Secretary of Defense review of pay table 

The committee recognizes the service of those who choose to 

serve beyond 30 years in the military. Many of these 

servicemembers, the most experienced in the ranks, forego the opportunity of a second career in order to continue serving their nation. As a way to incentivize and reward such service, especially 

among senior enlisted and officers with prior enlisted service, Congress extended the pay tables to 40 years in section 601 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364). As the military draws down, however, and 

fewer servicemembers serve beyond 30 years, the committee believes it is time to reevaluate the usefulness of the 40-year pay 

table, and whether it is necessary to continue to achieve certain retention goals. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

utility of the pay tables currently in law with respect to retaining 

experienced military personnel who would otherwise be difficult to 

retain, and whether such pay tables are necessary or if retention 

of such personnel would be equally achievable under a 30-year pay 

table, and to submit a report on this review to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 

no later than February 1, 2015. The report shall include a description of how many personnel remained on Active Duty past 30 years 

of service, annually, since 2007; a breakdown by pay grade of such 

personnel; and the additional costs to the Department of Defense 

(DOD) since 2007 of operating under the 40-year pay table rather 

than a 30-year pay table (adjusted for inflation). The report shall 

include the Secretary’s recommendation whether to retain the 40- 

year pay table, the reasons why, and an assessment of how DOD 

believes longevity pay increases beyond 30 years impacts retention 

in the armed services. 

Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces regarding military pay and benefits 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has 

not adequately considered the views and preferences of 

servicemembers in making proposals designed to slow the growth 

of personnel costs, and that other proposals may yield similar savings with less impact on those benefits servicemembers value the 

most. 

The committee strongly encourages the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission to conduct a survey of 

active-duty servicemembers, reserve component members, and retirees on their preferences with respect to pay, allowances, health 

care, retirement, and quality-of-life benefits; how those benefits effect decisions to join or remain in the military; how they differ by 

grade, dependency status, and duty location; and to consider the results of this survey in the Commission’s report due next February. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(129) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program 

Annual mental health assessments for members of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a person-to-person mental health 

assessment for active duty and selected reserve members each 

year. The Secretary may provide such assessments in conjunction 

with annual periodic health assessments or pre- or post-deployment 

health assessments. In addition, the provision would require the 

Secretary to submit an annual report on the tools and processes 

used to provide the assessments. 

Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for 

the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to modify the TRICARE 

pharmacy benefits program by specifying that non-formulary prescriptions would be available through the national mail-order pharmacy program, establishing prescription copayments from 2015 

through 2024, and requiring that non-generic prescription maintenance medications must be refilled through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. 

Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services with 

other inpatient medical services (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to remove limits on inpatient mental health services, removing a potential barrier to receipt 

of mental health care that does not exist for other medical and surgical care. 

Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under the TRICARE program (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize breastfeeding 

support, supplies, and counseling during pregnancy and the 

postpartum period as a covered benefit for TRICARE beneficiaries. 

Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging 

health care products and services (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1073 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to provide provisional coverage or authorization for coverage for certain health care products and services that do not 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

meet the hierarchy of reliable evidence as prescribed in federal regulations for the TRICARE program. This would authorize 

TRICARE coverage for a drug, device, medical treatment, or procedure considered unproven if the drug or device cannot be lawfully 

marketed without Food and Drug Administration clearance or approval, that are commonly utilized in medical practice, and are, in 

many cases, considered standards of practice by medical practitioners. 

Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service 

areas (sec. 706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the status of the reduction of TRICARE Prime services areas conducted by the Department of Defense. 

Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of 

the United States reviews of viability of TRICARE 

Standard and TRICARE Extra (sec. 707) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for ongoing Comptroller General review of the processes, 

procedures, and analysis used by the Department of Defense to determine health care and mental health care provider acceptance of 

the TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra benefit. 

The committee notes that the Comptroller General has already 

issued five reports under this mandate, and additional reviews and 

reports are unlikely to develop significantly new findings and recommendations for improvement. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health 

Care Fund matters (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1111, 1113, 1115, and 1116 of title 10, United States Code, 

to modify the method by which the Federal Government makes accrual payments into the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible 

Retiree Health Care Fund (Fund). The provision would require the 

Secretary of Defense and other administering secretaries of the 

uniformed services to make payments into the Fund at the end of 

each month on the basis of an actuarial determination of the single 

level dollar cost per uniformed member multiplied by that uniformed services’ total monthly end strength. The provision would 

also authorize the Secretary of Defense to change the actuarial determination required by section 1115 of title 10, United States 

Code, after the start of the fiscal year in the event Congress enacts 

significant changes in benefits after the fiscal year begins. This 

would allow the Secretary to modify the monthly payments into the 

Fund during that fiscal year to account for the change in law, and 

to realize attendant discretionary savings earlier. The provision 

would become effective immediately and would apply to payments 

into the Fund beginning in fiscal year 2016. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to extend the termination date of 

the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2015, to 

September 30, 2016. Extension of this fund will allow the departments to fully assess the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 

Care Center demonstration project, develop and submit a final report, and give Congress time to consider and assess the effectiveness of the demonstration project. 

Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for 

health care professionals for the Department of Defense 

(sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a Department of Defense (DOD)- 

wide strategy for contracting for health care professionals for the 

DOD. 

Program on medication management in the Department of 

Defense (sec. 724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of comprehensive, uniform medication management in military medical treatment facilities and to submit a report describing this program to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Report on military family planning programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of the access of servicemembers and certain military dependents to methods 

of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, 

contraception counseling, and related education, and to submit to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a report of the findings of this study no later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Interagency working group on the provision of mental 

health services to members of the National Guard and 

the Reserves (sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to convene an interagency working group to 

review and recommend collaborative approaches to improving the 

provision of mental health services to members of the National 

Guard and Reserves and to submit a report on the findings and 

recommendations of the interagency working group to the approVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

priate congressional committees not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

Report on improvements in the identification and treatment 

of mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury 

among members of the Armed Forces (sec. 733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a report evaluating 

the tools, processes, and best practices to improve the identification 

and treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of the Armed Forces. 

Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute 

of Medicine on improvements to certain resilience and 

prevention programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 

734) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report setting 

forth an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of implementing the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding improvements to programs of the Department of Defense intended to strengthen mental, emotional, and behavioral abilities 

associated with managing adversity, adapting to change, recovering, and learning in connection with service in the military. 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the 

Armed Forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec. 

735) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of the 

military departments, to report on the adequacy and effectiveness 

of the policies, procedures, and systems of the Department of Defense in providing support to servicemembers who experience traumatic injury as a result of a vaccination required by the Department of Defense. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Military 

Health System Modernization Study of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 736) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report assessing the Military Health System Modernization Study of the Department of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

Items of Special Interest 

Autism spectrum disorder services 

The committee is aware that researchers are making progress in 

diagnosing autism in infants and young children years before what 

was previously thought possible. It is recognized that with early 

intervention, a child may make significant progress—potentially increasing language and social skills as well as circumventing the development of problematic behaviors. In keeping with trends in ongoing research, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to assist military families with autistic children to make sure 

they can receive the full and expanding range of early evidencebased risk assessments and diagnostics, early interventions, and 

appropriate treatment approaches. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sufficient priority is 

given to efforts to provide timely services for autistic children of 

military families living in rural or underserved communities. 

Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities 

under TRICARE 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to either: (1) Include in the defense budget for fiscal year 2016 the funding required to provide health care, including behavioral health treatment and applied behavior analysis when prescribed by a physician 

or psychologist, under section 1077 of title 10, United States Code, 

for treatment of developmental disabilities (as defined by section 

102(8) of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 

Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002(8))), including autism spectrum disorder; or (2) Submit a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives explaining 

why such funding is not included in the budget for fiscal year 2016. 

The health care described above should be provided by licensed 

or board-certified professionals. However, applied behavioral analysis or other behavioral health treatment may be provided by authorized employees, contractors, or trainees under the supervision 

of the licensed or board-certified professionals when the employee, 

contractor, or trainee meets minimum qualifications, training, or 

supervision requirements established by State law, an accredited 

national certification board, or by the Secretary. 

Consolidated TRICARE health plan 

The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense’s 

proposal to consolidate the current TRICARE Prime, Standard, and 

Extra health plans into a single, consolidated plan designed to improve the benefit for authorized beneficiaries. However, the committee is concerned that this proposal would make significant 

structural changes to TRICARE that may be premature in light of 

the upcoming report of the Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission established by Congress in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239). This Commission is required to submit its report no later 

than February 2015. The committee is aware that this Commission 

is considering potential changes to the TRICARE benefit as part of 

its charter. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

The committee remains committed to a military health care system that provides high quality, cost-effective health care to 

servicemembers, military retirees, and military dependents, and 

looks forward to the Commission’s recommendations to maintain 

and improve the TRICARE health care benefit. 

Department of Defense collaboration with the Department 

of Veterans Affairs on the disability claims processing 

backlog 

The committee recognizes the vitally important ongoing collaboration between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as they seek resolution on the over 

half a million pending disability claims, of which more than 50 percent are over 125 days old. Therefore, the committee encourages 

further coordination between the departments, specifically through: 

ongoing assignment of DOD subject matter experts to the Veterans 

Benefits Administration to review the disability claims backlog and 

identify cases where DOD involvement can assist the VA in processing claims; timely implementation of an interoperable electronic 

health record with integrated display of data or a single electronic 

health record; and the deployment of the Health Artifact and 

Image Management Solution. Additionally, the committee urges 

the DOD/VA Health Executive Committee to ensure expanded access to the Janus Joint Legacy Viewer to VA regional offices in all 

Veterans Integrated Service Networks regions and major DOD 

medical facilities in order to provide more efficient health care 

services to all veterans. 

Prosthetics for servicemembers 

The committee believes that injured servicemembers should have 

access to the best and most clinically appropriate prosthetics available. The committee notes that section 724 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) directed the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit a report to the appropriate congressional 

committees on plans to ensure that the most clinically appropriate 

prosthetics and orthotics are made available to injured 

servicemembers and veterans using technological advances as appropriate. The committee looks forward to reviewing that report, 

which is due on June 24, 2014. 

As part of the existing reporting requirements associated with 

section 724, the committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to 

include in the report the following elements: 

(1) A description of the quality and capability of prosthetics 

currently available to servicemembers, and an assessment of 

how the quality and capability of those prosthetics compare to 

the best prosthetics currently available in the commercial market; 

(2) A description of prosthetics that have been developed 

with the support of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, and an assessment of how those prosthetics compare 

to those currently available to servicemembers; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

(3) An assessment of whether any gaps exist between the 

prosthetics currently provided to servicemembers and what is 

available in the commercial market; and 

(4) If any such gaps exist, a description of the steps the Secretary of Defense plans to take in order to eliminate those 

gaps. 

Treatment for obesity 

The committee believes that maintaining a healthy weight supports overall health by reducing weight-related chronic disease 

risks. By encouraging TRICARE beneficiaries to maintain a 

healthy weight, the Department of Defense (DOD) can limit the direct and indirect medical costs associated with obesity. The committee notes that section 1079(a)(11) of title 10, United States 

Code, states that treatment of obesity may not be provided if obesity is the sole or major condition treated. The committee understands that DOD interprets this subsection to prohibit coverage for 

any treatment for obesity other than bariatric surgery, including 

FDA-approved drugs, even in cases where co-morbid conditions 

exist. The committee encourages DOD to broaden its interpretation 

to include coverage for clinically appropriate treatments for obesity 

where other major underlying medical conditions exist. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(137) 

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

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Open systems approach to acquisition of systems containing 

information technology (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to adopt an open systems approach 

to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS), and to other programs the primary purpose of which is the acquisition of an information technology (IT) system, entering the acquisition process after January 

1, 2016. The committee believes that a comprehensive open systems approach is an important component of IT acquisition reform. 

The provision would provide exceptions to this requirement for 

the procurement of commercial end-items and systems, and for socalled Quick Reaction Capabilities acquired or developed in response to Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements or Joint 

Emergent Operational Needs Statements. The provision also would 

require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to identify all the legacy systems as 

of January 1, 2016, that were or are MDAP or MAIS that are not 

open systems, develop a process, including business case analyses, 

for ranking the priority of such legacy systems for migration to 

open systems, and develop a plan to migrate the top half of that 

prioritized list to open systems within 10 years of the date of enactment. 

To support this open systems approach to IT acquisition reform, 

the provision requires the Secretary to: (1) Identify the distinct 

computing environments and mission domains in DOD; (2) Form or 

use existing voluntary and consensus based standards bodies to 

create technical reference architectures (TRA) and domain-specific 

services (DSS) for those computing and mission domains; and (3) 

Ensure that the DOD components are using the same TRA and 

DSS to avoid duplication, competing approaches, and lack of interoperability. 

The provision defines an open system approach as an integrated 

technical and business strategy that: (1) Employs a modular design 

and uses widely supported and consensus-based standards for 

interfaces between layers, segments, services, and applications; (2) 

Is subjected to verification testing to prove the openness of its 

interfaces; and (3) Allows components to be added, modified, replaced, removed, and supported by different vendors over the lifecycle of the system, enabling competition and innovation. By computing environments, the committee means the computing infraVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

structure that support missions and functions, ranging from embedded, real-time, safety-critical systems, to mobile computing, to 

large-scale enterprise or cloud-based environments. 

Traditional, closed system acquisitions typically result in vendor 

lock for the life of the system because the design is tightly integrated between system components and between software and 

hardware, and software and interfaces are proprietary and unique. 

In such systems, it is very difficult and expensive to modify any 

component because of the tight coupling; and hardware and software coupling inhibits insertion of new commodity hardware. 

In open systems, new hardware can be easily inserted, software 

can be extensively reused from one project to another, services are 

common and reused, new capabilities, services, and applications 

can be quickly developed and inexpensively integrated, and modifications and upgrades can be incrementally executed with low 

risk. Software is separated or abstracted from hardware, allowing 

substitution of new hardware or the application of software from 

one system to another. 

The committee has over a period of years encouraged DOD, including through legislation, to develop meaningful IT acquisition 

reform strategies in recognition of the differences between the IT 

industry and non-IT hardware development processes. The committee has been disappointed by the inconsistent nature of the 

DOD’s response. 

In a few key areas, such as Navy sonars and submarine ship systems, DOD has shown that open systems architecture designs can 

yield significant benefits. 

The Navy is now applying open systems approaches to a large 

number of programs, both large and small. The Air Force is using 

this design approach for unmanned aircraft avionics and ground 

control stations through the Rapid Capabilities Office, and to migrate to an open system on the F–22 and the Distributed Common 

Ground System (DCGS). The Navy and Army jointly are building 

an open systems architecture approach for aviation systems 

through the Future Airborne Capability Environment. The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Task Force in USD (AT&L) is applying an open systems approach to the UAS Control Segment initiative. The Army’s Intelligence and Security Command is designing 

the next-generation version of DCGS to be an open system. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has for several years been constructing an open systems architecture for the 

entire Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise. 

Nonetheless, DOD’s approach to open systems remains spotty 

and inconsistent, and very few open systems have actually been 

built. 

Accordingly, the committee concludes that DOD would benefit 

from a policy which establishes a presumption in favor of open systems architectures and requires program managers to focus on this 

issue early in the acquisition cycle. 

Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated Information System programs (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify requirements applicable to a Major Automated Information System 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

program that fails to achieve a full deployment decision within 5 

years after the Milestone A decision or selection of the preferred alternative for the program. 

In lieu of a critical change report, failure to achieve a full deployment decision within 5 years would be determined to be a significant change with the attendant notification to the congressional defense committees required for all significant changes. 

Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense 

business system programs (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require business process reengineering before milestone decisions for Major 

Automated Information System programs. 

Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to install a stronger management element and 

set of controls on the Joint Information Environment (JIE) initiative. Department of Defense (DOD) officials describe JIE as the 

most significant and far-reaching transformation of the Department’s information networks ever attempted, and yet the Department is not managing the effort as an acquisition program. The 

committee is prepared to accept, for the time being, the Department’s arguments for not designating JIE formally as an acquisition program. However, the committee is not satisfied with the 

level of rigor in DOD’s planning and oversight of this initiative. In 

addition, the committee is concerned that the management elements in existence for JIE are imbalanced, with insufficient representation of those who must execute warfighting missions 

through the JIE networks and those who must operate and defend 

those networks against cyber attacks. 

To address these concerns, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to assign a senior military or civilian official to 

serve as an assistant to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as the 

JIE Coordinator. The JIE Coordinator shall have expertise in information technology planning and program management, command 

and control at the Joint Force level, and U.S. Cyber Command’s 

(CYBERCOM) concept of operation for operating and defending 

DOD information systems and networks. 

The provision would require that the CIO assign to the JIE Coordinator responsibility for balancing the priorities and risks between 

efficient network acquisition and operation, effective execution of 

military missions, and effective network defense. The JIE Coordinator would also: 

(1) Define the features of the existing network architecture 

that are critical for the transition to the objective JIE architecture (the as is condition); 

(2) Develop the desired architecture for JIE (the to be state); 

(3) Develop and update an integrated master schedule for 

the migration from the as is to the to be JIE; 

(4) With the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, develop and update cost estimates and performance 

measures for the migration to JIE; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

(5) Track conformance and deviation from schedules, costs, 

and performance metrics; 

(6) Identify gaps in the budgets and plans of the DOD components that collectively make up the resources for the JIE to 

determine requirements for development or procurement actions to address those gaps; and 

(7) Oversee the development of open system architectures for 

the joint warfighting missions of the Department to complement the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise open 

architecture for JIE being developed under the direction of the 

JIE Executive Committee (EXCOM) by the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for the intelligence mission of the Department. 

The provision would require the CIO, the commanders of the 

combatant commands, and the heads of the cyber components of 

the military services to assist the Coordinator by making available 

to the Coordinator experts from across the Department with experience in joint planning and operations at a combatant command, 

serving in the Office of the CIO or an office of the CIO of a military 

service, and on the staff of CYBERCOM or the cyber component of 

a military service. In addition, the team would include experts in 

information technology and cloud computing acquisition. 

The JIE EXCOM currently is tri-chaired by the DOD CIO, the 

Joint Staff J6, and the Commander of CYBERCOM. The provision 

would require the addition of the J3s from the Joint Staff and 

CYBERCOM, and the addition of representatives from the operational communities on the working groups staffing the JIE 

EXCOM to ensure representation of warfighter interests and perspectives. 

The provision would require the CIO to select from among competing open source candidates a standard language for representing cyber threat information, such as the Structured Threat 

Information Expression (STIX), Open Indicators of Compromise 

(Open IOC), Cyber Observable Expression (CYBOX), and Trusted 

Automated Exchange of Indicator Information (TAXII). 

Finally, the provision would require the CIO to identify and 

prioritize the applications in use in the Department that the CIO 

assesses are candidates for migration to a cloud computing environment, and to determine which applications can and cannot, without 

modification or replacement, be shifted to a cloud computing environment, along with a time-phased plan to either modify or replace 

those applications that are not cloud-compatible. The committee 

notes that a significant percentage of DOD computing applications 

cannot be virtualized or otherwise are not cloud-compatible, and 

that the cost and time required to modify such applications are 

substantial. Without an understanding of what applications can be 

readily migrated, and a plan to modify or replace those that cannot, neither the Department nor potential commercial cloud providers will be able to plan effectively. 

Report on implementation of acquisition process for information technology systems (sec. 805) 

In the last several decades, the commercial marketplace has developed a process of rapid innovation and technology refresh for inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

formation technologies that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

tried to leverage but often failed due to a cumbersome acquisition 

process. 

In response, DOD has received new authorities from Congress 

and developed on its own significant policies and guidance for the 

development, acquisition, and integration of information technologies. 

Legislation that supports a new approach includes, but is not 

limited to: 

(1) The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 

103–355), which encouraged executive agencies to seek and acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental items other than 

commercial items to address requirements; 

(2) The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–106; formerly 

the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996), 

which instituted a number of changes to acquisition practices 

emphasizing performance- and results-based management to 

enforce accountability for information resources; authorized the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to conduct a 

pilot program to test alternative approaches for information 

technology acquisition by executive agencies; and directed the 

Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that information technology acquisition processes were simple, clear, and understandable and that 

such processes addressed risk management, incremental acquisitions, and timely incorporation of commercial information 

technology; and 

(3) Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111–84), which directed the Secretary of 

Defense to develop and implement a new acquisition process 

for information technology systems. The process was to take a 

modular, open-systems approach and include early and continual involvement of the user, multiple, rapidly executed increments or releases of capability, and early, successive prototyping to support an evolutionary approach. 

The committee notes that the Department has issued guidance 

and policies to support and implement these authorities including, 

but not limited to: 

(1) The interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, on Operation of 

the Defense Acquisition System (dated November 25, 2013). 

This instruction specifically highlights the importance of compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–106); and 

(2) The Department’s ongoing Better Buying Power initiative, which since 2010 has focused on providing greater efficiencies toward an affordable, value-added military capability 

to the warfighter. Among other areas, this initiative has concentrated on affordability, cost control throughout the product 

lifecycle, and incentivized productivity and innovation. 

From the nonexhaustive list of laws, policies, and guidance listed 

above, it is clear that both the legislative and the executive 

branches have recognized the benefits of agile, incremental acquisition of information technology. 

However, from the record of successful Major Automated Information Systems, it is less clear that the DOD has realized the benVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

efits from these laws, policies, and guidance. The committee notes 

approvingly that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) has initiated a review of 

information technology acquisition policy as part of his broader effort to reform and streamline defense acquisition. 

As part of that process, the committee recommends a provision 

that requires the USD (AT&L) to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by July 31, 2014 on the implementation 

of the acquisition process for information technology detailing the 

applicable implementing regulations, instructions, or policies. The 

report shall also explain any legislative criteria not yet implemented and a schedule for implementing such criteria along with 

any proposed deviations. 

Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to maintain defense research facility records (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise the requirement for Department of Defense programs to maintain defense research facility records, as established by section 2364 of 

title 10, United States Code. 

Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for United 

States Special Operations Command (sec. 807) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment of items for the 

United States Special Operations Command that are currently 

under development by the Department of Defense or available from 

the commercial sector and are urgently needed to avoid significant 

risk of loss of life or mission failure, or needed to avoid collateral 

damage where no collateral damage is necessary for mission success. 

Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design review (sec. 808) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure that Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 and 

other applicable guidance require full consideration during preliminary design review of metals, materials, and technologies that effectively prevent or control corrosion over the life cycle of the product. 

Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on inventory (sec. 809) 

The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the reporting requirements of section 803(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to 

multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and 

reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization for 

multiyear contract authority. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or greater than 

$500.0 million, to certify that certain requirements will be met by 

the proposed contract no later than March 1st of the year in which 

the legislative authority to enter into such contract is requested. 

The Secretary must send a notification of the findings regarding 

the same requirements 30 days before award of the contract. 

The committee finds value in both the certification and the notification, but believes that the timing is reversed. The recommended 

provision would reorganize the timeline so the Secretary provides 

the initial findings of the enumerated requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and then certifies the completed 

findings prior to contract award. 

The committee believes this will provide more reasonable and 

complete information. 

Extension and modification of contract authority for advanced component development and prototype units 

and modification of authority (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend a pilot 

program that provides a bridge between the science and technology 

(S&T) portion of a contract awarded under the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation’s Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) authority, and 

the award of a contract under a new acquisition for advanced component development or prototyping. The provision also expands the 

authority, to include a bridge to the production of technologies resulting from the successful research and development programs. 

The committee believes that by allowing the BAA-based contract 

to include a contract line item or an option for potential work that 

bridges the gap between S&T and advanced component development or procurement, contracts can be issued on BAAs that carry 

the most promising work through to integrated component evaluation, demonstration, validation, and production without having to 

restart the acquisition process. 

It is the committee’s expectations that extending the authority 

under this section will speed the transition of S&T into fielded systems pursuant to the goals of Department of Defense Instruction 

5000.2, ‘‘Operation of the Defense Acquisition System’’. 

Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive subcontracting plans (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that extends the comprehensive subcontracting plan test program to September 30, 

2015, if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, TechVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

nology and Logistics cannot transition all active participants to individual small business subcontracting plans that meet all relevant 

requirements contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation before December 31, 2014. 

Participants transitioned shall also enhance subcontracting opportunities for small business concerns. 

Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit electronic parts (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 

sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit electronic 

parts. 

Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview 

contractor employees in connection with examination of 

contractor records (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (a)(1) of section 2313 of title 10, United States Code, to 

grant the Defense Contract Audit Agency specific authority to 

interview contractor employees similar to the authority granted to 

the Comptroller General in subsection (c)(1) of that same section. 

Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of 

grantees (sec. 826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enhance the 

whistleblower protections for employees of grantees. 

Prohibition on reimbursement of contractors for congressional investigations and inquiries (sec. 827) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit reimbursement of costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a 

congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a disposition. 

Enhanced authority to acquire certain products and services produced in Africa (sec. 828) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide Department of Defense missions in the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR) with a limited procurement authority giving a preference to products and services 

produced in the AFRICOM AOR. 

Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United 

States sources (sec. 829) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide additional acquisition opportunities for the Department of Defense with 

respect to photovoltaic devices. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Program manager development strategy (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive strategy for enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

hancing the role of Department of Defense program managers in 

developing and carrying out defense acquisition programs. 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development periods (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and accountability of program managers for the program development period of 

defense acquisition programs. 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution periods (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would address the 

tenure and accountability of program managers for the program 

execution period. 

The provision would require each such program manager to enter 

into a performance agreement with the milestone decision authority (MDA) that establishes the expected parameters of performance, 

including the commitment of the MDA that adequate funding and 

resources are available and will be provided, and assurance of the 

program manager that the parameters are achievable. 

The provision would also require that program managers be 

given authority comparable to the authority given to private sector 

program managers and that they be assigned to a program until 

the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow waiver authority. 

Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary 

design review and post-preliminary design review before Milestone B (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add an alternative to one of the certification requirements established by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, for major defense acquisition programs entering the acquisition system at Milestone B. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on operational testing programs for major defense acquisition 

programs (sec. 845) 

The committee notes the valuable role that the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) plays in providing oversight and independent reviews to Congress to ensure weapon systems are suitable and effective in combat. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on the extent, if any, to which 

major weapon systems have been required to conduct operational 

testing in excess of levels necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with program requirements validated by the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council, and effectiveness and suitability for combat, as 

required by section 2399 of title 10, United States Code. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Extension to United States Transportation Command of authorities relating to prohibition on contracting with the 

enemy (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would include 

United States Transportation Command in the expanded authorities granted by section 831 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–066). 

Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance 

provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented 

media producers (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the reimbursement to the Department of Defense for assistance 

provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media producers. 

Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 3 

years the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund, which is available 

to the Secretary of Defense for providing equipment, supplies, services, training, and facilities to resolve urgent operational needs. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative 

The General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) is the 

Army’s web-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution. 

GFEBS leverages commercial off-the-shelf business enterprise software (SAP) to enable the Army to compile and share accurate, upto-date financial and accounting data across the entire active 

Army, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard. GFEBS replaces 

or absorbs more than 80 legacy accounting and asset management 

systems to standardize business processes and transactional input 

across the Army. 

Seeking to optimize GFEBS utilization, the Secretary of the 

Army signed a memorandum on September 11, 2012, directing the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and 

Comptroller (ASA(FM&C)) to conduct a doctrine, organization, 

training, material, leadership, personnel, facilities (DOTMLPF) review of all financial management processes, policies, organization, 

and workforce composition. 

This review, known as the Army Financial Management Optimization (AFMO) initiative is intended to examine and ultimately adjust the roles, missions, and functions of Army financial management (FM) units to optimize the capabilities of the Army’s enterprise-wide FM system, maximize efficiency, eliminate or mitigate 

capability gaps, and meet DOD-wide auditability requirements. 

The AFMO Task Force made numerous recommendations, including a plan to ‘‘consolidate selected financial management activities’’ 

into ‘‘Command-Aligned Hubs’’ (CAH). A pilot program to test this 

CAH approach will begin October 1, 2014. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

The committee applauds the Army’s efforts. But as the Army 

works to reduce costs and achieve auditable financial statements, 

it is important that the evaluation of the CAH pilot program be 

analyzed not just from an Army perspective but also from a DODwide perspective. 

The committee therefore directs the Deputy Chief Management 

Officer to conduct a review of the CAH pilot program for any DODwide impacts and report findings of the review to the congressional 

defense committees within 120 days of completion of the pilot program. 

Business systems modernization 

The Department of Defense (DOD) business systems environment supports critical functions such as human resources management, logistics, and acquisition that directly impact the lives of our 

fighting men and women. 

Nevertheless, this environment, which includes over 2,000 systems, is overly complex and error-prone, and is characterized by little standardization, multiple systems that perform the same tasks, 

the same data being stored in multiple systems, and the need for 

data to be entered manually into multiple systems. The President’s 

budget requests over $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 funds to support its business systems. 

10 U.S. Code 2222 requires all business systems to comply with 

the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) and complete 

sufficient Business Process Reengineering before the systems can 

be certified and approved to obligate available funds. 

However, the ability to meet the intent of this statute is limited 

by the quality and utility of DOD’s BEA and business process reengineering efforts. Without a meaningful architecture and effective means for conducting business process reengineering assessments, DOD will not be able to cost-effectively achieve its business 

systems modernization goals in a timely manner. 

Accordingly, the committee requests the Government Accountability Office to report on (1) How useful the current BEA is in 

guiding and constraining DOD’s business transformation initiatives 

and whether more cost-effective alternative approaches exist to 

meet DOD’s needs; and (2) Evaluate the effectiveness of DOD’s approach to conducting business process reengineering assessments. 

The report should consider including business system investments covering a range of sizes (costs) and risk levels, among other 

selection factors, as part of its study. The committee directs the 

Comptroller General to issue this report by February 1, 2015. 

Clarification on the use of energy savings performance contracts 

The committee notes that section 8287 of title 42, United States 

Code, provides authority for energy savings performance contracts 

(ESPC). The committee believes that ESPC are a tool that has 

proven effective in reducing both cost and energy use by leveraging 

third-party private financing. 

The committee has attempted to clarify when it is appropriate to 

use such contracts in both section 828 of the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111– 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

383) and section 2825 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

While ESPC are not available for constructing new buildings or 

facilities, the committee notes that in some cases, the installation 

of equipment meeting the standard of section 8287 requires the 

modification or repair of existing facilities, or the construction of facilities or infrastructure that provide necessary support to the primary function of the operating equipment. In such cases, ESPC 

may be used. 

The committee applauds the Army for their aggressive use of 

ESPC. According to testimony by the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment on April 2, 2014, 

‘‘The Army has the most robust ESPC program in the Federal Government. The ESPC program has more than 180 Task Orders at 

over 75 installations, representing $1.32 billion in private sector investment. . . . We have additional ESPC projects in development, 

totaling over $400.0 million in private investment.’’ 

The committee understands that the Army’s use of ESPC has resulted in energy savings of almost 9 percent of their fiscal year 

2013 facilities energy consumption and an annual utility cost 

avoidance of more than $168.0 million. 

The committee notes that while the Navy and the Air Force have 

also made use of ESPC, they have done so on a much smaller scale. 

The committee urges the Navy and the Air Force to adopt the 

Army’s best practices wherever possible to similarly increase their 

use of ESPC. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts 

The committee remains concerned about the counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense (DOD) supply chain. 

While efforts have been made to secure the supply chain, 

vulnerabilities still exist. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide the congressional defense committees a report 

within 270 days of enactment of this Act. 

The required report should contain an analysis of reports relating to counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts submitted 

to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) 

from January 2011 to present, including: (a) The number of reports 

filed by original component manufacturers, authorized distributors, 

independent distributors, and original equipment manufacturers; 

and (b) The source of supply, i.e., original component manufacturers, authorized distributors, and independent distributors, for parts 

identified in reports as counterfeit or suspect counterfeit. 

The required report should also contain a description of DOD efforts to work with the defense industrial base to improve contractor 

systems for the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. Further, the report should describe government or industry practices 

that detect counterfeit or suspect counterfeit parts prior to their 

entry into the DOD supply chain but do not fall under the GIDEP 

reporting requirement, and make recommendations on how to best 

ensure such cases are reported in the future. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense 

audit readiness efforts for property, plant, and equipment 

The committee notes that successful execution of Department of 

Defense (DOD) military missions depends on a properly equipped 

and supplied force. Maintaining accurate, reliable, and accountable 

systems of record for mission critical assets, including equipment, 

real property, inventory, and supplies, is imperative. 

The availability and accuracy of cost information for use by Congress and DOD executives is critical in making decisions about allocating scarce resources, authorizing and modifying programs, and 

evaluating program performance. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of the DOD’s plans to achieve 

audit readiness with respect to its property, plant, and equipment, 

and to submit a report on the findings to the congressional defense 

committees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

The required report shall, at a minimum, include an assessment 

of the advantages and disadvantages of requiring asset valuations 

to be conducted as part of the statutory requirement for audit readiness by September 30, 2017. 

Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy 

reporting requirements applicable to major automated 

information systems experiencing cost or schedule overruns 

The committee notes that Chapter 144A of title 10, United States 

Code, enacted as section 816 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007, establishes a tiered system for reporting 

cost and schedule overruns for Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs, similar to the system established for reporting cost and schedule overruns on Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs (MDAPs) under Chapter 144 of title 10—commonly referred to as the Nunn-McCurdy reporting requirements. 

Under Chapter 144A, as under Chapter 144, programs experiencing a critical change to program requirements are subject not 

only to congressional notification but also to a program evaluation 

assessing: the projected cost and schedule for completing the program if current requirements are not modified, the projected cost 

and schedule for completing the program based on reasonable 

modification of such requirements, and the rough order of magnitude of the cost and schedule for any reasonable alternative system or capability. 

No funds may be obligated for a MAIS program experiencing a 

critical change unless and until the program manager for the program provides a written certification to Congress that: the program 

is essential to the national security or to the efficient management 

of the Department of Defense (DOD), there is no alternative to the 

program that will provide equal or greater capability at less cost, 

the new estimates of the costs, schedule, and performance parameters have been determined, with the concurrence of the Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 

the management structure for the program is adequate to manage 

and control program costs. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to review DOD 

implementation of the requirements of Chapter 144A and report to 

the congressional defense committees on any findings and recommendations from that review. 

Joint Information Environment 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is undertaking an ambitious 

effort to realign and restructure how its many information technology (IT) networks are constructed, operated, and defended with 

the goal of providing better information access to the user, improving the security of its networks and data, and being more responsive to constantly changing technological and operational factors. 

This IT network alignment initiative is referred to as the Joint 

Information Environment (JIE) and is led by the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO). According to the CIO, DOD plans on utilizing 

the Services’ existing programs, initiatives, and technical refresh to 

deploy or migrate to JIE standards using specific implementation 

guidance. 

While a shared IT infrastructure across the DOD would improve 

mission effectiveness, providing our military commanders and civilian leaders with the most timely and accurate data and information, DOD does not have a strong track record implementing largescale IT initiatives. 

In particular, after 10 years and at least $379.0 million, the DOD 

has still yet to develop a meaningful IT enterprise architecture— 

the blueprint for defense system interoperability—that has been 

fully federated (extended) to the components. 

In light of this, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the JIE initiative. At a minimum, 

the GAO shall (1) ascertain the scope, costs, and implementation 

plans for JIE, and (2) assess the extent to which DOD is executing 

effective executive oversight and governance of JIE. 

The committee expects GAO to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014. 

Next Generation Enterprise Network 

The committee notes that the Navy is investing considerable resources in the planning, development, and implementation of the 

Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN), which will serve to 

replace the current Navy Marine Corps Intranet in supplying information technology (IT) and data service to the Navy and the Marine Corps. 

The committee conceptually supports the Navy’s planned transition and acquisition strategy that is intended to procure IT enterprise services, including network operating centers, desktop applications, service desks, and computer server farms, in a series of individually competed short-term contracts. If realized, such an acquisition strategy would allow for frequent recompetition allowing 

the Navy to acquire higher performance capabilities at reduced 

costs. 

The committee is concerned, however, that the integrated nature 

of IT systems, and the tendency for bureaucratic and cost barriers 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
151 

to prevent displacement of incumbent technologies and contractors, 

will prevent the Navy from achieving this desired competitive and 

flexible acquisition environment. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 

2014 on the methods and strategies it will use to ensure it can continually re-compete contracts for hardware, network services, enterprise services, and other capabilities under the NGEN program 

individually, and without undue advantage to incumbent technologies and contractors. 

Performance Based Logistics 

In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified performance-based logistics (PBL) as a preferred weapon system support 

strategy. Within DOD, PBL is the purchase of performance outcomes, such as system availability and readiness, rather than the 

purchase of individual elements of logistics support—such as parts, 

repairs, and engineering support. 

DOD guidance recommends that business case analysis be used 

to guide decisionmaking regarding the implementation of PBL. 

The committee supports the use of a business case analysis and 

believes that the Services should have effective internal controls to 

ensure that the analyses are prepared and that they provide a consistent and comprehensive assessment of costs and improvements 

to readiness. 

The committee is aware of a number of PBL, including the 

Navy’s use for aviation tires and the Air Force’s use for the 

sustainment of the C–17, as well as discussions to expand PBL to 

sustainment of the F117 engine fleet. 

Reportedly, since the award of the PBL in 2000, the Navy has achieved approximately $46.0 million in savings in inventory reductions while producing on-time delivery requirements of 99 percent and a reduction in delivery time from 60 days to 36 hours inside the United States and to 66 hours outside the United States. 

The C–17 PBL reduced cost-per-flight hour, reduced engine overhaul turn-around time, and increased the sustained mission capable rate, saving the Air Force hundreds of millions of dollars. 

To better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of PBL, the 

committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics to provide the congressional defense committees with a plan for the future use of PBL reflecting how the 

use of PBL can improve execution, efficiency, cost, and readiness 

of applicable programs. 

Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess 

progress toward auditability 

The committee believes that a valuable means of demonstrating 

Department of Defense (DOD) progress towards auditability is for 

the Secretary of Defense to report on the aggregate funding included in a Schedule of Budgetary Activity by service branch and 

defense agency and appropriation, and also the aggregate funding 

not included in such Schedules of Budgetary Activity. 

As the Schedules of Budgetary Activity are an interim step toward a complete Statement of Budgetary Resources that complies 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it is valuable for 

the committee to have available a means of assessing DOD 

progress toward the statutory requirement to produce auditable financial statements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report annually, 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, on the aggregate DOD funding included in Schedules of Budgetary Activity. 

The report should include the aggregate level of funding and also 

the percentage of total funding that is included in DOD’s Treasury 

certified Statement of Budgetary Resources Financial Statement 

that is not included in a Schedule of Budgetary Activities. 

Small businesses and the health of the U.S. defense industrial base 

The committee believes that a healthy defense industrial base 

must include a large number of vibrant, growing, and technologically-advanced small defense companies. Small defense companies can provide a source of competition that drives down costs and 

increases performance. 

The committee is concerned that sequestration and the lack of 

fiscal certainty have created a difficult business environment, particularly for small companies that contract with the Department of 

Defense (DOD). The committee believes that DOD should continue 

its efforts to improve the health of the defense industrial base, including small businesses. DOD should continue to proactively seek 

to contract with small defense companies, when appropriate, and 

the committee expects DOD to strive to meet its small business 

contracting goals as set forth in 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 644(g)) annex. 

Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the following: 

(1) The impact of defense sequestration on small business 

concerns of the defense industrial base and any associated national security consequences; and 

(2) A determination if the effects of defense sequestration 

have made DOD more reliant on sole source procurements or 

reduced the pool of small business offerors for critical weapon 

systems components. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(153) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

related matters (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would combine the 

Deputy Chief Management Officer position and the Chief Information Officer position into the Chief Management Officer position, 

redesignate the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Chief Operating Officer, eliminate the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

title except for Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense established by law, and redesignate the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs as the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Installations, Energy, and Environment. 

Additionally, this proposal seeks to make changes to Chapter 4 

of Title 10, United States Code, in order to streamline the establishment provisions for certain officials and ensure that policymaking requirements are provided for separately from establishment provisions and to make other clerical and conforming 

changes. 

Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) designated the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense as the Department of Defense (DOD) Chief 

Management Officer, established an Under Secretary of Defenselevel Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) to assist the Deputy Secretary, and named the under secretaries of the military departments as their organizations’ chief management officers. 

This legislation was intended to strengthen the management of 

DOD’s business operations and was the result of a series of recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

and several think tanks that argued the need for a senior official 

at DOD with significant authority and experience to focus attention 

on enterprise-wide business transformation and sustain progress at 

the highest levels of DOD. 

The framework enacted into law was a compromise between 

those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who advocated the creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense focused 

solely on management, and those who asserted that no reorganization was necessary to address DOD’s persistent business challenges. 

Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly to 

implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD’s business operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the new manVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

agement structure put in place by the Fiscal Year 2008 NDAA was 

properly scoped and defined to enable DOD to make significant 

progress in breaking down its functional stovepipes. 

The committee believes that while significant progress has been 

made, it has become increasingly clear that additional changes to 

the structure of the DCMO position are needed to position DOD for 

success in its business mission. 

Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-equal of 

the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and drive implementation of 

transformational change and improvement in the Department’s 

business operations. 

The provision would therefore combine the DCMO position with 

the Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) position and designate that individual as the Department’s Chief Management Officer (CMO). The CMO would be subject to the authority, direction, 

and control of the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, previously designated 

as the CMO, would now be designated as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Department. 

The new CMO position would be directly after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and 

service secretaries in the order precedence and before the remaining Under Secretaries of Defense. The position would be assigned 

two Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense (PDUSD) to assist in the execution of their duties, a PDUSD for Management and 

a PDUSD for Information. 

The proposed CMO position would unify roles and functions traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by making it a Senate-confirmed position again. The CMO would exercise 

authority, direction, and control over the Information Assurance 

Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency (NSA). The bifurcation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence into the 

ASD(NII) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

(USD(I)) led to the USD(I) supervising the NSA IAD, despite the 

fact that the CIO, not the USD(I), is responsible for information 

systems security, which is the mission of the IAD. 

A strengthened CIO will provide better management and oversight of information technology, systems, and operations within 

DOD, including over the U.S. Cyber Command. 

Combining these offices also should produce some savings in 

overhead. 

The committee recognizes and is encouraged by the significant 

progress that has been made to date on the use of energy by the 

Department since the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs was first established. 

The committee is also encouraged by the DOD Energy Policy 

(4180.01) published on April 16, 2014, and strongly intends for the 

new position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to: (1) Establish DOD energy policy, goals, 

initiatives, oversight, and budgetary matters for operational energy, installation energy, and environmental matters including climate change, contingency basing, and energy security; (2) Establish 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

DOD energy boards and councils as necessary to support DOD energy policies, plans, and programs; (3) Oversee DOD energy planning, use, management, and implementation; (4) Develop policy, 

guidelines, and provide oversight for development, certification, 

qualification, field demonstration, and ongoing purchases of alternative fuels for operational platforms and demonstration of energy 

technologies; (5) Support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

(CJCS) in the requirements process regarding energy in accordance 

with the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Manual; (6) Promote energy-related issues, programs, and accounts as an advisor to the Defense Acquisition 

Board and other key acquisition bodies; (7) Advise the CJCS and 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding the role of energy in the DOD planning process across the full range of military 

operations; (8) Oversee identification and mitigation of energy-related risks and commercial grid challenges for DOD infrastructure 

and missions in conjunction with other DOD risk management and 

readiness programs; (9) Ensure investments are made in facility infrastructure to reduce energy demand, increase on-site distribution 

(including renewables), and enhance the power resiliency on installations; (10) Oversee facility energy technology programs and identify and support the demonstration of energy technologies to address installation needs; and (11) Collaborate with other governmental organizations and the private sector on energy-related matters. 

Additionally, the committee maintains that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment may 

communicate views directly to the Secretary of Defense and the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within the DOD. 

Additionally, the new position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment will serve as the 

Department’s designated Senior Real Property Officer and be responsible for providing budgetary, policy, and management oversight of the DOD’s real property portfolio; managing the Base Realignment and Closure activities for domestic installations and facility consolidation and realignment efforts overseas; and managing 

environmental compliance, conservation, and clean-up programs. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 138 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the position 

of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, whose 

principal duty would be the overall supervision of manpower and 

reserve affairs of the Department of Defense. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modifications to requirements for accounting for members 

of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 

employees listed as missing (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 76 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a defense agency 

within the Department of Defense, headed by a Director, to have 

responsibility over the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action accounting community. The provision would create a new section 1501a of 

title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense 

to enter into public-private partnerships for the purposes of facilitating the accounting of missing persons. The provision would require the Secretary to assign or detail to the defense agency a fulltime senior medical examiner to provide medical oversight of the 

identification process, to establish identification and laboratory policy, and to advise the Director on forensic scientific disciplines. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to establish and 

maintain a single centralized database and case management system containing information on all missing persons for whom a file 

has been established. 

Items of Special Interest 

Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense 

The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to reduce management headquarters in the Department of Defense (DOD) by 20 

percent. These reductions are intended to reverse the growth in 

such headquarters and garner efficiencies that can be used to decrease overhead in favor of mission needs. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget materials submitted by the President 

projects that DOD will save $5.3 billion through 2019 by such reductions. While a significant sum, this is a tiny fraction of DOD’s 

overall spending and the committee is increasingly convinced that 

DOD’s planned efforts will not result in as much of a reduction as 

they should be able to achieve. 

Moreover, in May 2013, the Comptroller General reported that 

the geographic combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) which led U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

had grown by 50 percent over the past decade. Ongoing work by 

the Comptroller General being conducted for this committee has 

found even larger growth at CENTCOM, as well as the functional 

combatant commands, the service secretariats and service staffs, 

the Joint Staff, defense-wide combat support agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

In general, the Comptroller General has found a lack of discipline in setting and validating requirements for individual headquarters, as well as poor visibility into the total resources being devoted across organizations to similar functions and missions. As a 

result, the committee lacks confidence that DOD has a clear grasp 

of the personnel it needs to conduct its missions or that current 

plans will reverse the extensive growth of the past decade. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

To achieve significant savings, the Secretary of Defense must 

focus on consolidating and eliminating organizations and personnel 

that perform similar functions and missions. 

In March 2012, the Comptroller General reported longstanding 

problems in the way that DOD tracks its headquarters spending 

and found that DOD could likely achieve additional savings by consolidating or eliminating organizations that are geographically 

close or managed by the same executive agent nearby and by expanding the span of control or by centralizing functions and services, such as administrative and support. 

In January 2014, the Defense Business Board (DBB) reported 

that such de-layering will be critical to achieving real savings and 

would improve efficiency by reducing layers of review and coordination. 

The DBB concluded that DOD’s current efforts might generate 

savings near term but would not be the most efficient approach in 

the longer term for a number of reasons. The DBB estimated that 

DOD could save up to $8.0 billion annually if they took a more systematic approach. 

The committee is concerned about DOD’s efforts to stem the apparent growth in support functions such as, among others, budget, 

policy, legal, and personnel management across the organizations. 

Of particular note is that much of the growth in headquarters 

appears to be driven by the need to support the growing bureaucracy itself; for instance, the personal staff of some combatant commanders exceeds one-fifth of their entire organization while others 

have a much lower proportion of their personnel in the front office. 

In addition, some mission-related functions, such as intelligence 

and planning, also appear to have grown dramatically. 

To assist in ongoing congressional oversight and ensure that the 

Secretary of Defense achieves meaningful and durable savings in 

its headquarters overhead, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General to identify: (1) Trends in specific budget lines reflecting the 

growth in personnel, mission and other resources at headquarters 

units; (2) Trends in personnel, mission, and resource growth across 

functional areas across related organizations; (3) The extent DOD 

and the military services have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions; (4) The extent to which DOD and the military services have eliminated both 

the civilian billets or contractor positions and the associated funding with those positions; (5) Whether efforts to date constitute a 

systematic and comprehensive approach; (6) Actual savings to date 

from announced reductions in personnel, mission, or other resources since fiscal year 2012; (7) any additional steps DOD should 

take to realize substantial additional savings; (8) Whether captured, planned, or recommended reductions warrant an evaluation 

of the rank of the individual heading each relevant organization; 

and (9) Other matters the Comptroller General determines are appropriate as this review is conducted. 

The organizations that shall be considered in this cross-cutting 

review are the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, the service secretariats and staff, the geographic and functional combatant commands and their service component commands, and the defense-wide combat support agencies. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the preliminary results of the study no later than October 2014 and may 

report the results of the study in one or more reports as deemed 

appropriate to the Comptroller General as agreed to by the committee. 

Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

capture and institutionalize the lessons learned from more than a 

decade of wartime rapid acquisition and to streamline and consolidate the organizations, capabilities, and resources devoted to fulfilling urgent and emergent operational needs. 

The committee supports the efforts by the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, to organize DOD organizations 

and capabilities to respond quickly to emerging warfighter requirements as outlined in his September 6, 2013, memorandum. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) required the Secretary of Defense to provide a study and report on the effectiveness 

of the processes used by DOD to generate and satisfy urgent operational needs. The resulting Defense Science Board (DSB) report 

offered a number of improvements to this process. 

This DSB report predicted that as the push of wartime needs 

subsides, the ability to rapidly field critical equipment and weapons 

systems will decline. The committee believes that DOD should 

maintain this important capability. 

While it is true that unanticipated and vital warfighter requirements, including Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) and 

Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON), will continue to arise 

that must be addressed quickly, the committee believes that further consolidation of the organizations and processes are warranted. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) in coordination 

with the secretaries of the military departments, the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Special 

Operations Command, and the Director of the Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation Office, to present the congressional defense 

committees with a plan to consolidate any enduring functions of 

the organizations, capabilities, and funding associated with the following organizations: the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Organization; the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell; the Warfighter Senior Integration Group; the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force; the Afghanistan Resources Oversight Council; and along with any other defense-wide or military departmentspecific organizations, capabilities, and funding associated with 

comparable JUON or JEON efforts. 

The plan shall also include the organization, or organizations, 

under which the aforementioned organizations will be consolidated. 

The objective of this consolidation should be to eliminate headquarters organizations to the maximum extent practicable while 

maintaining the critical ability to meet emergent warfighter reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
159 

quirements in a rapid and effective manner with a sense of urgency 

commensurate with identified needs and risks. 

The committee expects the required plan to include any lessons 

learned by the rapid acquisition organizations since 2001, and how 

these lessons learned are incorporated into current policy and processes for satisfying JUON and JEON. 

The committee directs the USD (AT&L) to provide an interim report to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2014, and a final report no later than February 2, 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(161) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in division A of 

this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. This fund would be responsible for obligation and expenditure of funds for construction (including design of vessels), purchase, alteration, and conversion of 

strategic missile submarines. 

The committee recognizes that there will be challenges to affordability as the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense seek to replace the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines as 

they approach the end of their useful service lives. In testimony before the committee, the Chief of Naval Operations stated, ‘‘I am increasingly concerned about our ability to fund the Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program—our highest priority program—within our current and projected resources.’’ 

The committee believes that establishing a separate fund for pursuing construction of the Ohio-class replacement submarines is a 

first important step to ensuring that the program has the appropriate visibility within the administration and within Congress to 

ensure that the Ohio Replacement Program moves forward with 

the appropriate level of visibility and management attention. The committee recommends an authorization of $100.0 million 

for the fund. 

Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the devastating impact that the statutory 

budget caps are having on the Department of Defense and our national security and the need for legislation to adjust those caps. 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities 

Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 3 

fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
162 

campaign of the Government of Colombia (section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375), as most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113–66)), as well as extend the expanded congressional notification 

requirement. 

The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has made 

and continues to make progress against transnational narcotics 

trafficking organizations and designated foreign terrorist organizations. This type of flexible authority is still required to assist the 

Government of Colombia to consolidate its gains, but the committee 

expects to see continued reductions in the level of assistance provided to Colombia, as has been agreed to in our bilateral engagements with the Government of Colombia. 

Extension and modification of authority for joint task forces 

supporting law enforcement agencies conducting activities to counter transnational organized crime to support 

law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism 

activities (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136), as most recently amended by section 

1012 of the the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66), to: (1) Extend the underlying authority 

through fiscal year 2020; (2) Expand the scope of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) authority to provide support to U.S. law enforcement agencies for counterterrorism purposes when a nexus exists 

between drug trafficking or transnational organized crime (TOC) 

and a foreign terrorist organization; (3) Make a series of technical 

modifications; and (4) Expand the authority of DOD to support 

counter illicit trafficking activities in certain circumstances. 

As the committee notes elsewhere in this report, the Strategy to 

Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by the President 

on July 19, 2011, sought to increase DOD’s support to U.S. law enforcement efforts to combat TOC. As such, the committee believes 

this modification to DOD’s longstanding counterdrug authority is 

necessary to ensure DOD is able to fully support both U.S. law enforcement and foreign partners. 

Further, the committee expects DOD to leverage this modification to increase its counter threat finance intelligence activities. 

‘‘Cash is king’’ for illicit organizations that operate in narcotics, 

transnational crime, and terrorism, and—as DOD has learned 

through its threat finance cell operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 

over the past decade—understanding the financing activities of illicit networks is critical to minimizing the threat posed to U.S. national security interests and enabling the use of law enforcement, 

financial, or other tools to disrupt such activities. The committee 

expects that DOD will focus on any expansion of its activities pursuant to this authority on the Haqqani network and al Qaeda in 

the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
163 

Extension of authority to provide additional support for 

counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments 

(sec. 1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1998 (Public Law 105–85), as most recently amended by section 

1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66). Specifically, the provision would extend 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) authority to provide additional 

support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments 

through fiscal year 2020, as well as increase the cap on the limitation on obligations from $100.0 million to $125.0 million per fiscal 

year. 

The committee notes that DOD has increased its utilization of 

this authority in recent years and in fiscal year 2014, according to 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counter-narcotics 

and Global Threats, DOD has received validated requests for more 

than $100.0 million from the combatant commanders. The committee further notes that under the current funding limitation, 

DOD will reject validated requests from the combatant commanders for countries that are prepared to increase their capacity 

to combat the flow of narcotics and to assist the U.S. Government 

in its counter-narcotics operations. 

The committee also notes that the number of countries eligible 

to receive so-called section 1033 assistance has increased in recent 

years as a result of the growing presence of transnational criminal 

organizations operating across many parts of Africa a region the 

committee continues to believe DOD should expand its current programming. As such, the committee expects that DOD will look to 

initiate programs in the AFRICOM area of responsibility with this 

increase in the availability of funds. 

Extension and modification of authority of Department of 

Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug 

activities of other governmental agencies (sec. 1014) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1991 (Public Law 101–510), as most recently amended by section 

1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81), to authorize the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to provide additional support for activities of other governmental agencies to counter transnational organized crime (TOC) in 

addition to its counterdrug activities. The provision would also extend the underlying authority through the end of fiscal year 2020 

and reduce the dollar threshold for a notification on facilities 

projects to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee notes that the Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command have testified before the committee about the corrosive effect 

of TOC on every institution in the partner nations in their respective areas of responsibility. Furthermore, the committee is aware 

of research indicating the increasing convergence of threats to U.S. 

national security—including narcotics trafficking and terrorism— 

with TOC networks. The committee notes that the Strategy to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
164 

Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by the President 

on July 19, 2011, sought to enhance DOD’s support to U.S. law enforcement. As such, the committee believes this modification to 

DOD’s longstanding counterdrug authority is necessary to ensure 

DOD is able to fully support U.S. law enforcement and foreign 

partners. 

For purposes of implementation guidance, the committee believes 

the National Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime 

provides a good definition of TOC. It states that TOC ‘‘refers to 

those self-perpetuating associations of individuals who operate 

transnationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence, monetary, and/or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal means, 

while protecting their activities through a pattern of corruption 

and/or violence, or while protecting their illegal activities through 

a transnational organizational structure and the exploitation of 

transnational commerce or communication mechanisms.’’ 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Limitation on use of funds for inactivation of U.S.S. George 

Washington (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 

Navy from obligating or expending any funds in fiscal year 2015 on 

inactivating the U.S.S. George Washington (CVN–73) unless such 

obligation or expenditure is to support tasks that are identical to 

tasks that would be necessary to conduct a refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship. 

The Navy had planned to conduct an RCOH on CVN–73, beginning in fiscal year 2016. The fiscal year 2015 budget request altered that plan to drop the RCOH and inactivate CVN–73. Congress has already authorized and appropriated $329.7 million for 

the CVN–73 RCOH. The plan for fiscal year 2015 submitted with 

the fiscal year 2014 budget for the Navy was to request another 

$491.1 million for advance procurement of the CVN–73 RCOH. 

In lieu of the plan, the fiscal year 2015 budget request and the 

future years defense program (FYDP) supports inactivation of 

CVN–73. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have stated DOD 

will defer the decision until 2016 on whether to refuel and maintain CVN–73 or inactivate the ship. 

The committee is concerned that DOD submitted a fiscal year 

2015 budget request and FYDP that are inconsistent with DOD’s 

stated intent to defer a decision on the refueling, and with the requirement of section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code, that 

the Navy maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers. 

In testimony, Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel confirmed that 

11 carriers are a statutory requirement saying, ‘‘We follow the authorization and appropriations direction of Congress. We follow the 

law.’’ Secretary Hagel explained the dichotomy between an avowed 

plan to maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers and the FYDP by 

saying he was waiting for a sign from someone, presumably Congress, that DOD would get the partial relief from the effects of sequestration reflected in the FYDP. 

The committee has seen no evidence that the requirement for 

maintaining 11 operational carriers has diminished. In fact, senior 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
165 

Navy leaders have repeatedly stated the need for 11 carriers as the 

minimum number required to execute the President’s National 

Military Strategy. Senior military officers have testified that global 

requirements argue for an even larger number of aircraft carriers. 

The Commander of U.S. Pacific Command noted that, ‘‘Based on 

the world as it is, about 11 aircraft carriers is just—is just barely 

making it today.’’ 

The aircraft carrier remains the most visible projection of military force abroad and is an effective instrument for shaping the 

perception of allies and potential foes alike. The committee is concerned that inactivating an aircraft carrier with 20 to 30 years of 

useful service life remaining is a very inefficient use of defense resources and would be inconsistent with implementing the administration’s strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific region, and such an 

action would send the wrong signals about our determination to 

support that shift. 

Complying with the letter of this section requires that the administration either submit a budget that supports a fleet with 11 

operational aircraft carriers or submit a legislative proposal to 

amend title 10 to readjust the requirement. The administration has 

done neither. This provision would ensure that the Navy maintains 

a path of obligations and expenditures consistent with the statutory requirement to maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report on the 

effect on capabilities for power projection and global engagement, 

as it affects the Navy’s ability to meet the Defense Strategic Guidance, moving to a permanent force structure of fewer than 11 operational carriers. This report should include a classified annex that 

describes the Navy’s ability to meet the combatant commanders’ requirements, both at the current force level and the impact of a 

force level with fewer than the required 11 operational carriers. 

This report should also specify what the effects of such action 

would be on operational deployments, overall readiness, and on 

sailors and their families. The report should identify potential effects on the shipbuilding industrial base, on the remainder of the 

RCOH program, on other shipbuilding programs, and on other acquisition programs. The Secretary of the Navy should submit that 

report with the fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of Ticonderoga class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

rules under which the Navy could use resources in the Ship, Modernization, Operations, and Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) to implement a plan to: (1) Retain 11 Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 9 

Whidbey Island-class and Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ships in 

active service; (2) Temporarily inactivate 11 Ticonderoga-class 

cruisers and 3 Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships; (3) Modernize the inactivated ships during the period of their inactivation; 

and (4) Reactivate those ships to replace cruisers and dock landing 

ships retiring at the end of their expected service lives. 

The provision would require that the Secretary of the Navy retain the cruisers and dock landing ships until the end of their exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
166 

pected service lives, and use SMOSF only to sustain and modernize 

the vessels. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit an annual report with the budget request. The report would 

describe the status of the SMOSF, including specific financial information, such as starting and ending fiscal year corpus balances, 

providing a detailed obligation and expenditure plan by vessel, and 

including information detailing all transfers into and out of the 

SMOSF by appropriation account. 

The committee further directs the Secretary to ensure that the 

annual budget justification material for the SMOSF include detailed information at the vessel level. In addition, the committee directs the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to provide execution reports for the SMOSF that treats each vessel like a line item 

within the SMOSF. 

Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended 

deployments (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide additional flexibility for the Secretary of the Navy to maintain Littoral 

Combat Ships (LCS) by allowing government personnel or U.S. contractor personnel to conduct corrective and preventive maintenance 

on an LCS vessel regardless of the ship’s location. 

Because an LCS vessel has a smaller crew than other Navy vessels, much of the corrective and preventative maintenance must be 

performed by personnel not in the ship’s force. The Secretary of 

Navy needs added flexibility in conducting this maintenance to ensure that the Navy can sustain readiness, particularly on forwarddeployed LCS vessels. 

Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels providing transportation services under a shipbuilding or 

ship repair contract with the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 

1024) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 

Secretary of the Navy to authorize shipbuilding or ship repair contractors owning U.S.-built dry docks, tugboats, and towing vessels 

to engage in limited coastwise trade for purposes of performing a 

shipbuilding or ship repair contract entered into with the Department of the Navy. 

Currently a contractor under foreign ownership, control, or influence can only utilize its own vessel to perform Navy shipbuilding 

and ship repair contracts within the continental United States if a 

limited waiver for that vessel to engage in coastwise trade is granted. Such waivers are only granted on a case-by-case basis through 

a very burdensome administrative process involving three different 

agencies of the Federal Government. This is because foreign ownership precludes such a vessel from meeting the definition of a ‘‘U.S.- 

flagged vessel,’’ even if the vessel was built in the United States 

and was manned by crew composed of U.S. citizens. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
167 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit, for 

fiscal year 2015, the transfer or release of detainees held at Guantanamo (GTMO) to or within the United States, its territories, or 

possessions, until the Secretary of Defense submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a detailed plan to close the GTMO 

detention facility and Congress has voted on a joint resolution of 

disapproval under expedited procedures. If a joint resolution of disapproval is not enacted, then the Secretary would be authorized to 

transfer GTMO detainees to the United States for detention, trial, 

and incarceration. Other conditions that must be met before a 

transfer under this section can take place are a determination by 

the Secretary that doing so is in the national security interest of 

the United States, that steps have been taken to address any risk 

to public safety, and the appropriate congressional committees are 

notified not later than 30 days in advance of any such transfer. The 

provision would ensure that the legal rights applicable to detainees 

held at GTMO remain unchanged as a result of their transfer 

under this authority. 

Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report to the appropriate 

committees of Congress on impediments to the transfer overseas of 

Guantanamo detainees and the actions that have been or are 

planned to be taken to overcome such impediments and facilitate 

overseas transfers. 

Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) provides the Secretary of Defense 

a more flexible authority to transfer Guantanamo detainees overseas. The committee notes that to date, a very limited number of 

Guantanamo detainees have been transferred overseas under this 

new authority. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to address diplomatic, security, and other impediments to overseas 

transfers of Guantanamo detainees and use the full extent of the 

authority provided by section 1035 to complete such transfers, as 

appropriate and consistent with U.S. national security interests. 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

the United States for emergency or critical medical 

treatment (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

temporary transfer of Guantanamo (GTMO) detainees to a military 

medical facility in the United States for the sole purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment that is not available 

at GTMO and is necessary to prevent the death or imminent significant injury or harm to the individual’s health. The detainee 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
168 

would not be admitted into the United States during the period of 

medical treatment and must be returned to GTMO as soon as 

medically feasible. The Secretary of Defense would be required to 

notify the appropriate committees of Congress of any transfer 

under this authority not later than 30 days in advance of the transfer or, if the need for emergency medical treatment is immediate, 

not later than 5 days after the transfer. 

The committee makes note of the U.S. obligations under domestic 

law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to provide 

for the humane treatment of detainees in its custody. The authority 

granted under this section would address concerns raised by the 

Commander, U.S. Southern Command, and others regarding the 

level of medical care available to GTMO detainees and the challenges, taking into account the aging of that detainee population, 

of ensuring humane treatment. 

Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of individuals 

detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of Department of Defense funds to transfer, release, or otherwise assist in the transfer or release, of any Guantanamo detainee 

to Yemen during the period beginning on the date of the enactment 

of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and 

review of certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on Department of Defense (DOD) civilian positions, including the number of civilian positions created between 

September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2013, as a result of military 

to civilian conversions, the number of positions created as temporary positions that are being converted back to military positions, and the number of civilian positions that have been or are 

being eliminated. 

The provision would also express the sense of Congress that the 

number of civilian positions should be reduced simultaneously 

with, and by the same percentages, as the corresponding reductions 

in military end strengths. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to review spending on headquarters in commands below major command with the 

objective of reducing such spending by not less than 10 percent. 

The provision would also require the updating of various DOD 

instructions and regulations to improve tracking and reporting 

headquarters personnel and resources. 

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
169 

partment of Defense (DOD) and persons on that property. The provision provides that the Secretary may designate personnel to: (1) 

Enforce federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons 

and property; (2) Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct 

investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD. 

This new authority would not apply in those locations currently 

under the protection of the Federal Protective Service, for example, 

office buildings provided by the General Services Administration in 

which DOD organizations are tenants. 

Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support services 

(sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1588(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service 

secretaries to accept voluntary legal support services provided by 

law students through internship and externship programs approved by the secretary concerned. 

Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among 

leadership of the Department of Defense provided physical protection and personal security (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to include the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau as one of the specified persons in the Department 

of Defense who, by nature of their positions, require continuous security and protection. 

Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for assignment of civilian employees of the Department of Defense 

as advisors to foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111–84), as most recently amended by section 

1094 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66), to expand the authority of the Secretary 

of Defense to provide Department of Defense advisors to regional 

organizations. 

The committee notes that regional conflicts and other security 

challenges continue in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa, and that an expanded authority that allows the Secretary of Defense to provide advisors to regional organizations, such as the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Gulf Cooperation Council 

(GCC), or other comparable regional organization, would better enable the Secretary to advance U.S. national security and mutual security objectives in specific regions. 

The committee notes that the United States is working with its 

GCC partner nations to improve regional air and missile defense 

capabilities, including data sharing and multilateral cooperation. 

The committee believes that such multilateral cooperation would 

enhance regional security and would provide significant improvements beyond national and bi-national capabilities. The expansion 

of the so-called Minister of Defense Advisor program to regional organizations is a prudent step that could assist in advancing the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
170 

gional security objectives stated by the Secretary of Defense at the 

2013 Manama Dialogue. 

Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of 

activities for nongovernmental personnel at Department 

of Defense regional centers for security studies (sec. 

1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for 

the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek reimbursement for the 

costs associated with the attendance of personnel from nongovernmental DOD regional centers for security studies, as most recently 

amended by section 1094(b) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports 

Reports on recommendations of the National Commission 

on the Structure of the Air Force (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit annual reports for each fiscal 

year from 2016 through 2019 on how the Air Force is implementing 

the recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure 

of the Air Force. In the first such report, the Secretary would be 

required to establish milestones for the Air Force’s review of the 

Commission recommendations, and a preliminary implementation 

plan for such recommendations that do not require further review. 

Subsequent reports would identify progress in achieving milestones 

established in previous reports and establish milestones for implementing those recommendations for which analysis of the recommendation had been completed since the previous report. 

The Air Force staff indicates that the Air Force: (1) Agrees with 

10 recommendations now; (2) Agrees in principle with 26 other recommendations, but requires some further clarification on those; (3) 

Has no position on 5 recommendations that will require further 

analysis; and (4) Disagrees with one recommendation. The recommendation with which the Air Force disagrees is one to disestablish the Air Force Reserve Command, which would require a 

change in legislation. The Air Force staff further indicates that 

they will have completed roughly four-fifths of their reviews of the 

other 41 recommendations by the end of calendar year 2014. Therefore, the committee expects that the Secretary’s first report will establish milestones for most, if not all, 41 Commission recommendations. 

Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam era 

(sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review, by not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the logs of each Navy ship known 

to have operated in the waters near Vietnam between January 9, 

1962, and May 7, 1975, to determine whether the ship operated in 

the territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam during that period, and, for each ship that operated in these waters during that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
171 

time, the date or dates that the ship so operated and the distance 

from the shore of the location where the ship operated. The Secretary would be required to provide this determination and information to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Assessment of the operations research tools, processes, and 

capabilities in support of requirements analysis for 

major defense acquisition programs and allocation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets (sec. 

1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), in consultation 

with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics (USD (AT&L)), and the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation (CAPE), to conduct an assessment of the 

operations research tools, processes, and capabilities used to support the analysis of requirements for new systems acquisitions and 

the analysis, validation, and prioritization of requirements for the 

allocation of existing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) assets to the combatant commands. The provision would require the VCJCS, the USD (AT&L), and the Director of CAPE to 

brief Congress on the results of this assessment within 180 days 

of enactment of this Act. 

The provision would also require the VCJCS to provide to the 

congressional defense and intelligence committees, within 90 days 

of enactment of this Act, the data collected and the operations research analysis of that data used to validate the requirements submitted by the combatant commands for ISR asset allocation under 

the Global Force Management Process (GFMAP) for fiscal year 

2015 and to determine ISR asset allocation. 

The committee has long been concerned about the standardization and quality of the analysis conducted of requirements for systems acquisition programs in the Department of Defense (DOD), 

and of the GFMAP to validate and prioritize resources in a manner 

that does not over-allocate resources to one combatant commander. 

Senior officials in the Joint Staff J–8 Directorate (Force Structure, 

Resources, and Assessment) informed the committee 2 years ago 

that substantial improvements were needed in the analysis of requirements for new acquisition programs in order to adequately 

balance cost, performance, schedule, and risk. The committee was 

also informed that the J–8 lacked sufficient operations research expertise and planned to add personnel to the Directorate’s staff, and 

to work with CAPE to access CAPE’s analytic expertise and resources for front-end requirements analysis. These initiatives were 

not implemented. 

The Defense Science Board Advisory Group (DSB AG) on Defense 

Intelligence issued a report in January 2009, titled, ‘‘Operations 

Research Applications for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.’’ This study included a broad review of the use of operations research methods across DOD and the commitment of decisionmakers to base their decisions on the outcome of this rigorous 

type of analysis. The AG concluded that operations research is a 

‘‘powerful tool to help improve the quality of investment decision 

making . . . in which significant consequences and resources are at 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
172 

stake.’’ The AG noted that operations research cannot be institutionalized ‘‘without strong commitment, support, and advocacy from 

senior leadership.’’ The AG concluded that ‘‘save for a few ‘points 

of light,’ operations research is in decline and not universally valued in decision making, especially at the strategic level, and with 

respect to investment decisions and systems acquisition.’’ 

With respect to the GFMAP for ISR asset allocation, the level of 

analysis supporting geographic combatant command requirements 

is inconsistent, with some commands struggling to define and defend their requirements. There is also insufficient analysis and 

standardization of data collected for the validation and 

prioritization of submitted requirements at the Joint Staff level, 

and inadequate processes to inform allocation decisions with a comprehensive awareness of, and deconfliction with, collection assets 

and activities that are not included in the GFMAP. One consequence of these shortcomings has been that a few commands garner almost all of the ISR assets committed to the GFMAP. 

The committee fully understands that the needs of one or more 

combatant commands can be dominant, as has been the case for 

U.S. Central Command since September 11, 2001, but the committee doubts that a rigorous analysis would consistently rank the 

lowest priorities of one or more combatant commands higher than 

the highest priorities of other combatant commands. The committee 

notes that at least two geographic combatant commands have less 

than 10 percent of their total requirements being met. In the case 

of one of those combatant commands, U.S. Africa Command 

(AFRICOM), the threat from terrorism and the inability of the 

GFMAP to prioritize and allocate additional ISR resources gives 

the committee pause. Over the last 3 years, AFRICOM has seen 

the emergence of numerous conflicts including major conflagrations 

in Mali, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Libya. The inability of the GFMAP to prioritize and allocate ISR resources have 

resulted in skewed allocations of ISR resources, leaving the DOD 

unable to predict or respond to emerging crises. 

A decade ago, DOD established the Joint Functional Component 

Command for ISR (JFCC–ISR) under United States Strategic Command. An independent assessment group was created in the JFCC– 

ISR to analyze requirements and the performance of deployed ISR 

assets. This group has some operations research expertise and capacity, and has endeavored to collect data and analyze needs for 

and the performance of ISR assets. However, the committee is concerned that these analyses have not led to any improvement in requirements generation and validation, or greater efficiency in the 

use of ISR assets. 

The committee believes DOD must improve its ability to analyze, 

validate, and prioritize both new systems acquisitions and the allocation of ISR assets to the combatant commands. If the Joint Staff 

is unable to present convincing analyses or arbitrate effectively between the combatant commands, changes need to be made. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
173 

Review of United States military strategy and the force posture of allies and partners in the United States Pacific 

Command area of responsibility (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to commission an independent review of the 

U.S. Asia-Pacific re-balance, with a focus on policy issues that will 

be critical for the next 10 years, following the enactment of this 

Act. 

The organization shall submit to the Secretary of Defense an unclassified report along with a classified annex not later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act. 

Not later than 90 days after receipt of the report, the Secretary 

of Defense shall submit the report and its annex to the congressional defense committees, along with any comments the Secretary 

deems appropriate. 

Department of Defense policies on community involvement 

in Department community outreach events (sec. 1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, a 

report on the policies of the Department of Defense (DOD) on the 

involvement of non-Federal entities in DOD community outreach 

events (including, but not limited to, air shows, parades, and open 

houses) that feature any unit, aircraft, vessel, equipment, or members of the Armed Forces. 

Comptroller General of the United States briefing and report on management of the conventional ammunition 

demilitarization stockpile of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1066) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees on the management of the 

conventional ammunition demilitarization stockpile of the Department of Defense no later than April 30, 2015. The briefing shall be 

followed by a report no later than June 1, 2015. 

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 

1067) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or 

modify a number of reporting requirements that have been included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for repeal or modification in this provision are requirements identified by 

the committee as being no longer relevant or necessary and that 

can be repealed or modified without adversely affecting the committee’s oversight responsibilities. 

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the 

United States annual reviews and report on pilot program on commercial fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1068) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for a Comptroller General review of a pilot program on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
174 

commercial fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air Force. 

Since enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–81), the pilot program has yet to be 

used. 

Subtitle G—Uniformed Services Voting 

PART I—PROVISION OF VOTER ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE

ARMED FORCES

Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to develop an online system to provide annual voting assistance to active duty servicemembers. 

Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1566a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize, but not require, service secretaries to designate offices on military installations to provide absent uniformed services voters and their family 

members with voting information and assistance. 

PART II—ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS

Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec. 1076) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002 (Public Law 107–107) that requires the Secretary of Defense 

to conduct an electronic voting demonstration project for absent 

military voters. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian employees on workplace and gender relations matters (sec. 

1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 23 of title 10, United States Code, to require biennial surveys 

of civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) to solicit 

information on gender issues, including issues relating to genderbased assault, harassment, and discrimination, and the climate in 

the DOD for forming professional relationships between male and 

female employees of the DOD. The provision would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 

feasibility of conducting similar surveys of military dependents and 

DOD contractors. 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory 

Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense (DOD) more flexibility in engaging with the 

National Ocean Partnership Program and the Ocean Research AdVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
175 

visory Panel (ORAP). The committee believes that this flexibility 

will allow DOD and the Navy to balance the application of resources for this activity with other potential activities and is consistent with the Secretary of Defense’s Efficiency Initiatives. The 

committee notes that much of the work of ORAP has been more related to civilian ocean research issues, rather than defense-related 

matters. The committee further notes that this provision was recommended by the Administration and DOD. 

Authority to require employees of the Department of Defense and members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps to occupy quarters on a rental basis while 

performing official travel (sec. 1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5911 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to establish a government lodging program and to require its use by servicemembers and Department of Defense (DOD) 

civilians performing official travel. The provision would also require the Secretary to report to the appropriate congressional committees within 18 months on DOD’s implementation of this program and savings achieved. 

Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use the 

Department of Defense reimbursement rates for transportation services provided to certain non-Department 

of Defense entities (sec. 1084) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2642 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority 

to provide transportation services beyond other Federal agencies to 

include: (1) State, local, and tribal agencies (including any organizations composed of State, local, and tribal agencies); and (2) Defense contractors, when those contractors are transporting supplies 

for, or destined for, a Department of Defense entity. 

Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of disabled 

and low-income veterans (sec. 1085) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a pilot 

program to award grants to qualified organizations to rehabilitate 

and modify the primary residence of eligible veterans. 

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States Code, and 

various National Defense Authorization Acts. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army force structure and installation alignment 

The committee is aware of the Army’s end strength and force 

structure reductions and changes made last year in accordance 

with the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG). The 

DSG directed the reduction of Army active end strength to 490,000 

soldiers and the inactivation of eight combat brigades. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
176 

In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a March 2013 

letter, requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment of the Army’s analysis and decisionmaking processes associated with planned force structure reductions and their alignment 

with installations. The GAO’s assessment, reported in December 

2013, noted that the Army used a variety of analyses to inform its 

decisionmaking processes, including ‘‘obtaining input through open 

meetings with communities around installations being considered 

for stationing changes.’’ The GAO recommended that the Army 

needed to update and document its rules for future analysis of force 

structure realignments and stationing decisions. 

The committee notes that, in order to meet Budget Control Act 

caps, the Army plans the additional active Army end strength reductions to 450,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2017. This will result in 

additional unit inactivations at Army posts around the country. 

The committee is interested to learn how the Army has updated its 

analysis and decisionmaking processes and how it will incorporate 

its 2013 decisions for force realignments into another round of reductions. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Army, or designee, shall 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than April 30, 2015, that: 

(1) Identifies the analytical methodology and decisionmaking 

processes that will be used for force structure reductions related to active end strength of 450,000 soldiers or less by 2017 

or beyond; 

(2) Identifies the changes to the methodology or process, as 

recommended by the GAO; 

(3) Details the schedule for conducting its analysis, including 

completion of environmental assessments and planned public 

meetings or information sessions with installations’ communities; 

(4) Details how implementation of force realignment decisions made in 2013 are being or will be executed, and how 

uninitiated, incomplete, and planned force realignments will be 

incorporated into the assessment of installations; and 

(5) Certifies that the Army will comply with the requirements of chapter 55, title 42, United States Code, (National 

Environmental Policy Act), and with the requirements of section 993, title 10, United States Code, for prompt congressional 

notification of additional force structure modifications, reductions, and additions. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of burdensharing agreements and posture costs 

The committee notes that as part of its three strategic objectives 

listed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) will continue to rebalance and sustain its global 

posture. This will include continuing to invest resources in the 

Asia-Pacific region in order to preserve critical political, economic, 

and security interests. At the forefront of this rebalancing will be 

the partnerships with two of our most important allies, Japan and 

the Republic of Korea (ROK). In addition, given DOD’s deep and 

abiding interests in maintaining and expanding European security 

and prosperity and particularly in light of recent events in eastern 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
177 

Europe, DOD will also continue to work with our long-standing European allies to promote regional stability, as well as to improve capacity, interoperability, and strategic access for coalition operations. Most of these partnerships date back over 50 years, allowing U.S. forces access to land and facilities in host countries. 

Host nation support, through burden-sharing agreements, has 

been critical to helping offset the costs of stationing U.S. forces in 

many countries. Burden-sharing arrangements, such as Special 

Measures Agreements with Japan and the ROK, have contributed 

billions of dollars to mitigate the costs associated with a forwardbased U.S. military presence, including such costs as labor, utilities, and construction. Due to rising costs associated with stationing forces overseas and the security benefits that accrue to both 

the host nation and the United States, these agreements play a 

pivotal role in DOD’s current and future strategic planning. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed several studies on U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific region as 

well as in Europe. While these reports highlighted areas for improvement in planning and data collection, DOD’s process and parameters for negotiating and monitoring burden-sharing agreements with host nations, or similar host nation support and payment agreements, are not clear to the committee. As a result of the 

challenges faced by DOD associated with Global Force Management and current fiscal uncertainties, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to analyze and report on 

the following: 

(1) How does DOD estimate the costs of its overseas presence 

and use this information to develop burden-sharing agreements or similar host nation support and payments; 

(2) Does DOD calculate the percentage of current and future 

costs host nation support is covering and how does it determine what to include in that calculation; 

(3) What is DOD’s process for determining what is to be included in burden-sharing agreements or similar host nation 

support and payments; and 

(4) To what extent is DOD monitoring the execution of host 

nation support, including the support provided under burdensharing agreements? 

(5) How does DOD account for and inform Congress of host 

nation contributions? 

(6) Any other matters the Comptroller General deems appropriate to include as a result of its review. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 

on the above questions by April 30, 2015, with a report to follow 

by June 1, 2015. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the National Guard Counterdrug Program 

Since 1989, the National Guard has worked with law enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to perform 

interdiction and anti-drug activities. The National Guard 

Counterdrug Program operates in 54 U.S. States and territories 

with approximately 2,500 soldiers and airmen supporting more 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
178 

than 5,000 agencies at the local, state, and federal levels to prevent 

illicit drugs from being imported, manufactured, and distributed. In 

fiscal year 2012, the National Guard Counterdrug Program began 

implementing a threat-based resource model to allocate funding to 

States and territories based on performance metrics and the severity of the narcotics threat. According to the National Guard Bureau, the model aligns with Department of Defense priorities as 

outlined by the National Security Strategy and Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats. 

The committee is concerned that it has an incomplete picture of 

the goals and activities of the National Guard Counterdrug Program as well as how resources are being expended. It is imperative 

that the National Guard Bureau have data, metrics, and analyses 

to manage the program that are reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and reflect the changing nature of narcotics trafficking activities. Moreover, given the inter-agency nature of U.S. 

counterdrug activities, it is critical that the National Guard Bureau 

cooperate and share information associated with its planned activities with relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an independent assessment of the program including: (1) The 

activities and resources associated with the National Guard 

Counterdrug Program and the trends, if any, over time; (2) The 

process used to identify, prioritize, and select activities for funding 

and implementation; (3) The framework used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of activities; and (4) Whether the plans and 

activities of the National Guard program support the efforts of 

interagency partners and align with broader U.S. goals. The Comptroller General may include other areas in the assessment as 

deemed appropriate if such inclusion would assist in oversight of 

the program. The Comptroller General should brief the committee 

by November 15, 2014, on the preliminary results of the study, 

with a report to follow as agreed to with the committee. 

Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan 

The Government of Afghanistan ordered the extra-judicial release of 65 Afghan detainees on February 13, 2014, despite extensive information and evidence from U.S. Forces–Afghanistan 

(USFOR–A) that the detainees posed a continuing threat if released. According to USFOR–A, the released detainees were linked 

to wounding or killing 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan 

National Security Forces or civilians. The Commander, USFOR–A, 

objected to these releases, on the basis that they were in contradiction to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the 

Afghan Minister of Defense and the Commander, USFOR–A, on 

March 25, 2013, regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees in U.S. 

law-of-armed-conflict custody to the custody of the Government of 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). The agreed-upon 

process was violated when the Afghan Review Board did not consider the evidence submitted by USFOR–A or engage in an information exchange prior to the detainees’ release as set forth in the 

MOU. The committee remains concerned that the GIRoA will seek 

to release the 23 remaining dangerous Afghan detainees the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
179 

USFOR–A has contested, and calls on the GIRoA to adhere to the 

procedures agreed to in the existing MOU. 

The committee also notes that the detainees that the GIRoA continues to hold have been determined to be Enduring Security 

Threats (EST). The committee supports the continued detention of 

ESTs, in accordance with the provisions of the existing MOU, and 

believes that any change to the status of ESTs other than as provided in the MOU should only occur as mutually agreed between 

the GIRoA and USFOR–A. 

The committee remains concerned about the disposition of the 

detainees that remain under the control of USFOR–A, and therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the committee, by not 

later than June 30, 2014, and thereafter as requested by the committee, on the disposition plan for third-country nationals (TCN) 

currently being held by USFOR–A. The briefing should include the 

U.S. Government’s plan for the continued detention, transfer, or release of TCNs under U.S. control currently held in Afghanistan, the 

process for reviewing the status of TCNs, and any plans for the 

prosecution of TCNs. 

National Guard Counterdrug Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) requests funding annually to support the National Guard 

Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP 

plays an important role in providing military-specific capabilities 

and expertise resident within the National Guard to support the 

counterdrug activities of federal, state, and local authorities. This 

support includes the provision of linguists, intelligence, transportation, logistics, reconnaissance, training, education, and prevention outreach. The committee notes that budgetary pressures have 

led DOD to decrease the annual budget request for the CDP in recent years. 

Further, the committee understands that these cuts have caused 

a disruption or curtailment of CDP operations, including the 

planned closure of the five regional counterdrug training centers in 

fiscal year 2015. The committee encourages DOD to continue its 

support for the CDP and to provide adequate funding to ensure the 

sustainability of the program. 

Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 

examine the CDP on an ongoing basis to ensure it keeps pace with 

the evolving nature of illicit trafficking enterprise. 

Preparing for increased Arctic operations 

The committee notes that the Arctic is an area of increasing strategic and economic importance to the United States. The opening 

of new maritime shipping lanes and increased access to abundant 

deposits of natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, will provide opportunities and challenges to U.S. national interests. The 

committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for increasing its focus on this region and encourages DOD to continue 

to plan for operating in what will likely become a more crowded 

and potentially more contested region. The committee is also interested in ensuring that DOD, in coordination with the Department 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

of Homeland Security, focuses on developing and acquiring capabilities that will enable the United States to operate effectively in 

the Arctic in the coming years. The United States is an Arctic nation that stands to benefit from increased access to that region, and 

it is critical that our national security strategies and capabilities 

keep pace with our growing interests, especially as other nations 

increase their activity in the Arctic. 

Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire suppression and other purposes 

Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) directed transfers of Department of 

Defense (DOD) and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft to other departments 

of the Federal Government for wildfire suppression and other purposes. 

The committee understands that discussions among the agencies 

on implementing that direction have been collaborative and productive. The committee knows that such transactions are complex. 

However, the committee has been informed that the Air Force 

General Counsel has decided that the specific word ‘‘transfer’’ in 

Section 1098(a) requires the Coast Guard to convey title, engineering services, and technical authority of the HC–130H to the Air 

Force. The committee understands this would be a cumbersome 

and paperwork-intensive process for the short period of time that 

the Air Force would possess the aircraft for modifications and 

depot-level maintenance prescribed in section 1098(a) before relinquishing the aircraft. Such an interpretation was not the intention 

of the committee nor was it the committee’s intention to complicate 

the process of implementing section 1098(a) that deals with HC– 

130H transfers. 

The Air Force routinely conducts depot-level maintenance and 

modifications of HC–130H aircraft on behalf of the Coast Guard 

without having to convey title from the Coast Guard to the Air 

Force. The interpretation of the Air Force General Counsel could 

significantly delay implementation of depot-level maintenance and 

firefighting modifications required by section 1098(a), and thus 

delay providing much needed firefighting capacity improvements to 

the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Forest Service 

briefed the committee on an execution plan in February 2014. That 

plan included having the Air Force modify Coast Guard HC–130H 

aircraft and provide firefighting-capable aircraft to the Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. This plan did not involve a 

transfer as interpreted by the Air Force General Counsel. The committee supports that execution plan. To that end, the committee directs the DOD General Counsel to review the interpretation of the 

Air Force General Counsel and ensure that the word ‘‘transfer’’ as 

used in section 1098(a) is used consistent with the congressional intent not to require title of HC–130H aircraft from the Coast Guard 

to the Air Force while the Air Force executes this modification. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(181) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Extension and modification of experimental program for 

scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical modifications to a special hiring authority used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and other agencies to 

hire world-class technical experts to serve as research and development program managers. 

Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan relating 

to senior management, functional, and technical 

workforces of the Department of Defense (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 115b of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to prepare a biennial strategic workforce plan that addresses the shaping and improvement of the senior management 

workforce of the Department of Defense and includes an assessment of the senior functional and technical workforce of the Department within the appropriate functional community. The provision would also add a requirement that the strategic workforce 

plan include an assessment of the workforce of the Department 

comprised of highly qualified experts. 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

Federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as most recently 

amended by section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), to extend through 2015 

the authority of heads of executive agencies to waive limitations on 

the aggregate of basic and premium pay of employees who perform 

work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of 

the Commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM but has been moved to an 

area of responsibility of the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in 

support of a military operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the United 

States Cyber Command (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that enhanced personnel authorities are needed 

for hiring, compensating, and promoting civilian personnel supporting U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), perhaps modeled on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) established in title 10 sections 1601 through 1607. The provision also 

would require the Principal Cyber Advisor, within 180 days of enactment, to provide recommendations to the Secretary of Defense 

to improve the support provided by CYBERCOM’s executive agent, 

the Department of the Air Force, in the area of civilian personnel, 

both through administrative actions and legislation. 

The committee notes that the DCIPS authorities available to defense intelligence agencies and components provide special hiring, 

compensation, and promotion authorities that enable these agencies and components to compete effectively to recruit and retain civilian employees with critical skills and experience. Congress has 

also provided enhanced authorities to manage specialized civilian 

personnel at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and 

the research laboratories of the military services. CYBERCOM 

must compete directly with the National Security Agency and the 

private sector for personnel with technical cyber skills and is currently at a significant disadvantage in terms of desirable positions, 

rates of pay, and career advancement opportunities. The committee 

believes that providing enhanced personnel management authorities for CYBERCOM civilians is important and justified to ensure 

that CYBERCOM can fulfill its missions. 

Item of Special Interest 

Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees 

with cyber skills 

The committee recognizes the growth in the number of Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees supporting critical and 

evolving cyber missions of the DOD. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether a program that involves predictable assignments or details of DOD civilian personnel with 

cyber skills to other military departments or DOD civilian positions 

in U.S. Cyber Command and Cyber Mission Forces units would enhance the professional development and career progression of the 

civilian employees. The committee directs the Secretary to report 

the results of this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 

January 31, 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(183) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Modification of Department of Defense authority for humanitarian stockpiled conventional munitions assistance 

programs (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

definitions contained in section 407 of title 10, United States Code, 

regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance. 

Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds for 

assistance for units of foreign security forces that have 

committed a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code, to include a limitation on 

the use of funds for training, equipment, or other assistance for the 

members of a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a 

gross violation of human rights. In addition to a waiver for extraordinary circumstances, the provision would authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to provide training, equipment, or other assistance for 

disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or national security emergencies, as well as to conduct human rights training. Should an exception or waiver be exercised by the Secretary, the provision requires the Secretary to submit a notification to the congressional 

defense committees within 15 days. In carrying out this provision, 

the Secretary of Defense is required to consult regularly with the 

Secretary of State. 

The committee notes that since fiscal year 1999, the annual Department of Defense appropriations bills have included a provision 

with a similar limitation and that in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–86), this provision 

was expanded beyond training to include the provision of equipment and other assistance. The committee supports the intent of 

this annual appropriation limitation and, as such, is incorporating 

it into title 10, United States Code, to ensure that action on this 

matter is not needed annually in the future. 

Codification and enhancement of authority to build the capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify in title 

10, United States Code, the authority currently under section 1206 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) as amended (the ‘‘section 1206 authority’’), 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a program to train-andequip foreign security forces to build their capacity to conduct 

counterterrorism operations. The provision would also modify the 

authority to provide for training and equipping foreign military 

forces to participate in or support allied or coalition military or stability operations that benefit U.S. national security interests, and 

raise the limitation on the amount that can be used for such purposes from $100.0 million to $150.0 million of the total amount of 

funds authorized for the train-and-equip program under this section. The provision would include a limitation on the amount of 

funds authorized for the train-and-equip program of $350.0 million. 

An additional $150.0 million may be used to fund activities under 

the train-and-equip program authority if such additional funds are 

transferred for these purposes by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) under established reprogramming procedures. The total 

amount authorized, if the reprogramming option were to be fully 

executed, would be $500.0 million. 

In addition, the provision would codify the authority for the Secretary of Defense to use funds under the section 1206 authority to 

conduct assessments of the effectiveness of the program in building 

the operational capability and performance of recipient units. The 

provision would require annual reports through 2025 summarizing 

the findings of such assessments. The committee supports the 

DOD’s efforts to develop an assessment methodology for evaluating 

train-and-equip programs, which the committee understands is currently set out in the Section 1206 Assessment Handbook. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General to conduct, through 2025, annual audits of train-and-equip programs, as 

selected by the Comptroller General in consultation with the appropriate congressional committees, to provide an outside assessment 

of the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their objectives. 

The committee believes that, since its inception in fiscal year 

2006, the global train-and-equip program has developed into a critical tool for DOD leaders and military commanders to build the capacity of partner nations’ forces to address emerging and urgent 

threats, including to counter the threat of terrorism as this threat 

has proliferated and diversified. The maturity and proven track 

record of this program, closely coordinated between the DOD and 

the Department of State, is a primary motivation for codifying the 

section 1206 authority. The committee emphasizes that the focus of 

the section 1206 authority on addressing emerging and urgent 

threats has been fundamental to its successful implementation and 

urges the DOD to continue to prioritize programs on this basis, including to counter the threat posed by terrorist groups in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and the Levant. 

The committee notes that during the last several years of coalition operations in Afghanistan, section 1206 authority has served 

as a valuable force multiplier by building the capacity of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and other coalition 

partners to participate in stability operations and special operations in Afghanistan—directly contributing to the furtherance of 

U.S. national security objectives. Even as combat operations in Afghanistan are coming to an end, there remains a significant requirement for interoperability with allied and coalition military 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

forces, including special operations forces. The committee encourages the DOD to continue capacity-building efforts under section 

1206 authority with NATO members and coalition partners in light 

of the security concerns in Eastern Europe and Ukraine. 

Training of security forces and associated ministries of foreign countries to promote respect for the rule of law 

and human rights (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct human rights training of security 

forces and associated ministries of foreign countries. The provision 

would require that the activities conducted pursuant to this section 

have the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the provision 

would define the activities considered to be human rights training. 

Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency 

Fund authority (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2017 the authority under section 1207 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81), as amended, for the Global Security Contingency 

Fund (GSCF). The provision would also clarify the types of assistance that could be provided under the fund and the sources of Department of Defense funding that could be transferred to support 

the GSCF. 

The committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in 

Ukraine and the urgent security assistance needs of Ukraine and 

other countries at risk in Eastern Europe. The committee notes 

that at the time the GSCF was presented to the committee as a 

legislative proposal, the fund was intended in large part to address 

the challenges the U.S. Government faced in identifying readilyavailable sources of security assistance funding following the Georgian-Russian conflict in August 2008. The committee encourages 

the administration to consider making full use of the GSCF as part 

of a security assistance program for Ukraine and Eastern European countries. 

At the same time, the committee has concerns about the poor 

track record with regard to the timely implementation of GSCF 

projects to date. While intended to provide a flexible authority, 

GSCF execution has suffered due to significant delays in developing the interagency procedures for selecting and implementing 

projects under the program. As a result, only recently have a number of GSCF projects begun to be implemented. In addition, the 

committee is concerned that certain GSCF projects, such as the effort to build the capacity of border security forces in Libya, are already at risk of being suspended, partially due to planning shortcomings. The committee strongly urges the Departments of State 

and Defense to quickly take the steps necessary to address these 

shortcomings and to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend 

certain military equipment to certain foreign forces for 

personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority under section 1202 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364), as amended, to use the procedures under acquisition and 

cross-servicing agreements to lend certain personnel protection 

equipment to foreign military forces participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirement 

that the United States be reimbursed for the cost of such equipment if the equipment is lost in combat during coalition operations. 

Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel protection 

and personnel survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify in title 

10, United States Code, an authority for the Secretary of Defense, 

with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to enter into arrangements under acquisition and cross-servicing agreements 

(ACSA) to loan personnel protection and personnel survivability 

equipment to foreign military forces for their use in coalition operations with the United States as part of a contingency operation or 

a peacekeeping operation under the United Nations Charter or another international agreement. The provision would include a waiver of the requirement to reimburse the United States for the loss 

of such equipment if the loss occurred in combat during operations 

for which the equipment was loaned. 

The committee recognizes the importance to coalition operations 

in Afghanistan of the ability of the United States to loan personnel 

protection and personnel survivability equipment to coalition partners under the temporary authority of section 1202 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364). The Department of Defense (DOD) has interpreted this authority narrowly, consistent with the memorandum titled, ‘‘Approval and Delegation of Authority to Transfer 

Personnel Protection Equipment and Other Personnel Survivability 

Significant Military Equipment (SME) to Certain Foreign Forces 

Under Existing Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements 

(ACSAs),’’ issued by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. 

Carter on November 25, 2011. The committee encourages DOD to 

take a similar approach to implementing any program to loan 

equipment under ACSA under the authority of this section. 

Extension and modification of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism contained in section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as 

amended, through fiscal year 2016, and increase the annual cap on 

the authority from $50.0 million to $60.0 million. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) 

testified on March 11, 2014, that ‘‘Section 1208 authority has been 

absolutely critical to our current and future efforts against alQa’ida and organizations of their ilk. It provides us the ability to 

apply a modest portion of our annual budget to deliver critical 

enablers to select irregular forces, groups or individuals, directly 

involved in the terrorism fight. This authority uniquely provides 

SOCOM with access and skill sets in locations where we may not 

otherwise be able to operate, subject to the Secretary of Defense 

granting specific operational authority. The strategic value of enabling and leveraging such forces to carry out tactical operations 

alongside, or even in lieu of, U.S. forces cannot be overstated.’’ 

The committee supports the use of section 1208 authority by U.S. 

Special Operations Forces to enhance operations in support of U.S. 

counterterrorism objectives. The committee also encourages continued vigilance by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and SOCOM in ensuring that 

the authority is used to support operational requirements vice longterm capacity-building efforts with partner-nation security forces. 

Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the conflict 

in Syria (sec. 1209) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide equipment, supplies, training, and 

defense services to assist the vetted elements of the Syrian opposition for the purposes of: (1) Defending the Syrian people from the 

attacks of the Syrian regime; (2) Protecting the United States, our 

friends and allies, and the Syrian people from terrorist elements; 

and (3) Promoting the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end 

the conflict in Syria. The provision would also establish requirements for an element of the Syrian opposition to be deemed vetted, 

permit the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to third countries for purposes of the provision of training and equipment, and 

the authority to accept contributions from other nations. The Secretary of State’s concurrence would be required to conduct activities under this authority. 

The committee notes that the authority granted in this provision 

does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on 

the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations. 

Further, should a determination be made to use this authority, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees on the Department’s execution plan, including but not limited to: (1) the process established to vet prospective Syrian opposition participants; (2) the role the United 

States Armed Forces will play in the execution of the plan; and (3) 

methods for ensuring the accountability of lethal equipment intended to be transferred to the Syrian opposition. Such briefing 

should be provided no less than 30 days before plan execution. 

Given the importance and breadth of issues associated with U.S. 

activities involving the situation in Syria, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make available to the intelligence 

committees information related to the support provided under this 

authority. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 

Limitations on security assistance for the Government of 

Burma (sec. 1210) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit security 

assistance funding for the Government of Burma unless the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies that the Government of Burma is taking steps toward implementing human rights reform, terminating military relations with 

North Korea, and implementing other steps toward broader military reform. The certification would also require that the Burma 

military is adhering to ceasefire agreements and demonstrating increased transparency and accountability. The provision would provide an exception to the above limitation to allow for security assistance funding for the Government of Burma for human rights 

and disaster relief training, including on issues such as the law of 

armed conflict, English-language training, regional norms of security assistance, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief 

(HADR), as well as observation of HADR military exercises. 

The provision would also require an annual report on, among 

other issues, the Burma Government’s strategy for security sector 

reform, U.S. strategy and objectives for the military-to-military relationship between the United States and Burma, and a description 

and assessment of the record of the Burma military with respect 

to the implementation of human rights reforms. It would also include reporting on the military-to-military activities between the 

United States and Burma that have already occurred and that are 

planned to occur in the future. 

The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) will 

begin human rights, humanitarian, and disaster relief training and 

education for the Burma military, as laid out in section (a)(2) of the 

provision, in fiscal year 2015, under a DOD program, such as the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies or the Defense Institute Reform Initiative. 

Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department 

of Defense to provide training, equipment, or other assistance or reimbursement to foreign security forces 

(sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a biennial report to Congress in fiscal years 2016, 2018, and 2020 describing the programs conducted by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) during the previous 2 fiscal years to provide training, equipment, or other security assistance or reimbursement to foreign security forces. The information would be provided on a country-bycountry basis. The provision would supersede the reporting requirement under section 1209 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which would be repealed under this section. 

Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian assistance 

and disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that expresses the sense 

of the Senate that: 

(1) Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) multilateral exercises provide nations in the Asia-Pacific region 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
189 

with the training, capacity building, and coordination expertise 

necessary to respond to natural disasters; and 

(2) Both the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan should 

be afforded the opportunity to attend future multilateral 

(HADR) exercises to increase their capacity to effectively respond to these types of disasters. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 

Iraq 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 

(sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 

$20.0 million available during fiscal year 2015 for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan 

under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) as amended. The provision 

would also reduce the aggregate amount of CERP funds that could 

be spent on any one project to $2.0 million. 

The committee notes that a primary purpose of CERP has been 

to enhance force protection by winning the support of local communities in areas where U.S. combat forces are deployed. With the 

drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the end of major combat operations after December 2014, the committee believes that 

reductions in CERP funding should continue to the minimum level 

commensurate with the train, advise, and assist mission anticipated for U.S. forces in 2015 and beyond. 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 1222 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to transfer defense articles being drawn down in 

Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in connection with 

such transfers, to the military and security forces of Afghanistan. 

The provision would also extend through fiscal year 2015 the exemption for excess defense articles (EDA) transferred from Department of Defense (DOD) stocks in Afghanistan from counting toward 

the annual limitation on the aggregate value of EDA transferred 

under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 87– 

195). 

The committee understands that DOD has determined that several hundred Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in 

Afghanistan have been determined to be excess to U.S. defense 

needs and therefore will either be transferred as excess defense articles to foreign security forces or destroyed. The committee believes that these MRAP vehicles could provide the Afghan National 

Security Forces with valuable mobility and personnel protection 

and urges the Secretary of Defense to consider transferring these 

excess MRAP vehicles under the authority provided in this section. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

One-year extension of authority to use funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1216 of the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 

Law 111–383) as amended, to use Department of Defense funds to 

support the reintegration of former insurgent fighters into Afghanistan society. The provision would authorize the use of up to $15.0 

million in fiscal year 2015 for these purposes. 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 

of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2015 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds (CSF) 

payments under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended. 

Under this section, the Secretary of Defense may use CSF to reimburse key nations for support provided to or in connection with 

U.S. military operations in Afghanistan or to use such funds to provide specialized training or loan specialized equipment to key nations participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The provision would limit the total amount of CSF that could be provided 

in fiscal year 2015 to $1.2 billion. Of this amount, the amount of 

CSF that could be provided to Pakistan would be limited to $900.0 

million. The provision would also extend for 1 year certain notification and certification requirements relating to CSF payments to 

Pakistan. The provision would also restrict the Secretary of Defense from waiving the certification requirements relating to $300.0 

million of the $900.0 million in CSF authorized for Pakistan unless 

the Secretary certifies that Pakistan has undertaken military operations in North Waziristan that have significantly disrupted the 

safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in 

Pakistan. 

The committee notes that CSF payments are directly tied to support provided to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and 

should not be considered to be foreign assistance by another name. 

With the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the end of 

major combat operations there, the committee expects that CSF 

payments by the Department of Defense will decline accordingly. 

One-year extension of logistical support for coalition forces 

supporting certain United States military operations 

(sec. 1225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2015 the authority to provide logistical support to coalition 

forces under section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 

Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and 

projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan 

that cannot be safely accessed by United States Government personnel (sec. 1226) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense (DOD) funds for 

DOD reconstruction or other infrastructure projects in Afghanistan 

if those projects are not safely accessible by U.S. Government personnel with authority to conduct oversight. The provision would include a waiver if certain specified conditions can be met. 

Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership 

between the United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a semiannual 

report on building and sustaining the Afghan National Security 

Forces (ANSF) through October 2017. The provision would also repeal the reporting requirement under section 1230 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181). 

Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan (sec. 

1228) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to submit semi-annually a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and extent of bilateral security 

cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. The report 

would include information on the cooperation of the Government of 

Pakistan in the search for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who was 

captured in Afghanistan in June 2009. The committee encourages 

the Secretary of Defense to make available to the intelligence committees a copy of the report required under this section. 

Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United 

States training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use up to $125.0 million of Department of 

Defense funds in each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016 to conduct surface clearance of unexploded ordnance at closed training ranges 

used by the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan. 

The committee notes that as U.S. Forces have drawn down in Afghanistan, dozens of firing ranges operated and managed by U.S. 

Forces have been closed. While strongly supportive of efforts to 

clear unexploded ordnance from these ranges, the committee notes 

that the inclusion of this authority does not create a U.S. legal obligation regarding the disposition of unexploded ordnance at these 

ranges or ranges transferred to Government of Afghanistan control 

and is not intended to serve as a precedent with respect to ranges 

in other countries or ranges transferred to Government of Afghanistan control. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 1 

fiscal year, and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program. 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1215 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to support 

on a transitional basis the operations and activities of the Office of 

Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC–I). The provision would authorize the use of up to $30.0 million in fiscal year 2015 to support 

OSC–I operations and activities. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional authority for the OSC–I to conduct non-operational training of Iraqi Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) personnel in an institutional environment to address capability gaps 

and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security forces. In 

this regard, the committee understands the term ‘‘non-operational’’ 

to mean training that is conducted while not engaged in combat operations, and is not intended to preclude training of Iraqi security 

forces on operational tactics, techniques, or procedures within an 

institutional setting such as a MOD or a CTS training facility. In 

addition, the committee believes that nothing in this provision restricts the training of MOD or CTS personnel from being conducted 

only at those facilities owned or controlled by their respective ministry or service, and therefore nothing in this provision would preclude CTS personnel from training at MOD training facilities, and 

vice versa. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Report on impact of end of major combat operations in Afghanistan on authority to use military force (sec. 1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State 

and the Attorney General, to submit a report to the appropriate 

committees of Congress assessing the impact, if any, of the end of 

major combat operations in Afghanistan on the authority of U.S. 

Armed Forces to use military force against al Qaeda, the Taliban, 

and other associated forces under the 2001 Authorization for the 

Use of Military Force or any other available legal authority. 

United States strategy for enhancing security and stability 

in Europe (sec. 1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a strategy for 

enhancing security and stability in Europe. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the 

contingency plans and force posture, readiness, and responsiveness 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in 

Europe to ensure that such forces are appropriate to meet obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, particularly the collective 

defense commitment of Article V. In addition, the provision would 

require the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop plans for reassuring our NATO allies and for enhancing U.S. security cooperation 

with appropriate countries participating in the NATO Partnership 

for Peace program, specifically those countries that are at risk or 

may become at risk of intimidation or threats to their sovereignty 

or territorial integrity from neighboring countries. Further, the provision would prohibit the use of DOD funds authorized by this Act 

to conduct bilateral security cooperation activities between the 

United States and Russia until Russia has ended its aggressive activities threatening the security of Ukraine and allied nations. The 

Secretary of Defense would be authorized to waive the applicability 

of this prohibition, if necessary, for critical U.S. national security 

needs. 

Report on military and security developments involving the 

Russian Federation (sec. 1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a detailed report on Russia’s security and military strategy. The report 

would include all the elements of the report on Russia required 

under section 1254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) and add certain specified reporting requirements. The committee remains concerned about 

Russia’s annexation and occupation of Crimea and the effect of 

Russian actions on the security and stability of Europe and Eurasia. In reporting on the force structure of the Russian military, 

the committee expects the report to include a description of Russian military forces stationed outside of Russia, Russian bases outside of Russia, and a breakout of forces stationed in Kaliningrad. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives an interim briefing by December 31, 2014, to update the information provided in the report required by June 1, 

2014, under section 1254 of Public Law 113–66, as well as progress 

on assessments of the additional items required in the expanded 

and modified report under this section. 

Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports of 

United States-China Economic and Security Review 

Commission (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise and 

update the mandate of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission’s mandate has not 

been updated since the Commission was created in 2001. The updated mandate would include additional areas of concern for the 

committee including the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) military plans, strategy and doctrine, strategic economic and security 

implications of its cyber operations, as well as the effects of energy 

and natural resource needs of the country on the foreign and military policies of the PRC. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

The committee emphasizes that the Commission and its members should adhere to the guidance in the Commission’s charter. In 

particular, the expertise of members of the Commission on matters 

relevant to the Commission’s mandate is essential to their ability 

to appropriately advise Congress. Members of the Commission 

must possess a working knowledge of national security matters and 

U.S.-China relations. The committee urges members of the Commission to cultivate and maintain expertise in such matters on an 

annual basis during their terms in order to fully and effectively 

comply with the charter. 

Further, the Commission is required to include a full discussion 

of issues listed in its mandate in each annual report. The committee urges the Commission to address all areas outlined as priorities in the Commission’s revised mandate, including matters on 

which members of the Commission have diverse or divided viewpoints. 

Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing 

on military to military engagement with the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to provide the congressional defense committees a report 

with a classified annex, if necessary, that would outline the Department of Defense (DOD) strategy with regard to maritime security 

in the South China and East China seas, including: (1) A description of planned bilateral or regional maritime capacity building initiatives; (2) An assessment of anti-access/area denial capabilities of 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC); (3) An assessment of how the 

PRC has changed the status quo with regard to competing maritime claims in those seas; (4) An analysis and assessment of the 

benefits of the military-to-military engagement between the United 

States and the PRC and potential impact on tensions in the East 

and South China Seas; and (5) A description of the naval modernization efforts of the PRC and the implications of those efforts 

for U.S. strategy for maritime security in the region. 

The provision would also require that the DOD provide the congressional defense committees a yearly briefing on the military-tomilitary engagements between the United States and the PRC, including an assessment of the success of such engagements in meeting the objectives of the Commander of United States Pacific Command for such engagements. 

Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annually to the congressional 

defense committees a report on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. 

The requirement to submit this report would terminate on January 

31, 2017. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic 

Union of Kurdistan under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sec. 1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security or the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation 

with the Secretary of State to exclude the Kurdistan Democratic 

Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan from the definition of 

a Tier III terrorist organization under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101). 

Notification on potentially significant arms control noncompliance (sec. 1262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to notify the President if the Secretary has 

substantial reason to believe that there is a potentially significant 

case of foreign noncompliance with an arms control treaty to which 

the United States is a party. It would also require the Secretary 

to submit notice to the Senate committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence not later than 30 days after such 

notification to the President. 

Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign military liaison officers of foreign countries while assigned 

to the Department of Defense (sec. 1263) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to provide the Department of Defense the authority to continue to benefit from the contributions of liaison officers from other countries beyond the conclusion of current named military operations in Afghanistan. 

The committee believes that this authority will enable the Secretary of Defense to better facilitate partner nation participation to 

assist the United States in a wider range of partnerships, cooperative ventures, and burden-sharing efforts. It would also allow likeminded countries to better plan and utilize resources when addressing common threats and it would enhance interoperability and 

working relationships between the United States and foreign militaries. 

One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional 

assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1264) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, and 

maintain non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities for 1 additional year. 

Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to operate the Inter-European Air Forces 

Academy for the purpose of military education and training to military personnel of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

members and countries participating in the NATO Partnership for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

Peace program. The provision would also authorize the use of funds 

available for Air Force operations and maintenance to pay certain 

costs associated with the program. The authority would expire on 

September 30, 2017. 

The committee understands that the intention of the Department 

of Defense in establishing the program and curriculum of the InterEuropean Air Forces Academy is to train non-commissioned officers 

and company grade officers of allied and partnered air forces, primarily from Eastern Europe, to help them overcome the legacy of 

overly centralized command and control structures of these air 

forces instilled during the Cold War. The program would be intended to train these personnel to delegate effectively within a decentralized organization and to improve the interoperability and effectiveness for future coalition operations. 

Extension of limitations on providing certain missile defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1266) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year the limitations in section 1246(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) on providing certain missile defense information to the Russian Federation. 

Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter into 

contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 

1267) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense (DOD) from contracting with the Russian 

state corporation Rosoboronexport or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. The provision would also require DOD to immediately terminate all contracts with Rosoboronexport. In addition, the provision requires a report submitted to the congressional defense committees on the activities of Rosoboronexport. 

Items of Special Interest 

Annual report on the military power of Iran 

The committee remains concerned about the regional and international threat posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. As Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander of U.S. 

Strategic Command, stated in testimony to the committee on February 27, 2014, ‘‘[i]f Iran were to make progress toward developing 

an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] capable of delivering a 

nuclear or conventional warhead and with sufficient range to reach 

CONUS [continental United States], I would consider that a threat 

to the United States.’’ The committee agrees strongly with Admiral 

Haney and the committee remains interested in an update from 

the Secretary of Defense on Iran’s military development activities 

in this regard. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is required to 

submit, on an annual basis, a report on the military power of Iran 

(section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2010, as amended (Public Law 110–84)). The committee notes 

that previous versions of this report have provided useful informaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
197 

tion on Iran’s military power, including its ballistic missile capabilities and developments. The report is due on January 30 of each 

year. However, the committee notes that, as of May 2014, the report covering 2013 has not been provided to Congress. The committee expects the prompt delivery of this report each year. 

Given this delay, upon the delivery of the report covering 2013, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on the report which—in addition to covering information from 2013—should also provide an update from the report’s 

information cut-off date to the present on any developments within 

Iran’s ballistic missile program that would, at a minimum, contain 

the information required in section 1245(b)(4). 

Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of Defense security assistance to the Republic of 

Yemen 

The committee notes that Yemen continues to be threatened by 

terrorist and regional insurgent violence and racked by systemic 

socio-economic and environmental problems. Further, the Yemenbased al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remains a serious 

national security threat to the United States. The U.S. Government 

has invested more than $1 billion in assistance since 2007 in support of U.S. strategic goals for Yemen. 

While the Government Accountability Office reported in March 

2013 that some progress has been made toward supporting the 

Government of Yemen in addressing these difficulties, significant 

challenges remain regarding Yemen’s future, underscoring the possibility that Yemen will need further U.S. assistance as it navigates a demanding transition process. 

The committee remains concerned about U.S. security assistance 

programs (primarily so-called sections 1203, 1206, and 1207(n) assistance programs) and the long-term viability of the U.S. security 

strategy for Yemen that these programs seek to support. As such, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to update the March 2013 report on U.S. Assistance to Yemen 

(GAO–13–310). The committee is particularly interested in: (1) Receiving an update on the status of Department of Defense efforts 

to deliver security-related equipment on a timely basis and conduct 

the associated training within the time period permitted in the underlying provision of public law; (2) An analysis of the maintenance 

support programs for the Yemeni security forces on the U.S. provided equipment, including—but not limited to—field service representatives or direct training of the Yemeni security force; (3) An 

assessment of the cohesiveness and synergy of the collective programs and equipment provided under security assistance programs 

since 2008; and (4) Other matters the Comptroller General determines appropriate in the conduct of the review. The committee directs that the Comptroller General brief the congressional defense 

committees on its initial findings no later than the end of this calendar year, and that a final report be issued no later than March 

31, 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
198 

Maritime security in West Africa 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

(USD/P), in consultation with the Commander of United States Africa Command, to develop a framework for U.S. maritime security 

assistance and cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea. Such framework 

shall include the following for each of the principal maritime nations in the Gulf of Guinea and for the region as a whole: 

(1) An assessment of where there are shortfalls within national and regional capabilities to reduce and prevent current 

threats and illegal activities including piracy, maritime oil 

theft, illegal fishing, illegal trafficking of humans, narcotics, 

weapons and commodities, and such other destabilizing activities that may disrupt peaceful maritime governance; 

(2) An assessment of the current and expected contributions 

of partner nations, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and interagency efforts to reduce the 

shortfalls identified in paragraph (1) and shall include how 

these efforts can be synchronized to avoid duplication of effort; 

(3) Development and evaluation of Department of Defense 

(DOD) alternatives to enhance the maritime security capabilities of the Gulf of Guinea states and region through 

prioritization of targeted security assistance efforts; and 

(4) Development and evaluation of options for the DOD, in 

partnership with the Gulf of Guinea states, to combat official 

corruption facilitating piracy and other illegal activity and to 

enable host nation law enforcement actions against piracy and 

transnational criminal networks and their support infrastructure. 

The USD/P shall submit the report to the congressional defense 

committees and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and 

the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs not 

later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. Further, the committee directs that the report include recommendations for action 

by the Department of the Navy to enhance maritime security in the 

Gulf of Guinea. 

Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram 

The committee has watched with great concern as Boko Haram, 

which the Department of State designated as a Foreign Terrorist 

Organization in 2013 following a review of available intelligence directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239), has grown in strength, size, capability, 

lethal capacity, and geographic reach over the last few years, and 

as the Nigerian Government has struggled to develop effective policies to combat Boko Haram. 

Boko Haram’s brutal tactics have included dozens of violent terrorist attacks against both the Nigerian Government and civilian 

targets such as civil society leaders, moderate religious leaders, 

journalists, health workers involved in vaccination campaigns, 

teachers, and students attending secular schools, including the 

nearly 300 young girls abducted in north-eastern Nigeria earlier 

this year. Boko Haram has achieved success by advancing a violent 

extremist ideology while tapping into grievances regarding governance, corruption, and underdevelopment in northern Nigeria. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
199 

Boko Haram increasingly presents a direct threat to the Government of Nigeria and to stability in northern Nigeria. Moreover, its 

growth has a direct bearing on U.S. national security interests in 

the region, given its commitment to terrorist methods, ties with 

transnational terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda in the Lands of the 

Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and reported involvement in 

transnational organized crime activities such as illicit trafficking in 

narcotics, arms, and wildlife. 

In response to Boko Haram’s growing threat, the Government of 

Nigeria declared a state of emergency in several northern states in 

May 2013 and has since increased its military and police operations against Boko Haram. However, these operations have often 

been heavy-handed, raising human rights concerns as well as fears 

that the Government of Nigeria may be driving more local residents to support Boko Haram or deterring them from cooperating 

with law enforcement. 

Moreover, the Government of Nigeria has missed opportunities to 

partner with the international community to improve the effectiveness of its response, and has failed to address underlying grievances that enhance Boko Haram’s appeal in the region. As a recent 

International Crisis Group Report noted, ‘‘Unless the federal and 

state governments, and the region, develop and implement comprehensive plans to tackle not only insecurity but also the injustices that drive much of the troubles, Boko Haram, or groups like 

it, will continue to destabilise large parts of the country.’’ 

The committee recognizes Nigeria as an important partner to the 

United States but is concerned that deficiencies in the Government 

of Nigeria’s current approach to confronting Boko Haram is undermining its ability to ensure the security of the Nigerian people. 

While the Department of Defense should continue bilateral 

counterterrorism efforts and its participation in the inter-agency efforts relating to the captured young girls, the committee believes 

broader cooperation with the Nigerian Government should be considered carefully in the context of the Nigerian Government’s 

progress in addressing underlying grievances, discontinuing heavyhanded security tactics, and expanding political and economic opportunity in northern Nigeria. 

Northeast Asian intelligence threats 

The committee understands that U.S. military facilities, U.S. 

military technology, and Department of Defense (DOD) personnel 

in Japan are strategic targets for the intelligence and military intelligence agencies of regional adversaries and competitors in 

Northeast Asia. The committee notes that the Japanese National 

Diet’s approval of the Secrets Protection Act of 2013 provides a 

legal framework to help protect the Government of Japan (GOJ) 

and U.S. classified national security data. The committee encourages DOD and the GOJ to continue their collaborative efforts to 

thwart intelligence threats from regional adversaries and competitors. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency to provide a classified briefing to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, no later than October 

1, 2014, on the intelligence threat to U.S. military facilities and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
200 

personnel in Japan. This briefing shall include discussion of U.S. 

cooperation with the GOJ to counter regional intelligence threats, 

as well as an update on the GOJ’s implementation of the Secrets 

Protection Act of 2013. 

Plans for bases in Afghanistan 

The committee notes that the administration is still in negotiations with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

on a Bilateral Security Agreement, which would establish missions 

and set the number of U.S. military forces to remain in Afghanistan beyond December 2014. As such, the administration has not 

yet provided a budget request or justification to the committee on 

supplemental funding required to support overseas contingency operations. 

If the administration decides to station U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, those forces will need facilities and supporting infrastructure that is safe and secure and enables efficient mission accomplishment. The committee expects the Department of Defense 

to include in future budget requests the plans and investments required to ensure adequate facilities and infrastructure for the expected duration of the post-2014 mission. 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations against 

the Lord’s Resistance Army 

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has wreaked havoc upon millions for more than 2 decades throughout central Africa. The LRA’s 

atrocities have included murder, rape, and the abduction of children to serve as child soldiers. In 2009, Congress passed, and the 

President signed into law, the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act (Public Law 111–172), 

which outlined U.S. policy objectives focused on eliminating the 

threat posed by the LRA and its leader, Joseph Kony. In subsequent years, Congress has provided supporting legislative authorities and associated funding for U.S. military assistance, known as 

Operation Observant Compass, to regional partners combating the 

LRA, most recently in section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). 

The committee remains strongly supportive of Operation Observant Compass and related assistance to the Africa Union Regional 

Task Force and other regional partners, including the deployment 

of U.S. military advisors and equipment. This support has enabled 

notable progress, including the removal of key LRA commanders 

from the battlefield and has contributed to increased defections, 

which the Department of State estimates has reduced the number 

of LRA fighters to approximately 200 from nearly 1,000 6 years 

ago. 

However, the committee believes that continued U.S. support, 

specifically additional enablers and actionable intelligence, is required to increase the effectiveness of our regional partners in 

eliminating the threat posed by Joseph Kony and the LRA to civilian populations. As such, the committee urges the Department of 

Defense to continue its assistance, specifically the provision of key 

enabling support, such as mobility and targeted intelligence collection and analysis resources. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

United States-India Defense Security Cooperation 

The committee supports the continued and growing bilateral security relationship between the United States and India, which includes the expansion of defense trade. Defense trade with India 

supports both countries and highlights the significance of U.S.- 

India cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. The objective of the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Trade Initiative (DTI) 

with India is to nurture increased U.S. defense exports to India. 

The committee notes that DTI has had mixed results, and encourages the DOD to continue its efforts to streamline business processes to make U.S.-India defense trade and collaboration simpler, 

responsive, and effective. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with other departments and agencies, as appropriate, 

to provide the congressional defense and foreign affairs committees 

a classified briefing, no later than October 1, 2014, on the technologies that are currently being considered or may be considered 

for export to India, including pending or completed reforms of export controls to facilitate DTI. 

United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in Somalia 

Since 2007, the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has 

been the primary point of engagement for U.S. policy in Somalia. 

The United States has been the single largest bilateral contributor 

to financing AMISOM and has provided significant logistical, technical, and political support to AMISOM operations. Additionally, 

the U.S. Government has provided substantial support to AMISOM 

contributors through various security assistance programs, among 

other means. AMISOM has proven highly successful in helping the 

United States achieve its foremost national security objective in Somalia of disrupting and dismantling al Shabaab in order to prevent 

the planning and execution of international terrorist attacks. 

However, as the situation in Somalia has been transformed by 

the security gains against al Shabaab and the establishment of a 

permanent national government, the committee is concerned that 

strategy informing U.S. policy with regard to AMISOM specifically 

and Somalia more broadly has not kept pace with the evolving security and governance landscape. There appears to be no coherent 

long-term strategy or timeline for transitioning the AMISOM mission or associated U.S. support; moreover, a stagnant U.S. policy 

towards Somalia that continues to be centered upon AMISOM carries a number of risks both for the future of Somalia and for broader U.S. national security objectives in the region. 

The committee is concerned that an open-ended AMISOM mission without a clearly articulated transition strategy could crystallize the current status quo that while representing progress from 

past conditions, is not an acceptable end-state. Accepting the status 

quo as an end state would mean a long-term dependence by the Somali Federal Government (SFG) on AMISOM to fulfill its security 

needs; a SFG that is unable or unmotivated to extend its reach beyond Mogadishu; an overwhelming dependence by the SFG on foreign assistance; the strengthening or institutionalization of clanbased militias outside of Mogadishu; and lack of progress toward 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

necessary constitutional and governmental reform. The committee 

notes that there already appears to be a relative paralysis with regard to achieving identified political milestones, including progressing toward scheduled elections and a constitutional referendum. 

An additional concern is that the continued presence of AMISOM 

soldiers on Somali soil could generate increasingly negative reactions from local populations, particularly given that AMISOM now 

includes substantial numbers of military personnel from neighboring nations which many Somali citizens have historically regarded with distrust. Reports of abuses committed by AMISOM 

personnel against local citizens appear to have increased tensions 

between AMISOM and local populations in recent months; these 

tensions are further exacerbated by the significant disparity in 

monthly salaries between AMISOM soldiers and members of the 

Somali National Army. Such tensions, should they continue to 

grow, could fuel a resurgence of al Shabaab or other violent groups 

intent on attacking foreign forces. 

The committee is concerned that continued support to AMISOM 

also risks constraining or undermining the U.S. Government’s ability to address broader national security objectives in the region. 

Continued support for AMISOM will require continued support for, 

and dependence upon, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia in a way that 

is potentially counterproductive to U.S. bilateral and regional policies, particularly in the context of increasing human rights concerns. 

As a result, the committee believes the Department of Defense 

should be working in close coordination with the Department of 

State to plan for a U.S. Government policy toward Somalia in a 

post-AMISOM context, to include planning for concrete steps to 

transition AMISOM’s mission to the SFG and for addressing U.S. 

counterterrorism interests in AMISOM’s absence. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of State, to provide a report, not later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act, outlining a strategy for U.S. action 

with regard to the future of AMISOM and U.S. security and political support to Somalia. This strategy should include: 

(1) clearly identified, long-term end states and policy objectives for addressing threats to U.S. national security interests 

emanating from al Shabaab or other actors in Somalia, and a 

description of what role, if any, AMISOM should have in 

achieving those objectives; 

(2) a plan for assisting in the transition of security responsibilities from AMISOM to the Somali National Army; 

(3) a specific strategy and timeline for winding down U.S. financial and logistical support to AMISOM; and 

(4) specific benchmarks and milestones by which to measure 

progress toward achieving the end states, objectives, and plans 

identified in (1)–(3). 

The committee further expects the Secretary to ensure that the 

aforementioned strategy informs DOD plans with regard to continued security assistance programs in the region. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(203) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Subtitle A—Funding Allocations 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 

1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$365 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision authorizes specific 

amounts for each CTR program element, requires notification to 

Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for a purpose other than a purpose 

listed in the provision, and requires notification to Congress 15 

days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 

year 2015 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for 

each CTR program element. 

Subtitle B—Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes 

Relating to the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 

Reduction Program 

Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to the 

Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Program (secs. 1311–1352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

and update Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 

authorities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(205) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of 

this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters 

Report on development of secure supply of rare earth materials (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, on the supply of rare earth materials 

extracted, processed, and refined from secure sources of supply to 

develop and produce advanced technologies in support of requirements of the Department of Defense. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer $146.9 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund to be used 

for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care 

Center, Illinois. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, Illinois (sec. 1422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services and on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives a report on the Captain James A. 

Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, Illinois, demonstration project not later than 120 days after the date that the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit 

to the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives their 

evaluation report on this demonstration project. 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1423) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$63.4 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor 

for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1513A of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 

U.S.C. 413a) to make technical corrections regarding the designation of the Senior Medical Advisor for the retirement home to reflect the disestablishment of the TRICARE Management Activity 

and creation of the new Defense Health Agency. The provision 

would also replace the reference to the health care standards of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs with the more appropriate nationally recognized health care standards and requirements. 

Budget Items 

Meals, ready-to-eat 

The committee request included $44.2 million for the working 

capital fund, Defense-wide, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 

The committee notes that a level of 5.0 million cases of meals, 

ready-to-eat (MRE) was initiated in 2005 to support the operational 

tempo of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. A July 2013 DLA OperVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

ations Research and Resource Analysis (DORRA) found that MRE 

inventory levels should be set between 3.4 million and 3.9 million 

cases per year. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to the working capital fund, Defense-wide, for the DLA. 

Defense Commissary Agency 

The budget request included $1.1 billion for the Working Capital 

Fund, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). The budget assumed 

savings of $200.0 million associated with a legislative proposal to 

streamline and reform commissary operations. The committee declined to support this proposal. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in the Working Capital Fund, DeCA of $200.0 million to restore these assumed 

savings. 

Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

support to United States Southern Command 

The budget request includes $719.1 million for drug interdiction 

and counterdrug activities, of which $7.7 million is for United 

States Army Intelligence Command counternarcotics surveillance 

support and $23.9 million is for a transit zone maritime patrol aircraft for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support. This funding is intended to assist United States Southern 

Command (SOUTHCOM) to fulfill its statutory mission (10 U.S.C. 

124) for detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of 

illegal drugs into the United States. The committee notes that the 

SOUTHCOM Commander identified shortfalls in the ISR support 

provided to SOUTHCOM through the Global Force Management 

Allocation Plan (GFMAP) and, therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for additional ISR support 

for SOUTHCOM. 

The amount authorized by the committee for this purpose is in 

addition to the amounts already allocated in the President’s budget 

request to support SOUTHCOM’s ISR requirements. 

The committee notes that on March 13, 2014, General John F. 

Kelly, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified before the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services, that only about 5 percent of 

SOUTHCOM’s ISR requirements are being met. Gen. Kelly further 

testified that, ‘‘the vast majority of heroin that’s consumed in the 

United States is actually produced in Latin America. The poppies 

are now grown in places like Guatemala and Colombia.’’ 

The committee directs not later than 60 days after enactment of 

this Act the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, in coordination with the 

SOUTHCOM Commander, provide the congressional defense committees a briefing on its plan to use the additional funding to support SOUTHCOM’s narcotics and illicit trafficking detection, monitoring, and interdiction operations. The plan should also identify 

any other shortfalls, particularly in the area of maritime and fixed 

and rotary wing assets, and describe any plans to mitigate the impact of these shortfalls to operations. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
208 

Defense Health Program funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 

Health Program includes the following changes from the budget request. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation ................. ¥88.0 

Annual person-to-person mental health assessments ........................ 10.0 

Total ................................................................................................. ¥78.0 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Defense 

Health Program of $78.0 million. This includes a reduction of $88.0 

million to reflect costs avoided by the Department of Defense relative to its proposal to consolidate the TRICARE program, which 

the committee did not adopt, and an increase of $10.0 million to 

fund annual person-to-person mental health assessments for 

servicemembers. 

Items of Special Interest 

Defense working capital funds 

The committee is concerned that the Department of the Treasury’s decision to migrate from monthly to daily cash balances for 

the defense working capital funds will likely be delayed beyond October 1, 2014. In preparation for such a migration, the committee 

is concerned that the Services are purposefully building up excess 

cash as the Department of Defense (DOD) determines the appropriate amount of cash balances or sufficient cash balances in accordance with DOD’s financial military regulation policy. It remains unclear to the committee precisely what DOD intends with 

respect to defining sufficient cash balances. 

The committee is also concerned that a projected shortfall of $927.0 million in the fiscal year 2015 transportation working capital fund may have a significant negative impact on readiness, with 

respect to the airlift readiness account (ARA). The $927.0 million 

shortfall will also negatively impact the Air Force working capital 

fund cash balance and could affect the solvency of the fund. The 

committee notes that in fiscal year 2013, the Air Force failed to 

fund ARA requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than October 1, 2015, on: (1) DOD’s status made on the proposed change to 

daily cash balances; (2) A specific definition of sufficient cash balances that DOD and each military service will follow; (3) The methodology used to calculate such definition; (4) Recommendations on 

how to mitigate the need to carry excess cash to avoid Anti-deficiency Act violations; and (5) A mitigation plan to address the projected ARA shortfall, including any initiatives that could result in 

savings. 

Additionally, the committee urges DOD to consider addressing 

the fiscal year 2015 ARA shortfall in its fiscal year 2014 omnibus 

reprogramming request. 

Department of Defense Inspector General 

The committee recognizes that the independent audit and investigative functions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 

General (IG) continues to serve a valuable role in identifying 

waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs and operations. In fiscal 

year 2013, DOD IG audits and investigations resulted in over a 

$5.3 billion return on investment, which is an increase of $1.7 billion in returns compared to fiscal year 2012. The committee notes 

that of the $5.3 billion returned in fiscal year 2013, $3.2 billion was 

in achieved monetary benefits, $1.3 billion in civil judgments and 

settlements, $733.0 million in criminal fines, penalties, and restitutions, $81.5 million in administrative recoveries, and $5.2 million 

in recovered government property. The 147 reports issued in fiscal 

year 2013 led to 172 arrests, 242 convictions, 138 suspensions, and 

161 debarments. 

The committee remains encouraged and recognizes the DOD IG’s 

efforts to date and continued progress with respect to audit readiness, the drawdown of military forces, acquisition processes and financial management, sexual assault investigative oversight, suicide 

prevention, readiness and safety, information and cybersecurity, 

healthcare, intelligence oversight, senior official accountability, and 

whistleblower protection. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(211) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 

costs due to overseas contingency operations. 

Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations. 

Subtitle—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that 

amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding 

authorizations in this title among accounts in this title. 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters 

Plan for transition of funding of United States Special Operations Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring funding for future-years defense programs (sec. 1521) 

The committee notes that approximately one-third, or $2.3 billion, of the enacted budget for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) for fiscal year 2014 was Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. Furthermore, the committee understands 

that at least $783.0 million of this OCO funding has been identified 

by the Department of Defense and SOCOM as an enduring requirement that will be necessary to sustain special operations capabilities and readiness in future years. For example, on March 11, 

2014, the Commander of SOCOM testified that ‘‘SOCOM relies 

heavily on OCO funding today, with the National Mission Force, in 

particular, funded with 67 percent of OCO.’’ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
212 

The committee notes that section 1534 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan to fully transition appropriate SOCOM 

funding from the OCO to base budget over the future years defense 

program to maintain critical and enduring special operations capabilities. In a June 3, 2013, letter responding to this provision, the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict stated ‘‘As the Department’s topline continues to 

decrease, finding the resources to transfer SOCOM’s OCO requirements to the base budget remains particularly challenging. The Department will assess transitioning future OCO to base requirements during DOD’s FY 2015 Program and Budget Review (PBR) 

decision cycle, which will occur in the Summer and Fall of 2013. 

Unfortunately, the Department still has not provided the congressional defense committees with the required plan. The committee remains concerned that the Department has not identified 

a plan to fully transition funding for enduring special operations 

requirements from the OCO to base budget in future years, potentially putting sustainment of such capabilities at risk. Therefore, 

the committee again recommends a provision that would require 

the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees, as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget request, with a plan 

to fully transition appropriate SOCOM funding from the OCO to 

base budget over the future years defense program to maintain 

critical and enduring special operations capabilities. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would thereby 

provide the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) with the authority to investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, 

personnel, and funds to assist United States forces in the defeat of 

improvised explosive devices for Operation Enduring Freedom or 

any successor operation to that operation. The provision would also 

extend JIEDDO’s authority with respect to homemade explosives, 

and would sunset this authority on December 31, 2015. The provision would also direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to present to the congressional defense committees a plan to consolidate any enduring functions of 

the stated organizations, capabilities, and funding into an appropriate organization identified as part of that review. 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

(ASFF) for fiscal year 2015 continue to be subject to the conditions 

specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), as amended. The provision would also extend the requirement under subsection (c)(1) of section 1531 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113– 

66) that not less than $25.0 million of ASFF funding be available 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
213 

to be used to promote the recruitment, integration, retention, training, and treatment of women in the Afghanistan National Security 

Forces. The provision would also extend the authority under section 1531(d) of Public Law 113–66 for the Department of Defense 

to dispose of certain equipment in Afghanistan. 

The committee understands that for logistical and security reasons Afghan Air Force (AAF) pilots will initially train on A–29 

Light Attack Support aircraft in the United States. The committee 

concurs with this course of action with the understanding that the 

U.S. Government intends to transfer all 20 A–29 aircraft used in 

such training to the Government of Afghanistan to support military 

operations after the initial training of the AAF pilots is complete, 

regardless of the outcome of Bilateral Security Agreement negotiations. 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense funds for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. 

Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive 

devices (sec. 1525) 

The committee recommends a provision that express the sense of 

Congress on the importance of retaining, to the extent practicable, 

a knowledge base relating to counter-improvised explosive device 

operations. 

Budget Item 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED Defeat 

Organization’s (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure expenses. 

As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO’s inception, the committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the base 

budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1 million in 

the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding for the 

Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency operations budget request later this year. 

The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done 

but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo in U.S. 

Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a review, 

captured in another title of this Act, that should lead to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of organizations, such as 

JIEDDO, that provide response to emergent warfighter needs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(215) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Nuclear Forces 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental 

ballistic missile fuses (sec. 1601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give authority to procure commercial parts for intercontinental ballistic missile 

fuses, notwithstanding 10 U.S.C. 1502(a), for fiscal year 2015. 

Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on 

plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command and control system (sec. 1602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) to include an update by the Congressional Budget Office of the report required by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) that 

would provide a 10-year estimate of costs associated with the fielding and maintaining the current nuclear weapons and delivery systems of the United States. 

Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and 

communications systems at the United States Strategic 

Command headquarters (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit 

an annual report on the installation of nuclear command, control, 

and communications (NC3) systems as part of the replacement for 

the STRATCOM headquarters. Such systems are unique, complex, 

and highly integrated within the overall U.S. NC3 architecture. In 

addition, many of the systems, such as the Strategic Automated 

Command and Control System and the Mission Planning and Analysis System, are based on outdated protocols, computer languages, 

and architectures that will most likely be incompatible with the 

communications systems in the new headquarters building. Either 

these outdated systems will have to be replaced or have interfaces 

built between them and the new headquarters building—a 

daunting task. 

The requirement for an annual report would terminate at such 

time as when the Commander of STRATCOM certifies to the congressional defense committees that all milestones have been completed, and the headquarters building is a fully functioning node in 

the overall NC3 architecture. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
216 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) shall review the existing milestones and scope of the effort and provide a technical 

briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2014, as to whether the scope of the current effort is 

complete, fully integrated, and meets accepted programmatic planning practices. 

The GAO shall review the report submitted each year and provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on whether 

the installation is meeting projected milestones and costs and 

whether there are outstanding programmatic or technical issues 

that must be addressed to meet these milestones so that the building can become an operational hub in the overall NC3 network. 

Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension program (sec. 1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Commander of 

U.S. Strategic Command to provide it with separate reports in advance of any decision to reduce the scope of the B61 Life Extension 

Program below the level proposed in the Fiscal Year 2015 Stockpile 

Stewardship Management Plan. The committee notes that Assistant Secretary of Defense Madelyn Creedon’s testimony last year 

that, ‘‘the Nuclear Weapons Council changed the schedule and cumulative production quantity for the W76–1 program. This change 

reduced the total LEP production quantity and realigned the end 

of the production period for all operational units from FY 2021 to 

FY 2019.’’ The committee is not aware of any similar changes being 

discussed for the B61, but believes Congress should be notified in 

advance of any such action, since changes to the program could 

have far reaching consequences for U.S. national security and obligations to U.S. allies, as well as implications for the cost and 

schedule of the life extension program itself. 

Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of Congress that reaffirms and remains committed to the 

policies enumerated in the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review 

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dated May 20, 2012. 

Subtitle B—Missile Defense Programs 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress on the importance of defending the United States 

Homeland against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack from 

North Korea and Iran, and would require a report describing the 

status of current and planned efforts to improve United States 

Homeland missile defense capabilities to keep pace with the evolving threat. 

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is taking, and plans to take, 

numerous steps to improve homeland missile defense, including 

near-term, mid-term, and far-term enhancements. These include: 

(1) Near-term improvements to the reliability and performance of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
217 

the currently deployed Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) kill vehicles; (2) Deployment of 14 additional GBIs in Alaska by the end of 

2017; (3) Investments in enhanced sensor capabilities, including a 

new Long-Range Discriminating Radar in Alaska, and discrimination capabilities to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency 

of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system; (4) A midterm re-design of the GMD Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) to 

improve its capability, producibility, maintainability, affordability, 

and testability; and (5) Plans to design a Next-Generation EKV to 

take full advantage of improvements in sensors, discrimination, kill 

assessment, battle management, and command and control, including the potential to defeat multiple threats with individual interceptors. 

The committee supports these multiple efforts to improve homeland missile defense, particularly the improvements to sensor and 

discrimination capabilities, and the re-design of the EKV and plans 

to design a Next Generation EKV. 

The improvements to sensor and discrimination capabilities 

should improve the operational effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiency of the deployed inventory of GBIs with better targeting 

information that will allow the interceptors to defeat more targets. 

The committee expects MDA to pursue cost-effective development 

and acquisition approaches for these capabilities to ensure they are 

both affordable and effective, and directs MDA to keep the congressional defense committees fully apprised of progress on the acquisition of these capabilities. 

The committee also supports the plans to improve substantially 

the performance and reliability of future EKVs through the re-design (Phase 1) and the Next Generation EKV (Phase 2) efforts. Although MDA is still developing the requirements and acquisition 

plan for the re-designed EKV, it expects to flight test the re-designed EKV beginning in 2018, and to introduce it into the next 

procurement of GBIs starting in 2020, if development and testing 

prove successful. The committee expects MDA to use a rigorous acquisition approach, including realistic testing, that can achieve a 

demonstrated capability as soon as practicable using sound acquisition principles and practices. Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses the need for a rigorous acquisition plan for the redesigned EKV. 

The Next Generation EKV is intended to take advantage of common kill vehicle technologies and improvements to the full range 

of homeland defense capabilities, such as discrimination and hit assessment, to defeat the evolving missile threat from nations such 

as North Korea and Iran. The MDA anticipates deploying the Next 

Generation EKV starting early in the next decade. It also could include the ability to defeat multiple threat objects with individual 

interceptors. 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress on the importance of effective regional missile 

defenses to protect U.S. forward deployed forces, allies, and partner 

countries against the growing threat of regional ballistic missiles, 

particularly from Iran and North Korea, to Europe, the Middle 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
218 

East, and the Asia-Pacific region. The provision would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the status and progress 

of efforts to improve regional missile defense capabilities in these 

regions, including efforts and cooperation by allies and partner 

countries. 

The Missile Defense Agency reports that the European Phased 

Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense is on track to deploy 

the Phase 2 Aegis Ashore site in Romania in 2015 and the Phase 

3 Aegis Ashore site in Poland by the end of 2018. These capabilities 

are intended to increase the defensive coverage of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization area of Europe against increasingly capable 

and numerous Iranian missiles. The committee supports the continued development, testing, and implementation of Phases 2 and 

3 of the EPAA, and believes these capabilities will be important 

components of regional European security. 

The committee notes that the United States is working with its 

Gulf Cooperation Council partner nations to improve regional air 

and missile defense capabilities, including data sharing and multilateral cooperation. The committee believes that such multilateral 

cooperation would enhance regional security and would provide significant improvements beyond national and bi-national capabilities. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

make such multilateral air and missile defense cooperation a regional security priority. 

The committee notes the significant missile defense cooperation 

with Japan, including the co-development of the Standard Missile3 Block IIA interceptor, and believes this cooperation is an important element of the allied response to North Korea’s regional missile capabilities. The committee encourages DOD to continue working with other allies and partners in the region, particularly including South Korea and Australia, to enhance protection against 

North Korean regional missile capabilities. 

The committee notes that U.S. regional missile defense capabilities in each of these regions would be enhanced by increased interoperability and coordination among the geographic combatant commands and the capabilities under their control, and encourages 

DOD to take steps to maximize such interoperability and coordination. 

Availability of funds for missile defense programs of Israel 

(sec. 1613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$350.9 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome parts and 

components in the United States by U.S. industry. The provision 

would also provide that, if the Government of Israel determines 

that it is a higher priority for its national security, up to $175.0 

million of the amount authorized for Iron Dome may be used for 

the following U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense programs: (1) 

The Arrow System Improvement Program; (2) The Arrow-3 Upper 

Tier interceptor development program; and (3) The David’s Sling 

short-range ballistic missile defense system. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
219 

The provision would also require that the funds authorized for 

Iron Dome would be available subject to the terms, conditions, and 

co-production targets specified for fiscal year 2015 in the ‘‘Agreement Between the Department of Defense of the United States of 

America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement,’’ signed on March 

5, 2014. If the Government of Israel decides to use part or all of 

the $175.0 million authorized for the three specified cooperative 

missile defense programs, the provision would require that such 

funds be subject to the terms and conditions of the joint U.S.-Israel 

Project Agreements governing the management and execution of 

these cooperative programs. 

The committee notes that the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome agreement 

specifies that the funding level for Iron Dome for fiscal year 2015 

would be $175.9 million, the amount in the budget request, and the 

final amount of the $677.0 million the United States agreed in 

2012 to seek for Iron Dome from fiscal years 2012 to 2015. However, the Government of Israel has requested an additional $175.0 

million for Iron Dome procurement in fiscal year 2015. 

The committee notes that Iron Dome has played an important 

role in protecting Israel’s population from short-range rocket and 

mortar attacks. The United States has supported Israel’s procurement of Iron Dome interceptors and batteries by providing Israel 

more than $700.0 million since fiscal year 2011. The committee 

continues to be supportive of Iron Dome, and of co-production of 

Iron Dome in the United States in accordance with the U.S.-Israel 

Iron Dome agreement. However, the committee also has been supportive of the three cooperative missile defense programs that were 

jointly developed by the United States and Israel, and recognizes 

that they may be a higher priority for Israel to receive additional 

funding. This provision would provide the authority to permit 

Israel to use part or all of the additional $175.0 million for the missile defense programs that are the higher priority. 

Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 1614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a robust acquisition plan for the redesign of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The provision would require the acquisition plan to include rigorous elements for systems 

engineering, design, integration, development, testing, and evaluation to ensure that the re-designed EKV is operationally effective, 

reliable, producible, cost-effective, maintainable, and testable. Consistent with the fly-before-you-buy acquisition approach, the provision would also require the re-designed EKV to be tested and demonstrated to have a high probability of working in an operationally 

effective manner prior to its operational deployment. 

The committee notes that on February 25, 2014, Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall 

described problems with the GMD system as being related to ‘‘a lot 

of bad engineering,’’ saying it was ‘‘because there was a rush—to 

get something out.’’ As acknowledged by Vice Admiral James 

Syring, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), at a press 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
220 

conference on March 4, 2014, the current GMD system was deployed with prototype kill vehicle designs that were developed and 

deployed without robust and rigorous acquisition practices, noting 

that ‘‘we cut short the design cycle’’ and the ‘‘systems engineering 

cycle.’’ Consequently, the GMD system has experienced several 

flight test failures since 2010 with both models of deployed kill vehicles, the Capability Enhancement-I and the Capability Enhancement-II. In a January 2014 report to Congress, the Director Of 

Operational Test and Evaluation wrote that these test failures 

‘‘raise questions regarding the robustness of the EKV design,’’ and 

recommended that MDA consider re-designing the EKV ‘‘using a 

rigorous systems engineering process to assure its design is robust 

against failure.’’ 

As reflected in the budget request, MDA is planning to re-design 

the EKV, to increase its reliability, performance, producibility, and 

affordability, among other features. The committee supports this 

effort. At a hearing before the committee on April 2, 2014, all witnesses agreed that the re-design effort should be based on a rigorous acquisition process. Admiral Syring testified to Congress that 

‘‘we have one chance to get it right. And circumventing the system 

engineering, design cycle, prototype testing and qualification will 

not happen. There’s a very rigorous process that’s followed for properly engineered missile systems.’’ 

The committee agrees on the need for a rigorous application of 

existing acquisition requirements established in law and regulation, and believes that a rigorous acquisition process is essential to 

ensure that the re-designed kill vehicle works in an operationally 

effective and cost-effective manner. 

Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior to 

production and deployment (sec. 1615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to 

follow a ‘‘fly before you buy’’ approach to adequately test and assess 

the elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) before 

final production decisions or operational deployment. The provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that, prior to 

making a final production decision for, and prior to the operational 

deployment of, a new or substantially upgraded interceptor or 

weapon system of the BMDS, sufficient and operationally realistic 

testing of the system is conducted and that the results of such testing have demonstrated that the interceptor or weapon system will 

work in an operationally effective and cost-effective manner when 

needed. The provision would also require the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, prior to any such final production decision or operational deployment, to provide an assessment to the 

Secretary of the testing, including an assessment of whether the 

system will be sufficiently effective, suitable, and survivable when 

needed, and to provide to the congressional defense committees a 

written summary of the Director’s assessment. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted numerous studies of missile defense acquisition programs and found 

that excessive concurrency has plagued a number of these programs, particularly the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
221 

system. The GMD system was deployed starting in 2004 without 

having conducted adequate testing and assessment of the design of 

the Ground-Based Interceptor and its Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle. 

The system has suffered several flight test failures since 2010 that 

have required more than $1.3 billion and 4 years of effort to correct. 

One of the keys to avoiding excessive concurrency, and to ensuring that missile defense systems will be operationally effective and 

cost-effective, is to follow the ‘‘fly before you buy’’ approach of testing systems realistically to assess their performance, prior to making final production decisions or deploying them operationally. In 

the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the DOD stated that it 

would conduct operationally realistic testing of new missile defense 

systems to assess their performance prior to deployment. This provision would help ensure that this policy is implemented, and help 

avoid post-production and post-deployment problems like those encountered with the GMD system. 

Subtitle C—Space Activities 

Update of National Security Space Strategy to include space 

control and space superiority strategy (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence to update the space control and space superiority strategy pursuant to the Space Posture Review conducted under section 

913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 

Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense Program; Report on Space Control (sec. 1622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a preponderance of the funds used within the Space Security and Defense Program be allocated to offensive space control and active defense strategies with a statement on the use of such funds at the 

time of the President’s budget submission to Congress. 

Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of critical space launch supplies for the Evolved Expendable 

Launch Vehicle Program (sec. 1623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from entering into a new contract or renewing 

a current contract for space launch supplies if those supplies are 

provided by Russian suppliers. 

The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle currently relies on a 

partially state-owned Russian company to provide engines to 

launch a portion of the Department of Defense’s national security 

satellites—including our intelligence community’s satellites. The 

committee finds this reliance on a Russian company for rocket engines to be inconsistent with the need for assured access to space. 

Also, given recent geopolitical events, this reliance on Russian suppliers reduces options available to respond to actions affecting the 

national security interests of the United States and our allies. 

Further, this reliance is unnecessary given potential future competition in the area of space launch and the potential development 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
222 

of a new domestically-produced rocket engine supported by the 

committee. 

The committee also strongly recommends that if the Secretary of 

Defense determines that a waiver is issued under this section for 

the procurement of rocket engines, the waiver should be approved 

well in advance of the start of contract negotiations. 

Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program 

(sec. 1624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office to assess the advisability of the 

Secretary of Defense to require that launch providers establish 

business systems complying with data requirements and cost accounting standards of the Department of Defense. 

Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

program on foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office to submit within 180 days of enactment of this Act, a report on the reliance of the risks to the Expendable Evolved Launch Vehicle program of reliance on foreign 

manufacturers. 

Availability of additional rocket cores pursuant to competitive procedures (sec. 1626) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon the Fiscal 

Year 2015 National Security Space Launch Forecast, that the Secretary of Defense shall make available during fiscal year 2015 one 

additional core for open competition. The provision also requires 

that between fiscal years 2015 and 2017, one additional competitive core shall be made available unless the Secretary determines 

that there is no practicable way to implement this requirement 

while remaining in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

36 core block buy under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

(EELV) program. Upon making such a determination, the Secretary shall certify within 45 days that there is no practicable way 

to add the second additional core for open competition as well as 

describing the basis for such a determination and providing both 

to congressional defense committees. 

The National Security Space Launch Forecast is the number the 

cores to be procured (as a function of payload) under the EELV program between fiscal years 2013 to 2017. 

Competitive procedures required to launch payload for mission number five of the Operationally Responsive Space 

program (sec. 1627) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require competitive procedures be used to launch the payload for the Operationally Responsive Space program mission number five. 

Limitation on funding for storage of Defense Meteorological 

Satellite Program satellites (sec. 1628) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit funding the storage of the last Defense Meteorological Satellite Program 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
223 

(DMSP) satellite #20 unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 

the congressional defense committees that the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to launch the satellite and will have sufficient 

funding to do so in the future years defense program and that storing the satellite until a launch in 2020 is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the requirements of DOD. 

The committee is concerned that the budget requested funding to 

store a satellite the Air Force has no intention of launching. Despite the Air Force’s analysis demonstrating the high cost of longterm storage and the low-added mission benefit of launching DMSP 

#20 in the 2020 timeframe, the budget requested funding to store 

the satellite for an additional year. In addition, the Air Force terminated the funding to procure the launch vehicle for DMSP #20. 

This disconnect is especially troubling given the numerous funding 

shortfalls across the defense space budget, not to mention the 

greater DOD budget. The committee is concerned that the Air 

Force would request significant funding to keep a satellite they 

have no intent of launching into space. 

Storing satellite #20 will cost $87.0 million in fiscal year 2015 

and approximately that same amount each year thereafter. The 

satellite is built on components that are not supported, its sensors 

must be stored at different vendors around the United States and 

approximately one half of the costs are related to keeping staff on 

hand until the satellite is launched to support its payload integration at launch. 

This year DOD is finalizing an alternative that will meet military needs with fewer sensors and less cost. The committee directs 

DOD to brief the committee when this alternative is approved by 

the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium or 

heavy lift launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds (sec. 

1629) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a program plan for the production 

of a liquid rocket engine capable of supporting the requirements of 

the Department of Defense (DOD) for a medium or heavy lift 

launch vehicle to support national security launch missions by no 

later than 2019. The plan shall be due by September 30, 2014. The 

provision would require that the plan be based on competition. The 

committee expects that in developing this program, DOD should 

consult with other agencies with liquid rocket engine expertise, 

such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

The committee also understands that there are propulsion systems in addition to liquid rocket engines that could provide capabilities in the future that support DOD requirements for medium 

or heavy launch vehicles, and encourages DOD to continually review the potential of using such propulsion systems. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the enactment of this 

Act given the potential that other propulsion systems have to support this mission. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
224 

Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec. 

1630) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board to assess 

the architecture of the ground and space sensors used for space situational awareness (SSA) for both defensive and offensive space operations over a 5-, 10-, and 20-year budget plan. The assessment 

shall also include ground systems to task the sensors and process 

the data. The SSA sensor system is a collection of sensors that either have been explicitly designed for SSA or are dual purpose sensors that can contribute to SSA when not performing their primary 

mission, such as missile warning. Each of these sensors are added 

over time to close specific gaps as the need has arisen and the 

number of objects to track in space has grown. This assessment 

shall look at the threats over the next 20 years and determine the 

optimal mix of SSA sensors from an integrated viewpoint, taking 

into account the ground systems to process the data. Given the sensitive nature of this assessment, the report shall be classified with 

an unclassified summary. 

Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial 

space imagery (sec. 1631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should support 

the relaxation of panchromatic, spectral, and infrared imagery resolution limits on the sale of commercial space imagery. The provision would also call for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

to provide a recommendation to Congress by April 1, 2015, on the 

design and development of a flexible and dynamic capability to control the collection and sale of commercial space imagery to protect 

national security. 

The administration is now considering a proposal to relax the 

resolution restrictions on the sale of commercial space imagery in 

stages through 2017. The committee believes that the Secretary of 

Defense, in interagency proceedings, should support an official commitment now that industry will be able to sell imagery at the targeted resolution limits in 2017. This step should be taken now to 

provide certainty for industry to enter into business arrangements 

in order to be ready to provide products at the improved resolution 

limits when the new limits go into effect. 

The licensing terms for U.S. companies who want to sell images 

collected from space allow the U.S. Government to impose prohibitions on the collection of imagery on specific places on the ground 

at specific times. Also, through contract arrangements, the Government can control the tasking of collection operations and thereby 

prevent the collection of imagery of any specific places or events. 

Alternatively, the Government can buy such images, classify them, 

and prevent their sale and dissemination. However, the Government has not chosen to utilize these means to protect national security. Instead, it has placed restrictions on the resolution of images that can be sold commercially on a global basis, despite the 

fact that there are relatively few places or events for which the 

capture in high resolution imagery would pose a risk to national 

security. Since the commercial space imaging industry emerged in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
225 

the 1990s, the Government’s policy has been to relax resolution 

limits only when U.S. companies begin to face significant competition from non-U.S. providers. This policy unnecessarily restrains 

U.S. industry, not only to the detriment of consumers but also to 

national security, because the intelligence community, our military 

forces, and emergency responders all have needs for higher resolution imagery products, and especially the unclassified products that 

commercial industry provides. 

In exercising the Government’s rights to prevent the collection of 

sensitive events, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to pursue cost neutral arrangements and to avoid unnecessary image purchases to conserve resources wherever security 

plans do not require alternative collection. 

Subtitle D—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related 

Matters 

Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 60 days of the date of enactment of 

this Act, to designate a network or network segment within the Department of Defense (DOD) to support the execution of a pilot program to demonstrate large-scale cyberspace mapping technology, as 

approved by the Cyber Investment Management Board (CIMB). 

The provision also would require the Principal Cyber Advisor, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to recommend policy to the 

Secretary of Defense regarding the mapping of cyberspace to support the missions of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence approved a pilot demonstration of technology to comprehensively and 

rapidly map information networks in fiscal year 2013. The CIMB 

approved it as a cyber acquisition pilot early in fiscal year 2014. 

The pilot has not proceeded, however, because no network owner 

within DOD has volunteered for their network to be the test subject for this pilot, which would require creating an accurate topology to serve as ground truth against which to measure the performance of the mapping technology. The purpose of the provision 

is to make a decision in order to get the assessment conducted. 

As the committee has emphasized in recent years, DOD does not 

possess the ability to map large portions of cyberspace quickly a— 

prerequisite for conducting military operations. Military forces can 

no more operate on the virtual terrain of cyberspace without cartographic support than they can in physical space without maps to 

guide them. There are a wide variety of mapping techniques used 

extensively by commercial industry and academia, as well as proposed refinements, that could meet the needs of CYBERCOM. The 

committee is concerned that a lack of policy is hindering practical 

planning in this critical area. DOD needs to determine what can 

be done and under what authorities and circumstances to enable 

CYBERCOM to develop requirements and the acquisition community to fulfill those needs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
226 

Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement for 

cross domain solution strategy (sec. 1642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review the policies of the Department of 

Defense (DOD), and develop a strategy concerning the procurement, approval, and use of capabilities to transmit information 

across networks and systems at different security classification levels. 

Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have repeatedly 

shown both the need for, and the perils involved in, transferring 

critical intelligence and other operational data across networks 

with different security levels quickly and efficiently. In April 2010, 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense publicly reported on a widespread 

intrusion into some of the most sensitive networks in the U.S. Government. This intrusion was enabled by an infected thumb drive 

that was used, along with countless others, as an expedient means 

of transferring data quickly across classified and unclassified network domains, in violation of DOD policy, to meet warfighters’ 

needs. This incident shows the importance of effective cross domain 

capabilities, policies, and oversight to protect the confidentiality 

and integrity of DOD networks. Although cross domain solutions 

are recognized as critical enabling technologies, DOD still lacks a 

cohesive strategy to acquire, use, and audit the capabilities that it 

requires to securely transfer data. This need is exacerbated by 

DOD’s planned transition to increased uses of enterprise resources 

and cloud computing. The evolution of DOD and the intelligence 

agencies to the Joint Information Environment, the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise, and the Intelligence Community 

Information Technology Environment will bring both opportunities 

and challenges for the application of cross domain solutions, and a 

comprehensive strategy will be vital. 

Beyond planning for the future, the committee is also concerned 

that the variety of cross domain solutions fielded to date have inconsistent levels of security and performance, are applied haphazardly, and lack key capabilities to protect against sophisticated 

threats. DOD needs a better understanding of the current and future requirements, more consistent and enforceable policies, and 

greater investment in improved technological solutions. 

The committee is aware that the Chief Information Officer and 

the Defense Information Systems Agency are working on a crossdomain enterprise service. In addition, the National Security Agency (NSA) has sponsored development of integrated cross domain solutions with improved security to enable tailoring of cross domain 

tools to specific security risks and data transfer requirements. NSA 

and the National Reconnaissance Office have also initiated investments in technology for virtualizing cross domain appliances for 

cloud applications. However, NSA’s program has faltered due to 

budget cuts, and no initiatives have been taken to modify the current information assurance certification and accreditation process, 

which is based on the tight coupling of hypervisors to hardware, to 

support cross domain virtualization. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
227 

Budgeting and accounting for cyber mission forces (sec. 

1643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of Defense, for fiscal year 2017 and every succeeding 

year, for the President’s annual budget submission and supporting 

documents, to develop a major force program (MFP) category and 

program elements for the Department of Defense (DOD) future 

years defense program for the training, arming, and equipping of 

the cyber mission forces. The provision would also require the Secretary to assess the feasibility and advisability of establishing a 

general fund transfer account to execute the funds programmed in 

the MFP and provide a recommendation to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2015. 

The committee believes that the cyber mission, conducted by 

large cyber mission forces under a sub-unified command and component command elements in the combatant commands, is important enough and sensitive enough to warrant the degree of visibility and focus provided by a MFP designation and dedicated program elements. The committee recognizes that establishing a MFP 

could create difficulties in executing funds through existing channels and therefore directs DOD to consider whether to recommend 

using a transfer account to translate funds from MFP categories to 

existing ones. 

The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to shift 

the majority of the funding for cyber mission forces personnel from 

the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) to reflect the warfighting 

mission of U.S. Cyber Command. MIP funding should be restricted 

to those personnel whose primary responsibility is providing intelligence support to the operational forces. There is a growing recognition that military operations in cyberspace will, in fact, be substantially different from signals intelligence collection in the cyber 

domain. Military cyber forces will need distinctly different tools, infrastructure, training, range support, exercise support, and concepts of operation. 

The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor to provide a 

report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees by 

March 15, 2015, on DOD’s actions and plans to comply with this 

direction. 

Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption 

service for the Joint Information Environment (sec. 

1644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for a decryption service 

for the Joint Information Environment (JIE). The goal of the strategy would be to acquire the ability to securely and efficiently 

decrypt and re-encrypt communications to enable the inspection of 

communications content to detect cyber threats and insider threat 

activity. The provision would require the strategy to include a requirements definition, an architecture, a concept of operations, a 

cost estimate, and an assessment of the security benefit of such a 

service. The provision would require a briefing on the strategy to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
228 

be provided to the congressional defense and intelligence committees by October 1, 2015. 

The use of encryption to provide security for client-server communications and transactions, and by applications and search engines, has been growing steadily, and comprised a large percentage 

of total communications traffic traversing Department of Defense 

(DOD) Internet Access Points (IAP) even prior to the leaks by Edward Snowden. The Snowden revelations are causing an acceleration of this trend. The committee believes it is unwise for DOD to 

let encrypted traffic pass by its intrusion detection and prevention, 

packet capture, next-generation firewalls, and behavior-based detection systems because of an inability to decrypt and re-encrypt 

encrypted communications at IAPs and regional security centers. 

The entire burden of defense is placed on endpoint or host-based 

defenses, which are not equal to the task. 

The committee recognizes that there are complex choices and 

trade-offs to be made when such a service is inserted into an enterprise between users, web sites, and applications, but believes that 

DOD needs to work through those issues and decide on a solution 

before this problem gets much worse. 

Reporting on penetrations into networks and information 

systems of operationally critical contractors (sec. 1645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary to establish procedures for designating contractors as 

‘‘operationally critical contractors,’’ notifying such contractors that 

they have been designated, and requiring designated contractors to 

report successful penetrations of their computer networks by 

known or suspected advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The 

provision narrowly defines an operationally critical contractor as a 

company designated by the Secretary as a critical source of supply 

for airlift, sealift, intermodal transportation services, or logistical 

support that is essential to mobilization, deployment, or 

sustainment in a contingency operation. 

The provision would require that the procedures include mechanisms for the Department of Defense (DOD) to assist contractors 

in detecting and mitigating network penetrations and include protections for trade secrets, commercial or financial information, and 

information that could be used to identify a specific person. The 

provision stipulates that the procedures issued by the Secretary 

will permit DOD to share reported cyber intrusion information 

with agencies that conduct counterintelligence investigations for 

their use in such investigations. 

The provision also would require the Secretary to assess existing 

contractor reporting requirements and department policies and systems for sharing of information on successful cyber intrusions into 

DOD contractor networks. Upon completion of that assessment, the 

provision would require the Secretary to designate a single DOD 

component to receive cyber intrusion reports from contractors and 

other government agencies and issue or revise guidance to ensure 

that cyber intrusion-related information is shared by the designated DOD component with other appropriate DOD components. 

The private sector plays a crucial role in force mobilization, deployment, and sustainment operations. In fact, the former head of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
229 

U.S. Cyber Command estimated that more than 80 percent of our 

logistics are transported by private companies. According to U.S. 

Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), private airlines, for example, provide more than 90 percent of DOD’s passenger movement capability and more than one third of its bulk cargo capability. In addition, the overwhelming majority of DOD deployment 

and distribution transactions—the former Commander of 

TRANSCOM estimated more than 90 percent—occur over unclassified networks. 

The Department’s reliance on private companies and unclassified 

networks to conduct contingency mobilization, deployment, and 

sustainment operations make the networks of operationally critical 

defense contractors attractive targets for foreign governments and 

other APT actors. 

According to DOD, Chinese military analysts, for example, have 

identified logistics and mobilization as potential U.S. 

vulnerabilities and the Department has said that Chinese military 

doctrine ‘‘advocate[es] targeting adversary command and control 

and logistics networks to impact their ability to operate during the 

early stages of conflict.’’ U.S. experts on Chinese military planning 

have raised the prospect of China using cyber capabilities to impede U.S. force deployment in the event of a contingency. 

It is critical that DOD be aware of successful cyber intrusions by 

APTs into the computer networks of operationally critical contractors so that TRANSCOM and other potentially affected combatant 

commands can assess the risks to contingency operations posed by 

those intrusions and adjust operational plans, if necessary. 

The committee recently completed an investigation into how 

much information was known to TRANSCOM about successful 

APT-attributed cyber intrusions into the computer networks of 

command contractors. The investigation found that TRANSCOM 

was not aware of the overwhelming majority of such intrusions. 

Reasons for the lack of awareness included gaps in requirements 

for cyber intrusion reporting and failures within DOD to share information known about successful APT-attributed cyber intrusions 

with TRANSCOM. The provision is directed at addressing those reporting gaps and improving the way in which the Department receives, assesses, and disseminates information about successful 

APT intrusions into the networks of operationally critical contractors. 

Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the .mil 

top level domain (sec. 1646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should: 

(1) Advise the President to transfer the remaining role of the 

United States Government in the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to a global multi-stakeholder community only if the President is confident that the 

.mil top level domain and the Internet protocol address numbers used exclusively by the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

national security will remain exclusively used by the Department; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
230 

(2) Take all necessary steps to sustain the successful stewardship and good standing of the Internet root zone servers 

managed by DOD components. 

The committee urges the Secretary to seek an agreement through 

the IANA transition process, or in parallel to it, between the 

United States and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers and the rest of the global Internet stakeholders that 

the .mil domain will continue to be afforded the same generic top 

level domain status after the transition that it has always enjoyed, 

on a par with all other country-specific domains. 

Subtitle E–Intelligence-Related Matters 

Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in 

commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend current statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense to authorize 

the conduct of those commercial activities necessary to provide security for authorized intelligence collection activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense by amending subsection 431(a) 

of title 10, United States Code, to change the current sunset date 

from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2017. 

Authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial 

activities as security for military operations abroad (sec. 

1652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsections 431 through 437 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) 

Allow the Secretary of Defense to employ commercial activities as 

security for military operations, in addition to existing authority for 

using such activities for intelligence operations; (2) Direct that reports of audits on commercial activities used as security for intelligence operations as reported to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, and reports on audits of commercial activities used as security for military operations are reported to the congressional defense committees only; and (3) Make conforming 

changes throughout these subsections. 

Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over Department of Defense facilities for intelligence collection or 

special operations activities abroad (sec. 1653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 926(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) to extend the sunset dates in the 

provision in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2017’’; and by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2016’’ 

and inserting ‘‘fiscal year 2018.’’ 

Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654) 

The committee recommends a provision to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to respond appropriately to the direction of 

the President and the Secretary of Defense to the numerous serious 

security and insider threats that have affected the DOD. The proviVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
231 

sion would require the Secretary of Defense to establish an interim 

continuous evaluation (CE) system not later than September 30, 

2015, to continuously evaluate the security status of DOD employees and contractors who are approved to access secret or top secret 

classified information by the DOD Central Adjudicative Facility. 

The provision would require that the Secretary achieve the ability 

to at least continuously monitor personnel with access to the most 

sensitive classified information and privileged access to networks 

and databases. 

The provision also would require the Secretary to capitalize on 

the interim system to develop business rules, requirements, lessons 

learned, privacy standards, and operational concepts that will be 

valuable for the development of an objective CE capability. 

The provision would require that both the interim system and 

the objective CE system be engineered to interface with the larger 

insider threat detection capability mandated by Executive Order 

(EO) 13587. The provision would also require that the objective CE 

capability be acquired competitively to take advantage of the best 

commercial technology, and be designed as an open system to enable upgrades as technology evolves. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a multi-disciplinary team of experts from across the Department to 

assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), as 

the Senior Agency Official for insider threat detection and prevention under EO 13587. This team would be composed of experts in 

counterintelligence, personnel security, law enforcement, physical 

security, human resources, privacy and civil liberties, network 

monitoring, cybersecurity, systems engineering, information technology, large-scale data analysis, and program acquisition. 

This collection of expertise is vital to fulfill the President’s mandate in EO 13587 to create an automation-assisted insider threat 

capability that is integrated across all the currently stove-piped 

functions listed above. Achieving the ability to conduct integrated 

insider threat analyses in all these functional areas across the military services, defense agencies, and commands is a daunting management, information technology acquisition, and systems engineering challenge. Currently, the USDI has no structure or team of personnel with the expertise necessary to meet this challenge. 

In addition to this management team, the provision would require the Secretary, through the Senior Agency Official, to designate an official to be responsible and accountable for the Department’s efforts to create an integrated insider threat detection and 

prevention capability. The provision also calls for the creation of an 

Executive Committee, composed of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Chief Information 

Officer, to support the Senior Agency Official to ensure the cooperation of all components of DOD. 

Finally, the provision would require the Senior Agency Official to 

establish a plan by September 30, 2015, to develop the insider 

threat capability. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
232 

Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of Department of the Army to an open system architecture 

(sec. 1655) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army, within 3 years of the date of enactment of 

this Act, to migrate the Distributed Common Ground System 

(DCGS), including the so-called Red Disk or any successor to Red 

Disk under development at the Army Intelligence and Security 

Command (INSCOM), to an open systems architecture. The provision would require that the DCGS open systems architecture be 

compliant with the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise 

open architecture. 

Migrating the Army DCGS to an open system would enable the 

rapid, competitive acquisition and integration of any DCGS segment, upgrades to any portion of the system, and new applications. 

Migration would also enable competition for sustainment, which 

would speed up the modernization cycle, improve capabilities, and 

lower costs. The committee notes that INSCOM has briefed the 

committee on plans to make the Red Disk next-generation DCGS 

upgrade to DCGS an open systems architecture. This provision is 

consistent with actions the committee recommends on open systems approaches to systems acquisition elsewhere in this bill and 

report. 

Budget Items 

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites 

For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $87.0 million for the 

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program to store satellite #20. The 

committee recommends a reduction by $87.0 million as excess to 

need. 

Mobile Ground System 

For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $319.5 million for the 

Space Based Infrared System, PE 0604441F. The committee recommends an increase of $5 million for the Mobile Ground System 

to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement to procure spare parts and address obsolescence issues with the Nation’s 

sole survivable missile attack and warning system. 

Space Based Infrared System 

The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and Evaluation 

budget request for the Space Based Infrared System, PE 0604441F, 

is $319.1 million. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 

million to the hosted payloads and $8.0 million to the wide field of 

view test bed as excess to need. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development 

The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to PE 

number 0604853F to be used in the development of a liquid rocket 

engine consistent with section 1629. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
233 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite 

The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and Evaluation 

budget request for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite, PE 0605431F, is $314.4 million. The committee recommends 

a reduction of $9.0 million to interim contractor support and $7.0 

million to the protected satellite communication demonstration as 

excess to need. 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The fiscal Year 2015 budget requested no funding for the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program office. On February 25, 

2014, the ORS Executive Committee adopted the U.S. Strategic 

Command’s recommendation for ORS–5 to be a low-cost, shorttime-to-launch space situational awareness payload which will 

launch in fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends $20.0 million to support activities in fiscal year 2015 in developing this payload and other mission needs. The committee expects the Air Force 

to budget for the follow-on activities in fiscal year 2016. 

The Secretary of the Air Force informed the committee on April 

14, 2014, that the ORS program would be integrated in the Space 

and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in order to use the ORS program office’s unique streamlined acquisition authorities to ‘‘maintain expertise in the rapid fielding of space capabilities in a manner similar to that of the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office.’’ 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to brief the 

congressional defense committees within 180 days after the enactment of this Act on how details of the ORS program office and its 

personnel will be integrated into the SMC and the programs that 

SMC plans to use in the ORS office with its unique mandate and 

acquisition authorities to execute programs ordered to drive down 

the cost of satellite payloads and launch. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration 

collaboration on strategic systems 

The committee notes that the Air Force and the Navy have established an Executive Steering Group to identify opportunities 

and oversee investments for collaborative sustainment and modernization of strategic systems. The committee commends Air Force 

and Navy strategic programs leadership for pursuing collaborative 

efforts aggressively, thereby expanding their joint knowledge base 

and capabilities, leveraging efficiencies, and realizing cost savings 

in a challenging fiscal environment. 

The committee directs the Air Force, the Navy and the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to submit a joint report 

to the congressional defense committees on a plan to expand strategic systems collaboration among the military services and the 

NNSA. The report shall include a description of current collaborations among the military services on strategic system programs, to 

include elements of the nuclear triad, the conventional prompt 

global strike, other strategic forces, and other matters of importance to increase commonality and reduce cost. The Secretary of 

Defense will also provide a description and assessment of any addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
234 

tional opportunities for new or enhanced collaboration, including 

programs that may benefit from those efforts, risks, and benefits 

that may be realized by cross-service or departmental collaboration, 

and the potential costs and benefits for collaborative research, development, and production. This report shall be submitted no later 

than March 1, 2015. 

Ammonium Perchlorate 

Ammonium perchlorate (AP) is an inorganic compound and solid 

oxidizer that is critical to key weapons systems—including the Trident II D5 missile. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

relies on a single supplier of AP. The committee also notes that the 

price DOD pays for AP has increased in recent years. 

In light of the fiscal constraints confronted by DOD, the committee believes the department should seek to promote competition 

in the AP supplier base that will result in DOD paying more competitive prices for AP. 

Therefore, the committee directs DOD to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees, no later than September 30, 

2014, on DOD’s use of AP, as well as DOD’s efforts to diversify its 

supplier base and achieve more competitive prices for AP. 

Analysis of satellites available for open competition 

For fiscal year 2015, the Air Force moved the launch vehicle for 

the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) geostationary orbit 

(GEO) Satellite 4 from a phase 1A potential competitive launch opportunity to the 36 core block buy. The committee understands that 

this satellite falls within the launch parameters that a new entrant 

is capable of launching. The committee encourages increased opportunities for competition and directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to report to the committee whether it is feasible to move the SBIRS 

GEO Satellite 4 back to the phase 1A competitive opportunities 

within the future years defense program (FYDP) or any other satellite to help offset the decrease in the allotment of open competition satellites across the FYDP. 

Analytic support to cyber policy and planning 

The committee reiterates its concern that the growth in the strategic and operational importance of the cyberspace domain has not 

been accompanied by parallel growth in independent, public interest-oriented cyber policy analysis. Therefore, the committee directs 

that the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense shall 

assess the amount and quality of support for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Cyber Command, 

and the combatant commands that is currently available from existing federally funded research and development centers and academia in the areas of operational integration of cyber with other 

military capabilities, independent analysis of cyber defense policy, 

deterrence policy, acquisition policies and practices, total force development and management, and cyber risk and threat assessment. 

The committee further directs that within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the Principal Cyber Advisor shall provide a briefVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
235 

ing to the congressional defense committees of the conclusions and 

recommendations of this assessment. 

Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

estimate the cost of the space situational awareness system over 

the current future years defense program. The assessment shall be 

in the form of a briefing due no later than February 28, 2015. 

Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of Defense Inspector General 

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–259) established the defense intelligence agencies of the 

Department of Defense (DOD) as ‘‘designated Federal entities’’ 

under section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 

95–452), as amended, which under that Act provides a statutory 

foundation for the Inspectors General (IGs) of those agencies. Since 

that change was implemented, the IGs of these DOD components 

have questioned the authority of the DOD (IG) to supervise their 

activities. 

The committee supports strong and independent IGs, especially 

in the intelligence agencies that are involved in sensitive classified 

activities. However, the independence the committee values is from 

undue influence of the officials managing the agencies they oversee, not from reasonable supervision by the DOD IG. 

Section 8 of the IG Act of 1978 itself states that the DOD IG 

shall ‘‘provide policy direction for audits and investigations relating 

to fraud, waste, and abuse and program effectiveness; develop policy, monitor and evaluate program performance, and provide guidance with respect to all Department activities relating to criminal 

investigation programs; monitor and evaluate the adherence of Department auditors to internal audit, contract audit, and internal review principles, policies, and procedures; [and] develop policy, 

evaluate program performance, and monitor actions taken by all 

components of the Department in response to contract audits, internal audits, internal review reports, and audits conducted by the 

Comptroller General of the United States.’’ The committee concludes that the law clearly provides that the DOD IG has the authority to direct and set audit and investigative policy across all 

DOD components, including the designated Federal entities. 

In April 2012, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued an updated DOD Directive (DODD 5106.01) on the DOD IG, which reaffirms the role of the DOD IG as ‘‘the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all audit and criminal investigative matters 

and for matters relating to the prevention of fraud, waste, and 

abuse in the programs and operations of the DOD.’’ This role includes the responsibility to provide ‘‘policy and direction for audits, 

investigations, evaluations, and inspections; monitor and give particular regard to the activities of the internal audit, investigations, 

evaluation, inspection, and IG units of DOD Components . . . with 

a view toward avoiding duplication and ensuring effective coverage, 

coordination, and cooperation; [and] audit, evaluate, monitor, and 

review the programs, policies, procedures, and functions of the 

DOD Intelligence Components to ensure that intelligence reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
236 

sources, including those funded through the National Intelligence 

Program, are properly managed.’’ This Directive also clearly establishes the authority and responsibility of the DOD IG to set policy 

for audits and investigations across DOD, and to coordinate with 

all component IGs to achieve effective oversight. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, the heads of the 

defense intelligence agencies, the DOD IG, and the defense intelligence agency IGs to develop a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that sets forth the relationship of the component IGs to the 

DOD IG, consistent with the requirements of section 8 of the IG 

Act and DODD 5106.01. The committee expects to receive regular 

updates on the progress of this effort. 

Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on weather satellite 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to brief the 

congressional defense committees on whether other technical capabilities, agencies, and/or countries can provide or fulfill the military 

requirement for electro-optical and infrared weather imaging. This 

briefing should address the cost-effectiveness and performance 

record of the various options as well as how the Air Force intends 

to avoid reliance on non-allied foreign sources. This briefing shall 

occur no later than September 30, 2014. 

Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense 

technology 

In light of the growing regional missile threats around the world, 

the committee believes it is important for the Department of Defense to work closely with allied and partner nations to help them 

establish and improve their air and missile defense capabilities. 

Therefore, no later than November 1, 2014, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

detailing the nations that have approached the United States Government with requests to acquire, improve, or expand air and missile defense systems and capabilities—including lower-tier air and 

missile defense systems and capabilities. This report should also 

describe the maturity of these discussions and progress toward securing the appropriate export control permissions with each nation 

that has expressed interest. The report shall be unclassified, but 

may include a classified annex. 

Information assurance and certified workforce training 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

its ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to personnel 

responsible for Information Assurance (IA) activities pursuant to 

DOD Directive 8570, which establishes the policy and assigns the 

responsibilities for Department IA training, certification, and workforce management. The committee also understands the importance 

of testing to verify skills, which raises the effectiveness of information technology professionals and can help identify gaps in training. 

The committee therefore encourages the DOD to continue to evolve 

the performance-based assessment of skills and progression toward 

certification. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
237 

Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System 

The committee is encouraged that the March 2014 ‘‘Agreement 

between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning 

Iron Dome Defense System Procurement’’ resolves many aspects of 

coproduction of Iron Dome components and interceptors in the 

United States. The committee is aware that the Missile Defense 

Agency and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization have entered 

into this international agreement to govern how the United States 

will support up to $605.8 million from fiscal years 2013 to 2015 for 

Iron Dome. 

Given the significant U.S. taxpayers’ investment in the Iron 

Dome system, the committee believes that coproduction of parts 

and components should be done in a manner that will maximize 

U.S. industry participation in interceptor and battery deliveries for 

Israel’s defense needs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees, not later than November 1, 2014, on its ongoing efforts 

to resolve details and agreements required for U.S.-based coproduction of Iron Dome technology, including coproduction of parts, components, and all-up-rounds of the Iron Dome system. 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted 

Sensor 

The committee notes that U.S military forces and those of our allies confront a growing threat from cruise missiles, large caliber 

rockets, tactical ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The committee also notes the completion of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program in December 2013. 

The JLENS is a bi-static tethered aerostat system intended to 

provide persistent elevated sensor data to detect, track, and help 

defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets, including swarming 

boats. 

Based on the successful EMD and the potential of JLENS to 

meet combatant commander requirements in varying areas of responsibility, the committee supports the budget request for JLENS 

through the Army’s Aerostat Joint Project Office. 

The committee also supports the decision of the Department of 

Defense to deploy a JLENS orbit to the National Capital Region 

(NCR) to demonstrate its capabilities in a 3-year operational exercise in support of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their NCR homeland defense mission, to improve the system, and to evaluate its potential 

ability to meet the requirements of other combatant commanders. 

The committee notes that the report accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Senate Report 

113–44), directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after the 

initiation of the JLENS operational exercise demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it plans to use from the demVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
238 

onstration to guide potential future acquisition and deployment decisions for JLENS. The committee continues to believe that it is important for DOD to have clearly defined objectives and metrics for 

this demonstration before it begins and looks forward to submission of this report. 

The committee notes that several combatant commands have expressed an interest in a persistent, elevated sensor capable of supporting cruise missile defense. The committee also notes that an incomplete set of equipment for a second JLENS orbit remains in 

long-term storage in the United States. As a result, the committee 

requests a briefing no later than October 30, 2014, regarding the 

status of the additional JLENS equipment and the options and considerations for a potential deployment of a second JLENS orbit to 

another combatant command in a future fiscal year. 

Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals 

The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) is a satellite constellation that will replace the aging Ultra High Frequency Follow 

On (UFO) satellite constellation. The committee has a number of 

ongoing concerns. First, whether the MUOS constellation becomes 

fully operational in time to replace the aging UFO fleet of satellites. The second issue of concern is the fielding of a valid terminal to fully utilize the MUOS waveform. Third, questions remain 

about the end-to-end system integration of the ground stations to 

satellites and the ground terminals, including associated costs. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report, no later than 

October 31, 2014, on the status of launching the MUOS satellites 

in order to replace the UFO fleet, the end-to-end integration of the 

MUOS system, the ability to procure user terminals meeting the 

MUOS waveform, and whether existing software defined or other 

terminals can be upgraded to utilize the waveform at a lower or 

comparable cost. 

New START Treaty Force Structure 

The committee supports the nuclear force structure proposed by 

the President to meet the requirements of the New Strategic Arms 

Reduction Treaty (START), as described in the report provided to 

Congress pursuant to section 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). In particular, 

the committee supports the decision to maintain, in an operational 

status, the 50 active intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos 

that will be emptied as a result of the reductions. In testimony before the committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee on 5 March, 

2014, Major General Garrett Harencak described the important infrastructure sustainment benefits associated with this posture and 

explained that, ‘‘We need to keep the silos in a warm status so 

[that] we maintain a continuity between them and the communication aspect that was built for many, many, many good reasons back 

in the [19]60s. . . . It’d be my highest recommendation.’’ 

Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, in his April 8, 2014, testimony before the House Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

also noted that the new force structure ‘‘is very much in concert 

with the course that has been set as we move towards the Ohio replacement program of 12 submarines with 16 tubes. So, the deactiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
239 

vation of four tubes on Ohio is very consistent with the long-range 

decision that has already been made by the Secretary of Defense 

and the administration.’’ 

The committee appreciates that the proposed schedule allows the 

Department of Defense to implement the required reductions efficiently and provides sufficient time to accommodate unforeseen 

delays. 

The committee notes that the Air Force intends to distribute 

empty silos across the ICBM force. The committee supports this approach that will maximize the Air Force’s ability to maintain all 

silos in the inventory as well as provide the highest possible mission-capable rates. 

Ohio Replacement Program 

The committee remains committed to the full funding of the 

Ohio-class Replacement Program (ORP) and supports the research 

and development activities budgeted in fiscal year 2015. The committee notes that in fiscal year 2014, the Department of Energy 

budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration, and specifically the Naval Reactors Office, fell below requested levels. One 

reported impact of this shortfall was insufficient funding to support 

a planned capital equipment procurement for High Performance 

Computers (HPC) that are necessary to complete the reactor core 

design for ORP. In testimony before this committee, Chief of Naval 

Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated, ‘‘The program has 

to stay on track. We have no slack in this program,’’ and he has 

since indicated the possibility of a military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR) to reconcile the Naval Reactors funding 

shortfall. 

The committee remains concerned that a lack of funding for essential equipment and technologies for nuclear reactor core development could further delay this critical program and jeopardize the 

future of our sea-based strategic deterrent. Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on the status of the ORP, the 

status of the Naval Reactors Office’s reactor core development, and 

any collaborative efforts with the Department of Energy to address 

the identified funding shortfalls no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Processes for the secure provision of sensitive compartmented information to congressional committees 

The Secretary of Defense shall provide a briefing and accompanying supporting material to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2014, explaining the process for 

coordinating security arrangements to convey sensitive compartmented information from the Department of Defense to the congressional defense committees, including in-person briefings and 

meetings, secure telephone conversations, physical transmission of 

documents, and electronic communications. The briefing shall include the requirements and processes for exchanging and verifying 

accesses and clearances, confirming identities and identifications, 

the receipting of documents, arranging the use of secure rooms and 

SCIFs, and any other processes or procedures relating to this topic. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
240 

Projected workload at wide band satellite operations centers 

The Army is the designated scheduling agent for all Department 

of Defense owned wide band communications satellites whose 

workload continues to increase. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to project the workload requirements for scheduling wideband communication over the next 10 years consistent 

with the mix of media study. The report shall be due no later than 

February 28, 2015. 

Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System 

The U.S. Strategic Command’s Mission Planning and Analysis 

system (MPAS) is a 1980s tool that supports the command’s responsibilities for strategic deterrence planning and global strike. 

MPAS uses outdated interfaces and programming languages that 

are becoming unsupportable. The U.S. Strategic Command is updating MPAS through increments 4 and 5 of the Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network (ISPAN). The committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the ongoing effort to update MPAS against generally accepted program 

planning and cost guidelines and whether ISPAN increments 4 and 

5 will resolve the documented deficiencies of MPAS. The GAO shall 

present their findings in the form of a briefing to the congressional 

defense committees no later than January 31, 2015. 

Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness 

In order to inform the ongoing Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 

(ICBM) guidance modernization effort, the Secretary of the Air 

Force shall direct the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board to report 

on the range of inertial navigation and guidance technologies, including those currently used, that will give a range of accuracy and 

time to launch so as to determine whether it is possible to maintain the same strategic alert posture with additional decision time 

associated with launch. Additionally, in the course of this review 

the Board shall determine whether it is necessary to maintain the 

same alert status as is used today. 

The current inertial navigation and guidance systems are based 

on 1970s mechanical gyroscopic technologies, which must be continuously powered and rotated to maintain their alert status. These 

systems are aging out due to material wear and are in need of a 

technology refresh. There are more modern technologies that are 

solid state in nature, that do not mechanically wear as much, and 

where it is possible to achieve the same alert posture while giving 

more time for senior leadership decision making. This increase in 

senior leadership decision making time is consistent with the 2010 

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which in an effort to strengthen 

Presidential Decision Time, notes that efforts should be made to 

‘‘maximize the time available to the President to consider whether 

to authorize the use of nuclear weapons,’’ including ‘‘[f]urther 

strengthening the U.S. command and control system to maximize 

presidential decision time in a nuclear crisis.’’ Technologies have 

advanced considerably since the inertial guidance and navigation 

systems of the 1970s that required mechanical systems to gyroscopVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
241 

ically spin continuously and should be explored consistent with the 

NPR. 

As noted earlier, this report requirement shall not be construed 

to suggest or recommend a change to the U.S. strategic force alert 

posture for the ICBM. The 2010 NPR considered the possibility of 

reducing alert rates for ICBMs ‘‘and concluded that such steps 

could reduce crisis stability by giving an adversary the incentive to 

attack before ‘re-alerting’ was complete.’’ The existing strategic 

alert posture was again reaffirmed in the 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States. 

The report shall include technology readiness level and cost to 

implement. The report shall be due to the congressional defense 

committees no later than January 31, 2015. 

Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage 

Areas 

The committee finds the following: 

(1) The capability provided by the nuclear capable, air 

launched cruise missile (ALCM) is critical to maintaining a 

credible and effective air-delivery leg of the triad, preserving 

the ability to respond to geopolitical and technical surprise, 

and reassuring U.S. allies through credible extended deterrence. 

(2) Additionally, the committee has received testimony that 

relying on a single weapons storage areas (WSA) has negative 

operational impacts and could increase the burdens placed on 

other legs of the triad in an operational situation. 

(3) The committee has previously supported that enhanced 

WSA could improve the resiliency of the bomber force, provide 

redundancy in a critical national security mission, and reduce 

operational risk. 

(4) The committee notes that the Air Force has completed 

the report, ‘‘Reconstituting Air Force Weapons Storage Areas,’’ 

as requested in the committee report (S. Rpt. 113–44) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). 

(5) In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it currently 

does not have a funded project to reconstitute a second WSA 

for ALCMs. 

(6) Additionally, the report states that the Air Force’s WSA 

modernization plan, the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative, is in the preliminary stages, and indicates that it 

should be finalized in time to be programmed in fiscal year 

2016. 

(7) However, the Air Force did not include in its report an 

analysis of the requirements and costs of reconstituting a second nuclear WSA capability for ALCMs and the potential benefits or savings of shortening the recapitalization timeframe as 

requested in S. Rpt. 113–44. 

The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Commander of the United States Strategic Command, shall submit to the congressional defense committees the folVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
242 

lowing information on the plan for the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative including: 

(1) A business-case analysis of the requirements and costs 

for reconstituting a second WSA for ALCMs; 

(2) An analysis of potential cost-savings and benefits 

achieved through a shortened recapitalization timeframe; 

(3) An analysis of potential cost-savings and benefits of advances in physical and security surveillance technologies; and 

(4) A validation of requirements. 

Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

review the cost, scope, and schedule of the Global Positioning System (GPS) III Operational Control System (OCX) including synchronization with the launch of the GPS III constellation with recommendations for improvement. An interim briefing shall be given 

to the congressional defense committees no later September 30, 

2014, with a final briefing no later than February 28, 2015. 

Science and technology talent options for the Missile Defense Agency 

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is 

faced with a myriad of highly complex technical challenges in executing its designated missions, both in the near- and far-term. 

These technical challenges will require the agency to leverage the 

best technical talent and resources available in government, industry, small businesses, and academia. The committee notes that 

MDA has the authority to partner with high quality technical organizations through a number of pathways, including—but not limited to—grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, technology 

prizes, access to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and government laboratories, establishment of and 

access to University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and the 

Small Business Innovative Research program. These can all serve 

to harness the best innovative minds and ideas in the Nation, and 

engage with and build the technical workforce that can help address MDA’s significant technology challenges in the future. 

The committee encourages MDA to consider all of these options 

to address its technical goals. The committee directs MDA to develop a report describing its strategy and actions to address it longrange science and technology challenges, including its engagement 

strategy with universities, small businesses, UARCs, FFRDCs, and 

government laboratories, and to submit the report to the congressional defense committees not later than December 1, 2014. 

Security of Department of Defense industrial control systems 

In March 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) reissued two 

DOD Instructions related to cybersecurity: 8500.01, ‘‘Risk Management Framework for DOD Information Technology’’ and 8510.01, 

‘‘Cybersecurity’’. These Instructions for the first time mandated 

specific actions to secure industrial control systems (ICS) through 

the implementation of a Risk Management Framework. In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
243 

Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) issued a memorandum in 

March 2014 that focused on the security of ICS. This memorandum 

provided access across DOD to a standard security assessment tool 

developed by the Department of Homeland Security, and established an enterprise-wide working group to develop design criteria 

for new ICS equipment and systems. 

The newly issued Instructions require DOD components to inventory and register all ICS, and apply to them the new risk assessment methodology. The committee recognizes that this important 

initiative is just getting underway, but seeks to ensure that it is 

implemented immediately. Therefore, the committee directs that 

the USD(AT&L) and the Chief Information Officer provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 1 year of the 

enactment of this Act, on the results of the inventory, along with 

an assessment of the risks from ICS vulnerabilities to critical DOD 

operational missions. 

Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces 

The committee believes that the United States must maintain its 

commitment to ensuring the safety, security, reliability, and credibility of its nuclear forces. The committee supports longstanding 

principles of strategic military balance including that effective deterrence requires forces of sufficient size and flexibility to attack 

selectively a range of military and other targets yet enable us to 

hold back a significant and enduring reserve. Each leg of the nuclear triad delivery systems continues to provide unique contributions to stability. As the overall force shrinks, their unique values 

become more prominent. The committee is concerned that since 

2011, nuclear modernization efforts have encountered funding setbacks, cost overruns, schedule delays, mismanagement, and reductions in scope. The committee supports the view established within 

the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review that the United States nuclear triad has no equivalent mission. 

The committee requests the Department of Defense (DOD) to report back to the committee on the additional investments that will 

be needed in future years to avoid a militarily significant disruption to the nuclear enterprise. 

(1) DOD should incorporate how the possible return of sequester-level budgets in the next fiscal year would impact the Secretary of Defense’s priorities for nuclear modernization programs; and 

(2) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and corresponding commanders, should report under what conditions the June 2013 

Nuclear Employment Strategy meets our national security objectives. 

Update on nuclear command, control, and communications 

systems acquisition 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

update recent prior assessments of nuclear command, control, and 

communications acquisition programs with an interim briefing to 

the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 

2014, and a final briefing no later than January 31, 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(245) 

TITLE XVII—NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE 

FUTURE OF THE ARMY 

National commission on the future of the Army (secs. 1701– 

1709) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a commission to study the size and force structure of the Army, including 

active-duty forces, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and the Army 

National Guard (ARNG). The committee is aware that the Army 

and the Department of Defense continue their analysis, course of 

action development, and decisionmaking process with respect to the 

distribution of reductions of both end strength and force structure 

necessary to achieve the savings required by the Budget Control 

Act of 2011. The committee believes that under these circumstances an independent and objective review of Army size and 

force structure by a national commission is worthwhile. The commission would be required to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees not later than February 1, 2016. 

The provision would prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year 2015 

to reduce the end strength of the regular Army, ARNG, or USAR 

below the levels provided in the budget request. The provision 

would also prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year 2015 to divest, 

retire, or transfer any AH–64 Apache aircraft assigned to the 

ARNG. An exception to this aircraft prohibition, however, would 

allow the transfer of up to 48 Apache aircraft from the ARNG to 

the regular Army. 

The commission would be made up of four members appointed by 

the chairman and ranking members of the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and four 

members appointed by the President. 

The commission would undertake a comprehensive study of the 

structure of the Army and policy assumptions related to the size 

and force mixture of the Army. In addition to the review of the 

Army’s structure, the commission would conduct a study of plans 

to transfer Apache aircraft from the ARNG to the regular Army. 

The commission would also evaluate the distribution of responsibility and authority, as well as the strategic basis or rationale, analytical methodology, and decisionmaking process, related to the allocation of ARNG end strength and force structure to the states 

and territories. 

In its assessment of the Army’s size and structure, the commission should also consider the need for any changes to existing legislation—such as the Militia Act of 1903, the National Defense Act 

of 1920, the National Security Act of 1947, and the GoldwaterNichols Act of 1986—that establishes the roles and missions of the 

active and reserve components. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
246 

The committee notes the difficulties expressed by the National 

Commission on the Structure of the Air Force associated with the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) interpretation and application of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as amended (Public 

Law 92–463). The commissioners stated in their report that, ‘‘As 

the Commission proceeded with its work, it became increasingly 

clear that the DOD’s interpretation of FACA’s purpose would have 

a significant, and frequently negative, impact on the Commission’s 

work.’’ It is apparent from the views of the commissioners that the 

Department’s interpretation of the oversight safeguards intended 

by the FACA may have unnecessarily complicated the conduct of 

their study. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to support the National Commission on the Future of the Army in a balanced manner and in a spirit consistent with congressional intent 

and appropriate FACA oversight while avoiding the negative impacts that were experienced by the Air Force Commission. 

The committee is also aware that certain aspects of the Army’s 

‘‘1993 Offsite Agreement’’ pertaining to reserve component core 

competencies has, in part, for the last 20 years, guided its analysis 

and decisionmaking with respect to reserve component force structure. This agreement, between senior leadership of the regular 

Army, ARNG, USAR, and the associations representing their members, guided the realignment of combat arms, combat support, and 

combat service support force structure between the ARNG and 

USAR. The agreement provides that the ARNG should retain a mix 

of combat arms and support structure while the USAR would divest its combat arms and retain combat support and combat service 

support capabilities. In this manner the core competencies of the 

Army’s reserve components are established: for the ARNG a balance of combat and supporting arms, and for the USAR combat 

support and service support. 

By and since this agreement, therefore, the ARNG has been and 

remains the reserve component within which the Army places 

those combat arms capabilities to reinforce, supplement, or compliment the combat capabilities of the active Army. The committee 

notes that, as appropriate and necessary to address the national security and support for civil authorities requirements of the United 

States, there are several examples of units and capabilities in the 

regular Army that are not in the reserves, as well as units and capabilities in the reserves that are not in the regular Army. 

This system for the alignment of core capabilities among the 

Army’s reserve components has served the Nation, the Army, and 

the domestic support and public safety needs of the states very well 

ever since. The committee recognizes the success of this agreement, 

as evident by the successful partnerships in combat, security, and 

support missions by active and reserve servicemembers in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The committee encourages the Army 

to continue to maintain the reserve components as an operational 

reserve and manage the distribution of combat arms, combat support, and combat service support capabilities and forces consistent 

with and respectful of the intent of its ‘‘1993 Offsite Agreement’’ regarding reserve component core competencies. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(247) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, 

environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by account. The fiscal year 2015 budget requested $6.56 billion for military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $5.1 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.19 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $270.1 million for 

base closure activities. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $6.45 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in 

the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015.’’ 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2017, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2018, whichever is later. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(249) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$539.4 million for military construction and $429.6 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2015. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$544.8 million for military construction and $429.6 million for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

The budget request included $96.0 million for the third of six 

planned phases of construction of a Command and Control Facility 

at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The committee understands that all six 

phases are necessary to provide for a complete facility that meets 

the requirements of U.S. Army Pacific. Furthermore, the committee 

understands that combining the remaining four phases into a single authorized project would save the Army significant military 

construction funding and accelerate facility construction by up to 4 

years. 

Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of $311.4 

million for the remaining four phases of the Command and Control 

Facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. This authorization assumes at 

least 10 percent savings will be achieved through construction and 

contracting efficiencies. Consistent with these efficiencies, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriations for fiscal 

year 2015 of $86.4 million for the first increment of this project. 

The committee believes that it is inappropriate to phase, rather 

than increment, large military construction projects when each distinct phase does not fully meet the requirements of the user and 

directs the Army to refrain from requesting similarly phased 

projects in the future. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes that the Army’s military construction request for fiscal 

year 2015 is 52 percent less than what was requested for fiscal 

year 2014. Therefore, in light of savings achieved by incrementally 

funding large military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, 

the committee recommends $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping Center at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, the Army’s top 

unfunded military construction priority. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
250 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active-duty component of the Army. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2004 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public 

Law 108–136) for construction of an Explosives Research and Development Loading Facility at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2013 projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239), for construction of an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 

at Fort Drum, New York, a Battalion Headquarters at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, a Vehicle Storage Building at Fort McNair, 

District of Columbia, and a Secure Administration/Operations Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

With regard to the Secure Administration/Operations Facility at 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the committee understands that the third 

phase of construction currently planned for fiscal year 2018 is necessary to provide a complete facility that meets the requirements 

of the Army. Furthermore, the committee understands that modifying the authorization for the second phase of construction to include the third phase of construction, as recommended by the committee in the provision, would save the Army at least $11.0 million 

in construction costs, accelerate completion of the facility by 18 

months, and avoid at least $16.0 million in operation and maintenance costs that would no longer be necessary for leased facilities. 

The committee believes that it is inappropriate to phase, rather 

than increment, large military construction projects when each distinct phase does not fully meet the requirements of the user and 

therefore directs the Army to refrain from requesting similarly 

phased projects in the future. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
251 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2015, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United 

States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to certify to the congressional defense committees that the Secretary intends to award a contract for the renovation of MacArthur Long Barracks concurrent with assuming 

beneficial occupancy of the renovated MacArthur Short Barracks 

before obligating or expending funds for construction of increment 

3 of the Cadet Barracks at the United States Military Academy, 

New York. 

Limitation on funding for family housing construction at 

Camp Walker, Republic of Korea (sec. 2109) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for construction of 

military family housing units at Camp Walker, Republic of Korea 

(ROK), until 30 days following the delivery of a report to the congressional defense committees validating on-post housing requirements in the ROK, including Camp Walker and Camp Humphries, 

and a plan for meeting such requirements. 

As outlined in the committee’s April 2013 report titled ‘‘Inquiry 

Into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support the U.S. Military Presence Overseas,’’ the annual cost of supporting U.S. troops 

in the ROK is more than $3.0 billion each year. The ROK contributes funding to support U.S. military presence in the country, 

known as Special Measures Agreement (SMA) funds, which can be 

used to offset U.S. labor, logistics, and construction costs. 

The military family housing requirement of U.S. Forces-Korea 

(USFK) is significant, largely unfunded, and has been exacerbated 

in recent years because of a decision by USFK to increase the number of authorized Command Sponsored Families (CSF) from approximately 1,700 in 2007 to more than 4,600 today. Furthermore, 

the Commander of USFK has specified a requirement that at least 

40 percent of the 3,308 families assigned to Camp Humphries live 

on post. In total, the committee understands that USFK currently 

faces an on-post housing deficit of 1,021 homes at Camp Walker 

and Camp Humphries that would require at least $530.0 million in 

military construction to resolve. 

The committee is concerned that the military family housing requirements in the ROK are unaffordable in the current budget enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
252 

vironment and believes that USFK should revalidate its CSF and 

on-post housing requirements. If such requirements are to remain 

valid, the committee believes that USFK should look at alternative 

sources of funding, to include using SMA funds, to satisfy all or a 

significant portion of the housing requirement. The committee believes USFK should also consider reengaging with the ROK Government to determine whether funds set aside for low-priority 

Yongsan Relocation Plan projects could be reallocated for family 

housing. The committee believes that SMA funds used for construction of facilities must be prioritized to ensure lower priority 

projects are not funded before higher priority projects, such as military family housing. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that section 2807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113–66), as clarified elsewhere in this bill, requires that all future 

military construction projects funded using in-kind payments and 

in-kind contributions pursuant to bilateral agreements with partner nations be submitted for congressional authorization in the 

Military Construction Authorization Act. The committee reiterates 

that this provision applies to ROK-funded construction under the 

new SMA signed February 2, 2014, and all future SMAs or bilateral agreements that allow for in-kind military construction. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(253) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.02 billion for military construction and $370.4 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2015. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$993.2 million for military construction and $370.4 million for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

The budget request included $120.1 million for a Center for 

Cyber Studies Building in Annapolis, Maryland. The committee understands the Navy would be unable to expend the full amount of 

the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $90.1 million reduction. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes that the Navy’s military construction request for fiscal 

year 2015 is 40 percent less than what was requested for fiscal 

year 2014. Therefore, in light of savings achieved by incrementally 

funding large military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, 

the committee recommends $13.8 million for a Regional Ship Maintenance Support Facility at Kitsap, Washington, and $50.7 million 

for a Radio Battalion Complex at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 

the top unfunded military construction priorities of the Navy and 

Marine Corps, respectively. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2015 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
254 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2012 projects (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1666), for construction of a Double Aircraft 

Maintenance Hangar at Yuma, Arizona, an Infantry Squad Defense 

Range at Camp Pendleton, California, and a Crab Island Security 

Enclave at Kings Bay, Georgia. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66), for construction of Small Arms Ranges at Yorktown, 

Virginia. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

projects (sec. 2207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for two projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Item of Special Interest 

Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters restoration 

The committee strongly supports the Navy’s effort to restore the 

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Headquarters at the 

Washington Navy Yard following the tragic shooting incident that 

occurred there in September 2013. The committee believes the 

project is important to reestablish a sense of normalcy for Navy 

personnel, civilians, and contractors who survived that day and to 

honor those who were lost by carrying on their work. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
255 

However, the committee has concerns about the acquisition strategy that was chosen for the restoration project. Using the Global 

Contingency Construction Multiple Award Contract (GCC MAC), 

the Navy awarded a competitive task order to one of the four GCC 

MAC contract holders for facility stabilization, basic repairs, and 

development of plans for a complete restoration of the facility. The 

inclusion of restoration plans in that initial task order appears to 

have locked the Navy into a sole-source follow-on task order for the 

restoration of the facility at a cost of approximately $74.0 million. 

The committee recognizes that other factors, including the expedited timeline necessary to allow NAVSEA personnel to vacate 

temporary and expensive leased facilities, influenced this acquisition strategy, but the committee is concerned that such an approach may have prevented the Navy from considering other competitive offers and may have resulted in additional cost for the restoration project. 

Given these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to: 

(1) Provide the congressional defense committees with a report not later than July 1, 2014, that, at a minimum, includes 

the following: 

(a) an explanation of the acquisition strategy used for 

the renovation project; 

(b) the cost and schedule of the renovation project; 

(c) an accounting of and explanation for any deviation 

from the original cost and schedule for the renovation 

project; and (d) a description of any lessons learned from 

the acquisition strategy used for this project and how they 

are being applied to improve future GCC MAC contacting 

actions. 

(2) Provide the congressional defense committees with a report every 90 days after the initial report in paragraph (1) 

above and until completion of the NAVSEA Headquarters restoration project that, at a minimum, includes an accounting of, 

and explanation for, any deviation from the original cost and 

schedule for the renovation project. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(257) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$811.7 million for military construction and $327.7 million for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2015. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$846.2 million for military construction and $327.7 million for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes that the Air Force’s military construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 30 percent less than what was requested for fiscal 

year 2014. Therefore, in light of savings achieved by incrementally 

funding large military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, 

the committee recommends $34.4 million for a Corrosion Control 

and Composite Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, 

the Air Force’s top unfunded military construction priority. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an overall 

limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active-duty component of the Air Force. 

The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2008 project (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 

Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 515), for acquisition of land at Shaw Air 

Force Base, South Carolina. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
258 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2015, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2012 authorization for two projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(259) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.06 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$38.7 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $61.1 

million for family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 

2015. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.86 billion for military construction, $38.7 million for chemical 

demilitarization construction, and $61.1 million for family housing 

for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2015. 

The budget request included $259.7 million for the Medical Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The committee understands the Department of Defense would be unable to 

expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $200.0 million reduction. 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. The 

authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation 

basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 

the amount authorized for military construction and family housing 

projects for the defense agencies. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
260 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for three projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2012 authorization for six projects until October 1, 2015, 

or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization 

Authorizations 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 

construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the chemical demilitarization program for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2000 project (sec. 2412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public 

Law 106–65), as most recently amended by section 2412 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111–383), for construction of a munitions demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(261) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $199.7 million for military construction in fiscal year 2015 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program (NSIP). 

The committee understands that the NSIP has expended prioryear funds more slowly than anticipated and does not require the 

full requested amount for fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the committee recommends a $25.0 million reduction. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $174.7 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2015. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(263) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $426.5 million for military construction in fiscal year 2015 

for facilities for the guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$532.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2015 for facilities for the guard and reserve components. The detailed funding 

recommendations are contained in the state list table included in 

this report. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes that the Department’s military construction request for 

the guard and reserve components for fiscal year 2015 is 38 percent 

less than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in 

light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large military 

construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the committee recommends $5.0 million for a Readiness Center in Alamogordo, New 

Mexico; $13.2 million for a Consolidated Sensitive Compartmented 

Information Facility at Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Arkansas; 

$25.0 million for an Army Reserve Center in Riverside, California; 

$47.9 million for a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center in Everett, 

Washington; and $14.5 million for a Guardian Angel Operations 

Facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Each of these 

projects were identified as the top unfunded military construction 

priorities of the respective guard and reserve components. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
264 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain 

fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for construction of Army Reserve Centers in Kansas 

City, Kansas, and Attleboro, Massachusetts. The provision would 

also extend the authorization for these projects until October 1, 

2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2013 project (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239), for construction of a Combined Maintenance Shop 

at Stormville, New York. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
265 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2015, 

or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(267) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $270.1 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends this 

amount. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in 

the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 

that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a future 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in the 

bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.8 million for 

BRAC planning activities. 

HUBZones (sec. 2703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 632 of title 15, United States Code, to expand the area around 

former military installations closed under the Base Realignment 

and Closure process that can be considered for purposes of satisfying employee residency requirements under the HUBZone program and would extend the period of applicability from 5 to 8 

years. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(269) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and inkind contributions (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the requirement of section 2687a of title 10, United States Code, as 

amended by section 2807 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), that military construction projects built with in-kind payments or in-kind contributions 

required by bilateral agreements be specifically authorized by law. 

The committee released a report in April 2013 titled ‘‘Inquiry 

into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support the U.S. Military Presence Overseas’’ that, among other things, found that inkind payments and in-kind contributions from partner nations to 

support the overseas presence of U.S. military forces in Germany, 

South Korea, and Japan have been used to fund questionable military construction projects. 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has chosen to interpret the requirements of section 2807 of 

Public Law 113–66 as applying only to military construction 

projects funded with in-kind residual value payments made by foreign governments in exchange for the return of U.S. facilities, despite the clear intent of Congress that the provision apply to any 

military construction projects built using in-kind payments or inkind contributions pursuant to a bilateral agreement. 

The DOD interpretation is surprising given the statement in the 

November 18, 2013, Statement of Administration Policy that section 2807 applied to ‘‘military construction projects provided pursuant to bilateral agreements with host countries or as in-kind payment of residual value.’’ Further, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment gave no indication that there were questions about the provision’s scope of applicability when he pledged DOD would comply with the law in his 

testimony before the committee on April 2, 2014. 

The committee reiterates its intent that section 2807 of Public 

Law 113–66 and the clarifications made by this provision apply to 

bilateral agreements including, but not limited to, the Special 

Measures Agreement (SMA) with the Republic of Korea signed February 2, 2014 and any successor SMA agreements, the U.S.-Korea 

Land Partnership Plan, and residual value payments in-kind for 

the return of facilities to Germany and elsewhere. This provision 

would exclude projects built using voluntary in-kind payments or 

in-kind contributions, including those under the Japanese Facilities 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
270 

Improvement Program, since they are not required by a bilateral 

agreement. 

Given that DOD has chosen to interpret the requirements of section 2807 of Public Law 113–66 in a manner inconsistent with congressional intent, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to notify the 

congressional defense committees at least 30 days prior to the initiation of any military construction project built for DOD personnel 

outside the United States that is not specifically authorized by law 

or that is funded with other than appropriated dollars during fiscal 

year 2014. 

Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for residential buildings designed and constructed using funds authorized 

by this bill to meet an above code green building standard or rating 

system to use the ICC 700 National Green Building Standard, the 

LEED Green Building Standard System, or an equivalent protocol. 

Modification of minor military construction authority for 

projects to correct deficiencies that are life-, health-, or 

safety-threatening (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

maximum amount of unspecified minor military construction funding that can be used to correct facility deficiencies that threaten 

the life, safety, or health of personnel from $3.0 million to $4.0 million. The committee recommends an increase in this threshold to 

reflect its view that life, safety, and health deficiencies are at least 

equal to, if not more important than, laboratory revitalization for 

which the unspecified minor military construction threshold is $4.0 

million. 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 

United States for an additional year. 

Limitation on construction projects in European Command 

area of responsibility (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense or a secretary of a military department from 

awarding a contract for any new military construction and family 

housing project, with certain exceptions, in the U.S. European 

Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility until the Secretary of 

Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 

installations and specific military construction requirements authorized in this Act have been examined as part of the ongoing European Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment (EICA), have been 

determined to be of an enduring nature, and most effectively meet 

military requirements at the authorized location. 

The committee understands that the proposed Joint Intelligence 

Analysis Complex (JIAC) consolidation at Royal Air Force 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
271 

Croughton, United Kingdom, would be expected to result in annual 

recurring savings of approximately $74.0 million, an approximately 

4.5 year payback on the cost of construction, and allow for the divestment of 21 dispersed and aging facilities that do not meet current requirements. Furthermore, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 

testified before the committee on April 10, 2014, on the operational 

benefits of consolidation, saying ‘‘There’s some great benefits to this 

program from an intelligence perspective. First, is it allows U.S. 

European Command and U.S. Africa Command, who are supported 

by this Joint Analysis Center, to keep their intelligence and analysis capability on the same continent . . . it’s really important to 

be in the same time zone for coordination of activity. The second 

thing it does is it allows them to keep an integrated intelligence 

coordination organization between European Command, Africa 

Command, and NATO. A lot of the colonial powers that know a lot 

more about Africa than we do are actually connected to U.S. European Command. This allows their analysts to be connected to U.S. 

Africa Command for their support. It also lets us be interoperable 

and interchange and share more intelligence with NATO.’’ 

The committee strongly supports the JIAC consolidation and believes projects of this type illustrate the intent of the EICA review. 

The committee encourages DOD to proceed with planning and design of the JIAC as soon as possible and recommends that consideration be given to combining future phases of the project to achieve 

cost, schedule, and contracting efficiencies, where possible. 

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 2806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funding 

authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense 

committees that any new construction of facilities at Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, have enduring military value independent of a highvalue detention mission. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative expenses relating to certain real property transactions 

(sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for reimbursements paid by non-federal persons or entities for administrative expenses incurred by the military departments for certain 

real property transactions to be merged with those in the current 

appropriation, fund, or account used by the military departments 

for payment of such expenses. 

Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial institutions operating on Department of Defense installations (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for the 

renewal or extension of existing real estate leases in support of an 

on-base financial institution without competition. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
272 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military 

Realignment 

Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region 

(sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan. 

The committee remains concerned about the overall affordability 

of the realignment of Marine Corps forces in the Asia-Pacific region 

and believes that responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ funds requires that Congress be provided high-confidence estimates of construction costs and schedules before initiating construction of new 

facilities in support of the realignment. In an October 24, 2013, letter to Chairman Levin, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Mr. Dennis V. McGinn, described the Marine Corps estimate of $12.1 billion for the proposed 

relocation as ‘‘conservative and programmatic’’ and noted that the 

estimate ‘‘does not include any potential costs for strategic lift or 

for the relocation of marines to Australia.’’ While the committee remains supportive of projects which have military utility independent of the permanent realignment of marines to Guam, including supporting training requirements, the committee believes that 

the costs associated with the realignment need to be accurately 

quantified and informed by the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision that is expected to be 

complete in early 2015. Strategic lift requirements necessary to 

support the distributed laydown must also be specifically addressed 

before moving forward. 

Additionally, the committee stresses that the requirements of the 

recommended provision should be fulfilled prior to any Department 

of Defense (DOD) funds being spent for the development of civilian 

infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, on 

Guam in preparation for the permanent relocation of marines and 

their families. The committee reiterates the congressional intent 

outlined in the January 16, 2014, colloquy between Senators Durbin, Levin, and McCain that section 8102 of the DOD Appropriations Act contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2014 

(Public Law 113–76) should not be interpreted to supersede section 

2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66). 

Lastly, the committee remains concerned about the sustainment 

of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma on Okinawa until 

the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) is complete and operational at Camp Schwab. While actions taken by the Governor of 

Okinawa late last year to allow construction of the FRF to move 

forward were significant and encouraging, the committee believes 

that the complexity of the project, the long construction timeline, 

and the potential for additional delays make it critical that the Marine Corps and the Government of Japan continue to adequately 

sustain operations, support and housing facilities at MCAS 

Futenma. The committee understands that MCAS Futenma has 

identified approximately $52.0 million in necessary facilities 

sustainment projects in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 and will require 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
273 

approximately $20.0 million on an annual basis thereafter to meet 

its facilities sustainment requirements. The committee strongly 

supports the commitment of the Marine Corps of approximately 

$22.0 million in facilities sustainment funding for MCAS Futenma 

in fiscal year 2015 and encourages a similar level of funding each 

year until the FRF is complete and operational. 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii 

(sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 1.2 acres at Joint 

Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Honolulu Authority for 

Rapid Transportation for the public benefit of a rail platform. 

Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to exchange real property with Arlington 

County, Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for purposes 

of expanding the contiguous land available to Arlington National 

Cemetery. 

The committee understands Arlington County’s desire to utilize 

the land south of a realigned Columbia Pike for a variety of uses, 

including public transportation uses and facilities, a museum to 

honor the history of Arlington County and the Freedman’s Village, 

and to accommodate the indoor space and parking needs of the Air 

Force Memorial. The committee encourages all interested parties to 

work together in the development of their respective parcels, making sure these objectives can be achieved while not detracting from 

the dignity, honor, and solemnity of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Additionally, the committee notes that Arlington County and the 

Army signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 

2013 intended to serve as a guiding document for the land exchange. The committee encourages the Army and the Commonwealth of Virginia to enter into a similar MOU, if it would help facilitate the land exchange. 

Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. 

Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to transfer approximately 10 acres adjacent 

to Lake Lanier, Georgia, in exchange for the transfer of approximately 282 acres at Camp Frank D. Merrill, Dahlonega, Georgia, 

by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma (sec. 2834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of property at Camp 

Gruber, Oklahoma, to the Department of the Army for the purpose 

of military training. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
274 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting at 

the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec. 

2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to permit a third party to establish and 

maintain a memorial dedicated to the victims of the shooting attack at the Washington Navy Yard that occurred on September 16, 

2013. Prior to establishment of the memorial authorized under this 

section, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees detailing, at a 

minimum, the design, specific location, and funding dedicated to 

the construction and long-term maintenance of the memorial. 

Items of Special Interest 

Design build contracts 

The committee notes that section 3309 of title 41, United States 

Code, provides for a two-phase process for selecting contractors eligible to compete for design-build military construction contracts. 

For the second competitive proposal phase of such contract solicitations, section 3309 states that ‘‘the maximum number specified in 

the solicitation shall not exceed five unless the agency determines 

with respect to an individual solicitation that a specified number 

greater than five is in the Federal Government’s interest and is 

consistent with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection process.’’ The committee has been made aware of industry concerns that the Department of Defense frequently includes more 

than five eligible contractors in the second phase of design-build solicitations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment to submit to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2015, a report describing its use of the two-phased selection process for design-build contracts, including benefits and disadvantages, and the 

criteria that are used when making a determination that inclusion 

of more than five contractors in the second phase of such solicitations is in the best interests of the Federal Government. 

Laboratory revitalization 

Historically, Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory facilities 

and test centers have not fared well in the internal competition for 

limited military construction and facility sustainment funds. The 

committee notes that the maintenance and construction of worldclass research and development (R&D) facilities is an important 

part of ensuring that the best new technologies and capabilities are 

delivered to warfighters, and that reports indicate that global competitors are investing increased resources in advanced research infrastructure. The quality of these facilities is also key to efforts to 

attract and retain world-class technical talent at all experience levels in DOD organizations. 

For fiscal year 2015, the Department’s budget request includes 

$116.4 million for R&D facilities out of a total military construction 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
275 

request of $6.56 billion. Neither the Army nor the Air Force included any funding for R&D facilities in their budget requests for 

either fiscal years 2014 or 2015. The committee remains concerned 

about the adequacy of recapitalization rates of these facilities and 

has provided a number of tools, including expanded minor military 

construction authorities and the ability for DOD laboratories to accumulate funds, known as section 219, for up to 5 years for revitalization projects up to $4.0 million in cost. 

The committee also notes that section 2805 of title 10, United 

States Code, required the Secretary of Defense, not later than February 1, 2014, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the use of expanded minor military construction authority for laboratory revitalization. The committee encourages DOD to 

complete and submit the required report as soon as possible. 

Privatized lodging 

The committee notes the success of the Privatized Army Lodging 

(PAL) program in eliminating inadequate lodging facilities. Furthermore, the committee understands that by the end of fiscal year 

2016, the Army expects to have privatized more than 14,000 rooms 

at 41 different installations. While the committee supports the PAL 

initiative, it is also concerned that some PAL hotels, in the interest 

of improving occupancy rates, may have provided lodging to persons who wouldn’t otherwise have access to the installation. Such 

practices have the potential to expose Department of Defense 

(DOD) installations to unnecessary security threats. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination with 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and 

Environment, to conduct a review to ensure that DOD policies regarding base access for persons utilizing privatized lodging facilities are being consistently and appropriately applied at all PAL locations and to provide the results of such review to the congressional defense committees not later than October 1, 2014. 

Report on military construction unfunded requirements 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

military construction (MILCON) request for fiscal year 2015 is 40 

percent less than was requested for fiscal year 2014. In particular, 

the Army’s MILCON funding request declined by 52 percent compared to its request for fiscal year 2014. 

As the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 

Environment testified on April 2, 2014, ‘‘infrastructure degradation 

is not immediate, so DOD Components are taking more risk in the 

MilCon program in order to decrease risk in other operational and 

training budgets. This funding will still enable the Department to 

respond to warfighter requirements and mission readiness. However, the reduced budget will have an impact on routine operations 

and quality of life as projects to improve aging workplaces are deferred.’’ 

The committee is concerned about the significant cuts to 

MILCON and their likely impact of increasing the number of facilities in poor to failing condition. The committee is concerned that 

MILCON cuts will ultimately lead to lasting negative impacts to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
276 

our military’s readiness and their ability to effectively respond to 

crisis abroad and at home. 

These concerns apply not only to the active component, but to the 

guard and reserve as well. The committee believes that MILCON 

funding should be equitably distributed among each service’s active, guard, and reserve components based on a comprehensive 

MILCON strategy. Furthermore, the committee would like to have 

a better understanding of how National Guard MILCON funding is 

prioritized and distributed among the States. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination with 

each of the Service secretaries, to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on DOD MILCON requirements, with 

focus on each of the Services—active, guard, and reserve facilities. 

The report shall include, at a minimum: an accounting of unfunded 

MILCON requirements over the future years defense program by 

Service, component, and State; an assessment of the risk to readiness assumed by not funding these requirements; a review of the 

procedures the Army and the Air Force, in collaboration with the 

National Guard Bureau, use to allocate National Guard MILCON 

funding among the States; and procedures used by each Service 

and their components to prioritize and allocate MILCON funding 

and balance risk across the active, guard, and reserve components. 

Reprogramming packages for military construction projects 

While the Department of Defense (DOD) complies with notification requirements for the use of various standing authorities under 

title 10, United States Code, to construct facilities not specifically 

authorized by Congress, the committee is concerned that the DOD 

does not routinely submit reprogramming requests to fund such 

projects, including the source of funds to be used for the project, 

to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. Rather, such reprogramming requests are generally only submitted to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives for approval, thereby depriving the authorizing committees of visibility into, and oversight of, 

reprogrammings of military construction funds that had previously 

been authorized for other purposes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to ensure that courtesy copies of all reprogramming requests for military construction 

funds be provided to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives. 

Scope of work variations 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

proposed modifications to section 2853 of title 10, United States 

Code, that would allow the DOD to increase the scope of a military 

construction project by up to 10 percent above the amount authorized by Congress. 

On February 27, 2012, the DOD Inspector General (DOD IG) 

published a report titled, ‘‘Guidance Needed to Prevent Military 

Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved Scope of 

Work.’’ The report found that in 3 of 17 case studies, military construction projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
277 

(USACE) and Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) officials did not comply with facility sizes on the 

congressional request for authorization. According to the report, 

‘‘This occurred because the scope of work variations permissible by 

section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, from the congressional 

request for authorization are unclear and inconsistently applied. As 

a result, DOD officials do not have assurance that military construction projects are built consistent with congressional intent and 

in accordance with legislative requirements.’’ 

The committee strongly supports the new guidance issued in response to congressional concerns and the DOD IG report by the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment on June 24, 2013, that seeks to provide greater clarity and 

consistency in defining the authorized scope for military construction projects. The committee reiterates its position that the cost 

and scope of projects identified on Military Construction Project 

Data Sheets, also known as DD Form 1391, define the authorized 

limits of the contract authority for projects included in the annual 

National Defense Authorization Act. Given the problems identified 

by the DOD IG, the relatively recent implementation of revised 

guidance, and the critical importance of thorough planning and design activities to reduce uncertainty with regard to project cost and 

scope, the committee believes it would be inappropriate to provide 

additional flexibility under section 2853 of title 10, United States 

Code. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(279) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2015, 

including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 

capital equipment, research and development, nuclear weapons, 

naval nuclear propulsion, environmental restoration and waste 

management, operating expenses, and other expenses necessary to 

carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in 

three categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), (2) Defense environmental cleanup, and (3) Other defense 

activities. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department totaled $17.842 billion, a 4.6 percent increase above 

the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. Of the total amount requested (rounded up to the first significant decimal point): 

(1) $11.7 billion is for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $1.5 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $753.0 million is for other defense activities; and 

(4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security. 

The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $12.0 billion for NNSA, of which; 

(a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $1.9 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $1.4 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and 

(d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator, 

the amount of the budget request; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
280 

(2) $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities 

(based on not reauthorizing the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund); 

(3) $753.0 million for other defense activities, the amount of 

the budget request; and 

(4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $12.0 billion for the DOE in fiscal year 2015 for the NNSA 

to carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $8.3 billion for weapons activities, 

the amount of the budget request. 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as follows: $2.7 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.8 billion for campaigns; $2.05 billion for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; 

$233.8 million for the secure transportation assets; $173.4 million 

for nuclear counterterrorism incident response; $76.9 for counterterrorism and counter-proliferation; and $797.8 million for defense 

nuclear security and the Chief Information Officer. 

The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the committee urges 

the NNSA to find efficiencies where and whenever possible. The 

ability to robust modernization funding during a time of decreasing 

federal and defense budgets will be increasingly difficult as time 

goes on. Good stewardship of the funding, as well as the nuclear 

weapons and the nuclear weapons complex, is critical to the longterm support for and sustainment of the projected increases. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $2.7 billion for directed stockpile 

work. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related 

to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as 

well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs. This account also 

includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and 

support equipment. 

The committee understands that for fiscal year 2015, the B61 is 

undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one variant reducing the overall number of such B61 systems by 50 percent and 

once certified operational by the Department of Defense (DOD) will 

permit the elimination of the B83 weapon system, the last Cold 

War era megaton class weapon. 

The funding for B61–12 life extension program is proposed at 

$643.0 million. The committee understands the importance of the 

Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 2020 first 

production unit in order to begin replacing the system deployed by 

NATO allies and needs to understand what backup plan, if any, 

the Departments of Defense and Energy have to provide temporary 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
281 

lifetime extension of the existing weapons if the Mod 12 schedule 

slips as it most likely will. 

The committee understands that the NNSA has slipped the 

interoperable warhead out beyond the 5-year budget window and 

questions whether beginning this program at such a late stage is 

cost-effective compared to simply performing a life extension of the 

W88 (after it has had its fuse replaced under the ALT 370 program) and the W78, which will be in need of a full life extension 

program. 

The committee also understands that the NNSA has slipped the 

decision on the warhead for long-range stand-off weapon from 1 to 

3 years, which is to replace the air launched cruise missile which 

will end service life in the late 2020s. 

The committee continues to be concerned about overall workflow 

coordination between the design laboratories and the production facilities: Pantex, Y–12, and the Kansas City plant. While unlikely 

due to the program delays this year, there could be up to five life 

extension programs underway, the B61–12, the long range standoff weapon, the W88 fuse program, an interoperable warhead to replace the W–88 and W78 systems, and the ongoing W–76 program. 

Concurrency, funding delays, or program slips in any one of these 

programs can impact the others given they all use the three production facilities. 

Finally, the committee has concern about the fragile nature of 

maintaining a workload balance and key personnel at the two 

physics laboratories given that the majority of the work with the 

W76–1 is now at Pantex, the warhead replacement for the longrange stand-off weapon has been delayed, and that work for the 

interoperable warhead or life extensions of the W88 and W78 separately will be pushed out at least 5 years. This concern was evident 

in testimony of Drs. McMillan and Goldstein who are the directors 

of Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, respectively, when they 

testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 9, 2014. 

The essence of the stockpile certification program is the ability of 

each laboratory to independently assess the warheads in the current stockpile using separate computer codes and key personnel. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns, including 

a $7.5 million reduction to the inertial confinement fusion and 

high-yield campaign. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the 

Nevada National Security Site, and the weapons production plants. 

Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and 

maintain the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the 

DOE’s annual certification that the stockpile remains safe, secure, 

and reliable without nuclear weapons testing. 

The committee notes that as life extension programs take on 

more importance in the future years, the campaigns, particularly 

those associated with the science base, will need to sustain ongoing 

work and budget. The stockpile stewardship program by all accounts has exceeded all expectations compared to what it was envisioned in the 1990s. More importantly, it is the seed corn to bring 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
282 

in the best and brightest young post-doctorate scientists to work 

with senior scientists. Testimony this year before the Strategic 

Forces Subcommittee by the three weapons laboratory directors has 

supported the success of this program. 

The committee continues to be concerned regarding funding for 

the enhanced surveillance program, which produces the future tools 

to inspect the stockpile. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review this program against best program practices as to whether the program has a long-term plan 

and understands the full amount of funding needed to maintain 

that plan. The GAO shall give an interim briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than October 31, 2014, with a 

final briefing no later than February 28, 2015. 

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations 

The committee recommends $2.0 billion for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Operations. 

The committee understands that the projected costs for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project for replacing the combined 

Y–12 plant buildings consisting of 9212, 9215, and 9204–2E has 

risen to $11,000 to $14,000 per square foot for a 650,000-squarefoot facility. It took almost 10 years and almost $1 billion in design 

to reach these projections with the encouragement and the help of 

the DOD Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation. The 

committee understands that similar to the replacement of the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) facility at Los Alamos, 

the replacement for the UPF will occur in a smaller series of buildings to distribute cost over time, given that some operations in 

buildings such as 9215 and 9204–2E are not in dire need of a new 

facility like the uranium operations in building 9212, where the 

structure literally dates to the Manhattan Project. The committee 

looks forward to a conservative cost estimate for the first module 

in replacing building 9212 but will approach it with trepidation 

and caution given the past record of this project. The committee directs the GAO to continue monitoring this project with periodic updates to the congressional defense committees on the direction the 

program is taking and recommendations for sound program management. 

Elsewhere in this bill there is a provision directing the NNSA to 

establish a budget line for uranium sustainment so that uranium 

capabilities, so essential to the stockpile, are not developed using 

Plant Directed Research and Development funds, which are not intended to be long-term sustainable sources of funding for capabilities replacement at the Y–12 plant. 

The committee believes that the proposal to replace lithium production capabilities at the Y–12 plant starting in fiscal year 2017 

(project 17–D–XXX) should begin in fiscal year 2016. Portions of 

the concrete ceiling above equipment that supplies components to 

the stockpile are spalling as the rebar inside the 60-plus-year-old 

concrete has corroded due to a desiccant used in the air handling 

system. Such working conditions are unacceptable if not dangerous. 

The committee directs the GAO to review the status of the existing 

facility to meet stockpile needs, whether the NNSA has a long-term 

and coherent program plan for lithium sustainment, and how wellVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
283 

developed the plans are to replace this unacceptable facility. The 

GAO shall brief the congressional defense committees no later than 

February 28, 2015, on the results of this review with an interim 

briefing no later than October 31, 2014. 

With the deferral of the CMR Replacement project, the committee continues to be concerned about implementing a long-term 

strategy for plutonium sustainment. Testimony by Dr. McMillan 

before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 9, 2014, indicates that a modular approach to a smaller series of buildings 

holds promise for lower costs and greater flexibility. However, the 

ability to accomplish the first two stages of moving out of the 60- 

year-old CMR facility into other facilities within Technical Area 55 

are in danger of not being met by the required date of 2019. Like 

Dr. McMillan, the committee remains concerned about meeting the 

2019 deadline for vacating the CMR facility. Direction is given elsewhere in the bill to assist the NNSA in accomplishing the move out 

of the CMR facility in a timely fashion. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $233.8 million for the secure transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The secure 

transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of nuclear 

weapons, weapons materials, components, and other materials requiring safe and secure transport. 

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer 

The committee recommends $618.1 million for safeguards and security and the Chief Information Officer; the same as the budget 

request. The committee is aware of the recent formation of the Departmental Security Committee for execution of departmental security policy across the nuclear enterprise. It is the committee’s understanding that the Office of Defense Nuclear Security is developing an enterprise-wide life-cycle management plan for the physical security infrastructure by June 2014. The committee directs 

the GAO to review this plan against GAO’s program management 

and best practices with a briefing to congressional defense committees no later than January 30, 2015. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, an increase of $285.0 million to the 

budget request. The National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy 

(DOE). 

The committee directs the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program to report no later than December 1, 2015, on a 5-year budget 

profile, if feasible, for a program to equip and train other countries 

on nuclear incident response. This effort should be joint with the 

NNSA nuclear counterterrorism incident response program and the 

counterterrorism and counterproliferation program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
284 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends $390.8 million for nonproliferation and verification research, an increase of $30.0 million for research 

associated with detection of enrichment and reprocessing activities. 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends $141.4 million for nonproliferation 

and international security, the same as the budget request. 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation 

The committee recommends $375.5 million for international nuclear materials production and cooperation, an increase of $70.0 

million to assist countries in detecting nuclear materials and implementing measures to install security upgrades. 

Fissile Materials Disposition program 

The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in commercial power reactors. The United States and Russia have signed the 

Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement where each 

country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of excess 

weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility that this 

plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so that they will not 

produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium in fast reactors. 

After the United States considered more than 40 different options 

on how to dispose of surplus plutonium, a 2010 amendment to the 

agreement eliminated immobilization as an option and selected 

MOX as the disposition path for the U.S. share of the plutonium. 

The NNSA has now estimated that the life cycle cost of the project 

is on the order of $26.0 billion with construction of the MOX facility ranging from $9.6 to $12.0 billion (depending on level of annual 

appropriation). The original cost estimate of the facility was $4.8 

billion. The facility is currently 60 percent complete. The committee recommends $456.1 million for fissile materials 

disposition, an increase of $145.0 million which is for the MOX fabrication facility construction. 

For fiscal year 2015, the NNSA has proposed to place the construction of the MOX project in cold stand-by. Until such time as 

the committee receives and evaluates a final report listing alternatives to reducing the 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium 

to MOX, the NNSA is directed to continue construction of the facilities. 

Global threat reduction initiative 

The committee recommends $373.5 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative, an increase of $40.0 million to accelerate the 

return of U.S. and non-U.S. origin nuclear material as well as radiological material protection. 

Naval Reactors 

The committee recommends $1.4 billion for naval reactors. The 

committee understands that in fiscal year 2014, naval reactors did 

not receive funding for a super computer to model the Ohio ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
285 

placement fuel core, as well as funds needed for the Modifications 

and Additions to a Reactor Facility at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories. The committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to approve necessary reprogramming funds to meet these important program objectives. The committee supports the replacement for the 

Spent Fuel Handling Facility to be constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response 

The committee recommends $173.4 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request. 

Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs 

The committee recommends $76.9 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $403.3 million for the Office of the 

Administrator, the amount of the budget request, a decrease of 

$87.5 million. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the 

DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support the 

cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and surface water, 

and the treatment and disposal of radioactive and other waste generated through the production of nuclear weapons and weapons 

materials. The Environmental Management program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials, including plutonium and 

highly enriched uranium. The committee notes that the budget request of $463.0 million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund assumes that Congress will reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 

2297g) for industry contributions. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, 

this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it 

will not be reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee redistributes the $463.0 million associated with this assumption to other higher priority needs. 

Savannah River Site 

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah River 

Site cleanup to help accelerate and meet tank stabilization milestones under the consent order with the State of South Carolina. 

The committee is aware of the critical milestones with the State of 

South Carolina for tank close-out by 2028. In that regard, the 

start-up of the Salt Waste Processing Facility is a critical element 

to separate high-level waste from low-level waste. The committee 

expects to be informed of the final baseline cost estimate for the 

Salt Waste Processing Facility due to the delays of the large vessels that are part of the facility. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
286 

Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities 

The committee recommends $690.0 million, the amount of the 

budget request for the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The committee recommends $545.0 million for tank farm activities. The 

committee continues to follow the progress at the WTP at the DOE 

Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. Unlike the Savannah River 

Site, the composition of the waste in the tanks is non-uniform, adding complexity to the separation and treatment of high- and lowlevel waste. The Department is encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low-level waste streams and fully inform the committee 

of the costs associated with the pre-treatment of the low-level 

waste. The overall completion cost of the project has risen from 

$5.8 billion to $12.3 billion. The committee directs the Department 

to ensure that the committee is informed of decisions on directly 

treating the low-level waste and whether another pre-treatment 

plant is needed for the high-level waste. 

Hanford Site 

The committee recommends $848.1 million for the Hanford River 

Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization plant), the 

amount of the budget request. 

Idaho National Laboratory 

The committee recommends $367.2 million, the amount of the 

budget request, for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to remove 

the transuranic waste and other buried waste, as applicable, for 

shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to continue sodium 

bearing waste treatment operations. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

The committee recommends $224.6 million for Los Alamos National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to monitor groundwater contamination as well as to design a system to treat the 

hexavalent chromium contamination in the ground water. 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

The committee recommends $206.9 million for the Oak Ridge 

Reservation, the amount of the budget request. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

The committee recommends $216.0 million. The committee directs the GAO to review program operations at the plant with respect to safety and contractor assurance systems and compare the 

operation of the plant with respect to best practices developed by 

the GAO for program management and safety standards by the 

DOE and other applicable agencies. The review shall consist of an 

interim briefing no later than November 30, 2014, with the final 

product consisting of a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2015. 

Safeguards and Security 

The committee recommends $233.9 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
287 

Technology Development 

The committee recommends $13.0 million for technology development, the amount of the budget request. 

Program Direction and Support 

The committee recommends $295.8 million for program direction 

and support, the amount of the budget request. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $751.0 million for other defense activities, a $2 million reduction 

from the budget request. Of this amount, the committee recommends $179.9 million for health, safety, and security, a $1 million reduction from the budget request; $202.1 million for specialized security, the amount of the budget request; $170.9 million for 

Legacy Management, a $1 million reduction from the budget request; $73.5 million for Independent Enterprise Assessment, the 

amount of the budget request; $118.8 million for other defense-related administrative support, the amount of the budget request; 

and $5.5 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy defense 

capital assets (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act to require that, under order 413.3 at 

the end of phase CD–1 and before phase CD–4, the Secretary of 

Energy perform an independent life-cycle cost estimate of capital 

assets that have a single purpose mission. This is to reduce the 

likelihood of large increases in life-cycle estimates late in the program cycle of facilities as evidenced by the mixed oxide fuel facility 

and the waste treatment plant. 

Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates on 

life extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 

3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would align the 

independent cost estimating practices for life extension programs 

and new nuclear facilities with those performed by the Department 

of Defense as required by the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform 

Act (P.L. 111–23), which requires independent cost estimates early 

in the concept definition phase. For Department of Energy (DOE) 

programs, this is the 6.1 concept assessment phase of a life extension program and critical decision 1 of DOE Order 413.3, Program 

Management for Acquisition of Capital Assets. 

Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require in replacing building 9212 at the Y–12 plant, the technologies (or their 

substitutes) that are to go into the replacement building have a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
288 

technology readiness level of at least seven. Technologies (or their 

substitutes) that were in building 9212 that do not go into the replacement building are also to have a technology readiness level of 

at least seven. Critical decision-3 (construction) as defined by Department of Energy order 413.3 (Program and Project Management 

for the Acquisition of Capital Assets) for the replacement of building 9212 may not begin until this condition is met. 

This section applies only to process technologies that require protection levels consistent with Categories I and II found under Department of Energy Order 474.2 (Nuclear Material Control and Accountability), such as casting and material purification and enrichment. 

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances 

and Worker Health (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision would create an advisory 

board reporting to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program on toxic substances and worker health. 

Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports 

of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of 

the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

respond within 90 days to the findings of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise, 

created in section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112–239), which shall be submitted to 

the congressional defense committees. 

Identification of amounts required for uranium technology 

sustainment in budget materials for fiscal year 2016 

(sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security to include in the fiscal year 

2016 budget request a uranium sustainment budget line for technology development past technology readiness level five so that 

plant-directed research and development (R&D) at facilities such as 

Y–12 can concentrate on projects involving technology readiness 

level four and below. Currently, facilities such as Y–12 must develop most if not all future uranium technologies on plant directed 

R&D. 

Budget Items 

Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $9.4 million for 

the 6.1 study for extending the life of the cruise missile warhead. 

This effort is a high priority for the Air Force, which predicts that 

the current warhead and the missile will have to be life extended 

in the 2025 timeframe. The requested fiscal year 2015 funding will 

result in a 1 to 3 year delay in the overall effort. The committee 

recommends an increase of $7.5 million to this life extension program to mitigate the delay. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
289 

Environment Safety and Health 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the DOE Office of Envi- ronment Safety and Health is $188.7 million. The committee recommends a reduction of $1 million as excess to need. 

Legacy Management 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of En- ergy Office of Legacy Management is $158.6 million. The committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million as excess to need. 

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances 

and Worker Health 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funding for the 

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to fund activities in 

section 3114. 

Inertial confinement facility operations and target production 

The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security Administration 

budget request for the inertial confinement facility operations and 

target production is $335.9 million. The committee recommends a 

reduction of $7.5 million as excess to need. 

Federal salaries and expenses 

The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security Administration 

budget request for federal salaries and expenses is $410.8 million. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million as excess to 

need. 

Items of Special Interest 

Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities 

from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility 

The Strategic Forces Subcommittee is aware of the administration’s plans to execute the first two phases of the plutonium (Pu) 

strategy (maximize use of the new radiological laboratory/utility/office building and repurpose existing space in Plutonium Facility 

(PF)–4) as new subprojects to the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Replacement project. The third phase (module construction) will be a separate line item to be submitted in fiscal year 

2016. This approach will add additional visibility into the process 

as it will follow a more rigorous application of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3B, ‘‘Program and Project Management for 

the Acquisition of Capital Assets.’’ Recognizing that the Pu strategy 

includes a mixture of tasks that support the 2019 end of programmatic activities in the CMR facility and some tasks that do 

not support the 2019 milestone, the administration is encouraged 

to identify those tasks required to support the 2019 milestone and 

to pursue a streamlined DOE Order 413.3B process associated with 

those tasks. It is important that such streamlining should not in 

any way degrade reasonable program control and oversight. The 

third phase of the Pu strategy concerning module construction is 

not to be part of this streamlining consideration. The intent of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
290 

streamlining is to avoid deferring tasks that will reduce the risk 

in either CMR or PF–4, while awaiting broader approvals on critical decisions. The administration will provide a report to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, no later than September 31, 2014, that 

provides details on activities that can be accelerated to achieve the 

2019 CMR milestone. 

Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment 

The committee understands the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has repurposed funding, including resources 

that previously supported scientific equipment and capabilities 

needed to support and sustain the nuclear weapons mission, to 

meet infrastructure maintenance, repair, and recapitalization requirements. While the committee believes basic infrastructure 

needs are important, the committee is concerned that a sustained 

lack of investment in scientific capabilities could increase risk to 

the laboratories’ primary mission—science-based stockpile stewardship—and is not consistent with the stated national goal of achieving a modern and responsive nuclear infrastructure. The committee 

supports a solution that allows investment in both areas of pressing need and appreciates the considerable challenges confronting 

NNSA, as well as the difficulties stemming from not having a Senate-confirmed Administrator. In this regard, the committee welcomes the recent confirmation of the Administrator and encourages 

him to review its investment in scientific capabilities. 

National Nuclear Security Administration Governance 

The committee remains concerned about the current governance 

structure and management of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 

Since the 2009 conclusion of the Congressional Commission on the 

Strategic Posture of the United States, which found that ‘‘the governance structure of the [National Nuclear Security Administration] NNSA is not delivering the needed results,’’ evidence has only 

mounted that serious, bold reforms are necessary. The interim report of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the 

Nuclear Security Enterprise provides the most recent confirmation 

of the dire need for governance reform. 

The committee appreciates the work of the Panel and the detailed description provided in its report of the abortive structure 

currently in place. The Panel’s interim report makes clear that the 

current system chiefly prevents the efficient use of resources and 

the effective execution of its mission—arguably the two most important requirements of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 

The committee believes reform is imperative in order to maintain 

confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent and looks forward to the 

Panel’s final report, but notes that legislation ultimately cannot 

make an organization meet the expectations laid upon it. Leadership is the primary driver of excellence and the committee has 

great expectations for the new Administrator of the NNSA. 

Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for 

tritium production 

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to determine if 

the Mutual Defense Agreement between the United Kingdom and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
291 

Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of 

America on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Purpose, dated 

July 5, 1958, permits the United States to obtain low enriched uranium for the purposes of tritium production or purchase directly 

tritium from the United Kingdom. Such a determination shall be 

due to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2014. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(293) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $30.2 million. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis 

of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) 

The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 

guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance with 

the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also display the 

line-item funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2015 budget request and show where the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense, without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(295) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
296 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

National Defense (Budget Function 050) 

Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 051) 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

Title I--Procurement 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ..................................................... 5,102,685 334,000 5,436,685 

Missile Procurement, Army ...................................................... 1,017,483 0 1,017,483 

Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 1,471,438 86,011 1,557,449 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ......................................... 1,031,477 –18,400 1,013,077 

Other Procurement, Army ........................................................ 4,893,634 –356,400 4,537,234 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ..................... 115,058 –115,058 0 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ..................................................... 13,074,317 10,000 13,084,317 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ................................................... 3,217,945 93,000 3,310,945 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ............... 771,945 0 771,945 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy ............................................ 14,400,625 91,000 14,491,625 

Other Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 5,975,828 –15,000 5,960,828 

Procurement, Marine Corps ..................................................... 983,352 2,900 986,252 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ............................................... 11,542,571 –15,900 11,526,671 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ................................................ 4,690,506 –139,531 4,550,975 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ................................... 677,400 8,800 686,200 

Other Procurement, Air Force .................................................. 16,566,018 20,600 16,586,618 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 4,221,437 –210,772 4,010,665 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ..................................... 20,000 0 20,000 

Prior Year Rescissions ............................................................. –265,685 265,685 0 

Subtotal, Title I--Procurement .............................................. 89,508,034 40,935 89,548,969 

Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army .............. 6,593,898 5,702 6,599,600 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy .............. 16,266,335 –243,639 16,022,696 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force ........ 23,739,892 –227,434 23,512,458 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 16,766,084 415,822 17,181,906 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ................................. 167,738 0 167,738 

Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation .................................................................................. 63,533,947 –49,549 63,484,398 

Title III--Operation and Maintenance 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 33,240,148 –21,400 33,218,748 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ............................... 2,490,569 20,000 2,510,569 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ................... 6,030,773 14,200 6,044,973 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ............................................. 39,025,857 79,500 39,105,357 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 5,909,487 25,857 5,935,344 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................ 1,007,100 5,000 1,012,100 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................. 268,582 5,000 273,582 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 35,331,193 206,590 35,537,783 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
297 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ......................... 3,015,842 5,000 3,020,842 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ....................... 6,392,859 5,000 6,397,859 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 31,198,232 12,700 31,210,932 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ........... 13,723 13,723 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid .................... 100,000 100,000 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ................................................. 365,108 365,108 

DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund ....................... 212,875 212,875 

Environmental Restoration, Army ............................................ 201,560 201,560 

Environmental Restoration, Navy ............................................ 277,294 277,294 

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ...................................... 408,716 408,716 

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide .............................. 8,547 8,547 

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites ...... 208,353 208,353 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ................... 5,000 5,000 

Support of International Sporting Competitions, Defense ...... 10,000 –4,300 5,700 

Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance ................... 165,721,818 353,147 166,074,965 

Title IV--Military Personnel 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 128,957,593 –46,910 128,910,683 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............ 6,236,092 6,236,092 

Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel ................................... 135,193,685 –46,910 135,146,775 

Title XIV--Other Authorizations 

Working Capital Fund, Army ................................................... 13,727 13,727 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ............................................. 61,717 61,717 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide ...................................... 44,293 –5,000 39,293 

Working Capital Fund, Defense Commissary Agency ............. 1,114,731 200,000 1,314,731 

National Sea-based Deterrence Fund ..................................... 100,000 100,000 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense .............. 828,868 828,868 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................... 311,830 311,830 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ........... 820,687 20,000 840,687 

Defense Health Program ......................................................... 31,833,061 –78,000 31,755,061 

Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations .............................. 35,028,914 237,000 35,265,914 

Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations ... 488,986,398 534,623 489,521,021 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Military Construction 

Army ......................................................................................... 539,427 5,400 544,827 

Navy ......................................................................................... 1,018,772 –25,573 993,199 

Air Force .................................................................................. 811,774 34,400 846,174 

Defense-Wide ........................................................................... 2,061,890 –200,000 1,861,890 

Army National Guard ............................................................... 126,920 5,000 131,920 

Air National Guard .................................................................. 94,663 13,200 107,863 

Army Reserve ........................................................................... 103,946 25,000 128,946 

Navy Reserve ........................................................................... 51,528 47,869 99,397 

Air Force Reserve ..................................................................... 49,492 14,500 63,992 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction .................................. 38,715 38,715 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................ 199,700 –25,000 174,700 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
298 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Subtotal, Military Construction .............................................. 5,096,827 –105,204 4,991,623 

Family Housing 

Construction, Army .................................................................. 78,609 78,609 

Operation and Maintenance, Army .......................................... 350,976 350,976 

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps .................................... 16,412 16,412 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ........... 354,029 354,029 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ................................... 327,747 327,747 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................ 61,100 61,100 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ......................................... 1,662 1,662 

Subtotal, Family Housing ....................................................... 1,190,535 1,190,535 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Army ......................................................................................... 84,417 84,417 

Navy ......................................................................................... 94,692 94,692 

Air Force .................................................................................. 90,976 90,976 

Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure ............................. 270,085 270,085 

Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations ....... 6,557,447 –105,204 6,452,243 

Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 

051) ..................................................................................... 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 053) 

Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations 

Department of Energy Authorizations 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear Energy ........................................................................ 104,000 104,000 

Subtotal, Energy Programs .................................................... 104,000 104,000 

Advisory Board 

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health ....... 2,000 2,000 

Subtotal, Advisory Board ....................................................... 2,000 2,000 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons Activities .................................................................. 8,314,902 8,314,902 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................ 1,555,156 285,000 1,840,156 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................ 1,377,100 1,377,100 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ............................................... 410,842 –7,500 403,342 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ............ 11,658,000 277,500 11,935,500 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................. 5,327,538 –463,000 4,864,538 

Other Defense Activities .......................................................... 753,000 –2,000 751,000 

Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ........ 6,080,538 –465,000 5,615,538 

Subtotal, Department of Energy Authorizations ................... 17,842,538 –185,500 17,657,038 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
299 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Independent Federal Agency Authorization 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................. 30,150 30,150 

Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization ......... 30,150 30,150 

Total, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 

and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations ............ 17,872,688 –185,500 17,687,188 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 

053) ..................................................................................... 17,872,688 –185,500 17,687,188 

Total, National Defense (Budget Function 050) ................... 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452 

MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS 

Department of Defense-Military (051) .................................... 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264 

Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................................. 17,872,688 185,500 17,687,188 

Total, National Defense (050) ................................................ 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ... 63,400 63,400 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority ........................................ [5,000,000 ] [5,000,000 ] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority ...................................... [4,000,000 ] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(301) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
302 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Summary Defense Discretionary Authorizations 

Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

National Defense (050) 

Department of Defense-Military, Base Budget (051) ............... 495,543,845 429,419 495,973,264 

Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................................... 17,872,688 –185,500 17,687,188 

Total, National Defense (050) .................................................. 513,416,533 243,919 513,660,452 

Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations 

Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Already Authorized 

Department of Defense-Military (051) 

Defense Production Act Purchases ............................................ 22,000 22,000 

Indefinite Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property .................. 8,000 8,000 

Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property ...................... 31,000 31,000 

Subtotal, Department of Defense-Military (051) .................... 61,000 61,000 

Atomic energy defense activities (053) 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ..................... 100,000 100,000 

Subtotal, Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................. 100,000 100,000 

Defense-related activities (054) 

Other Discretionary Programs .................................................... 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Subtotal, Defense-related activities (054) .............................. 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Total, Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations (050) ...... 7,842,000 7,842,000 

Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050) 

National Defense (050) 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ..................................... 495,604,845 429,419 496,034,264 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 17,972,688 –185,500 17,787,188 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Total, Discretionary Budget Authority Implication, 050 ........ 521,258,533 243,919 521,502,452 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Department of Defense-Military (051) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement Fund ............................................................................. 7,071,000 7,071,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory .............................. 1,169,000 1,169,000 

Offsetting receipts ..................................................................... –1,591,000 –1,591,000 

Subtotal, Department of Defense-Military (051) .................... 6,649,000 6,649,000 

Atomic energy defense activities (053) 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and other ................................................................... 1,197,000 1,197,000 

Subtotal, Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................. 1,197,000 1,197,000 

Defense-related activities (054) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
303 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ........................... 59,000 59,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other .............................. 514,000 514,000 

Subtotal, Defense-related activities (054) .............................. 573,000 573,000 

Total, National Defense Mandatory Programs (050) .............. 8,419,000 8,419,000 

Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) 

Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ..................................... 502,253,845 429,419 502,683,264 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 19,169,688 –185,500 18,984,188 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 8,254,000 8,254,000 

Total, Budget Authority Implication (050) .............................. 529,677,533 243,919 529,921,452 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(305) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
306 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 1 13,617 1 13,617 

3 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) ..................................................................... 16 185,090 16 185,090 4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 19 190,581 19 190,581 5 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ......................................................................................................... 0 3,964 3,964 

ROTARY 

6 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ............................................................................ 55 416,617 35 196,000 90 612,617 

Risk reduction for buy of LUH to meet Army training fleet plans ...................... [35] [196,000 ] 

7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 25 494,009 25 494,009 8 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 0 157,338 157,338 

12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 79 1,237,001 8 145,000 87 1,382,001 

Army unfunded priority only for Army National Guard ........................................ [8] [145,000 ] 

13 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 0 132,138 132,138 14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 32 892,504 32 892,504 

15 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 0 102,361 102,361 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

16 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 2 26,913 2 26,913 

18 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ........................................................................................... 0 14,182 14,182 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
307 

19 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 131,892 131,892 20 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 181,869 181,869 21 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 32,092 32,092 22 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 15,029 15,029 23 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 76,515 76,515 25 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 114,182 114,182 26 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 115,795 115,79527 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 54,277 54,277 28 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 125,380 125,380 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

29 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 66,450 7,800 74,250 

At Army request transfer from APA 31 ................................................................ [7,800 ] 

30 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 0 32,400 32,400 

At Army request transfer from APA 31 ................................................................ [32,400 ] 

31 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 107,364 –47,200 60,164 

At Army request transfer to APA 29 and APA 30 ................................................ [–47,200 ] 

OTHER SUPPORT 

32 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 6,847 6,847 33 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 29,231 29,231 34 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 48,081 48,081 35 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 127,232 127,232 

36 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 1,203 1,203 

37 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 387 2,931 387 2,931 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY TOTAL .................................................................. 5,102,685 334,000 5,436,685 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

2 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ....................................................... 0 110,300 110,300 3 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 70 384,605 70 384,605 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

4 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 0 4,452 4,452 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
308 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 338 77,668 338 77,668 6 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1008 50,368 1008 50,368 7 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 0 19,984 19,984 8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 534 127,145 534 127,145 9 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 2994 21,274 2994 21,274 

MODIFICATIONS 

12 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 131,838 131,838 13 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 1,355 1,355 14 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 5,611 5,611 15 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 19,676 19,676 16 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 10,380 10,380 17 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 6,008 6,008 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

18 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 36,930 36,930 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

19 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 3,657 3,657 

20 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MISSILES) ........................................................................ 0 1,522 1,522 21 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 0 4,710 4,710 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY TOTAL ..................................................................... 1,017,483 0 1,017,483 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 STRYKER VEHICLE ..................................................................................................... 0 385,110 385,110 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

2 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 39,683 39,683 

3 FIST VEHICLE (MOD) ................................................................................................. 0 26,759 26,759 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
309 

4 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 107,506 37,000 144,506 

Army unfunded priority and industrial base risk mitigation .............................. [37,000 ] 

5 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ....................................................... 0 45,411 45,411 6 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 18 247,400 18 247,400 7 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 15 50,451 75,913 15 126,364 

Army unfunded priority and industrial base risk mitigation .............................. [75,913 ] 

8 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 2,473 2,473 9 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 7 36,583 7 36,583 

10 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 1,975 1,975 

11 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 8 49,462 –41,200 8 8,262 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ [–41,200 ]

12 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 237,023 24,000 261,023 

Army unfunded priority and industrial base risk mitigation .............................. [24,000 ] 

14 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................... 0 6,478 6,478 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

16 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 5,012 5,012 

17 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 8959 28,390 8959 28,390 18 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 148 148 19 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 38234 29,366 –8,750 38234 20,616 

At Army request transfer to WTCV 31 and RDTEA 70 and 86 ............................ [–8,750 ] 

21 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 8,409 8,409 22 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 4811 3,957 4811 3,957 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

24 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 18,166 18,166 

25 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 3,446 3,000 6,446 

At Army request transfer from WTCV 19, 28, and 31 ......................................... [3,000 ] 

26 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 25,296 25,296 27 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 0 5,546 5,546 28 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 4,635 –2,000 2,635 

At Army request transfer to WTCV 31 and RDTEA 70 and 86 ............................ [–2,000 ] 

29 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 0 4,079 4,079 30 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 72,718 72,718 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
310 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

31 M16 RIFLE MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,952 –1,952 0 

At Army request transfer to WTCV 31 and RDTEA 70 and 86 ............................ [–1,952 ] 

32 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 8,903 8,903 

33 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 2,089 2,089 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

34 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 2,005 2,005 35 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 0 8,911 8,911 36 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ..................................................................................... 0 414 414 37 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 0 1,682 1,682 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TOTAL ................................................................ 1,471,438 86,011 1,557,449 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 34,943 34,943 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 12,418 12,418 3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 9,655 –1,500 8,155 

Program decrease—ahead of need ..................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 29,304 29,304 

6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 8,181 8,1817 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 52,667 52,667 8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 40,904 –1,900 39,004 

Program decrease—ahead of need ..................................................................... [–1,900 ] 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 41,742 41,742 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 42,433 42,433 11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 39,365 39,365 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
311 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 101,900 101,900 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 37,455 37,455 14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 47,023 47,023 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 416 35,672 416 35,672 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 94,010 –15,000 79,010 

Program decrease—PGK ...................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 945 945 20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 27,286 27,286 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 22,899 22,899 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 22,751 22,751 

23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 7,082 7,082 24 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 11,638 11,638 

MISCELLANEOUS 

25 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 3,594 3,594 27 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 5,430 5,430 

28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 8,337 8,337 29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 14,906 14,906 30 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 14,349 14,349 31 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES .............................................................................................. 0 111 111 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

32 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ..................................................................... 0 148,092 148,092 33 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 113,881 113,881 34 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 2,504 2,504 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY TOTAL ....................................................... 1,031,477 –18,400 1,013,077 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 7,987 7,987 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
312 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 1 160 1 160 4 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 176 164,615 176 164,615 6 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 19 8,415 19 8,415 7 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 444 28,425 444 28,425 8 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 198 89,263 198 89,263 

13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 735 38,226 735 38,226 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 768 91,173 768 91,173 15 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 1 14,731 1 14,731 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

16 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ........................................................................................... 1 175 1 175 17 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 25 1,338 25 1,338 18 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 11,101 11,101 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

19 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 1280 763,087 –125,000 1280 638,087 

Point of Presence (POP) and Soldier Network Extension (SNE) delay ................. [–125,000 ] 

20 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 69 21,157 69 21,157 21 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 0 7,915 7,915 22 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 0 5,440 5,440 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

23 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 18 118,085 18 118,085 24 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 21 13,999 21 13,999 25 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 6,494 6,494 

26 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) .................................................... 0 1,635 1,635 27 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 13,554 13,554 28 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 0 18,899 18,899 29 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ............................................................................ 0 2,849 2,849 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
313 

30 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ....................................................................... 0 100,000 100,000 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

33 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ................................................................................ 2674 175,711 –88,000 2674 87,711 

Under execution of prior years funds .................................................................. [–88,000 ] 

34 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................. 0 9,692 –8,000 1,692 

Under execution of prior years funds .................................................................. [–8,000 ] 

35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 620 17,136 620 17,136 

37 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................... 3081 22,099 3081 22,099 38 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 0 3,724 3,724 39 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT ...................................................................... 0 969 969 40 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS ....................................... 0 294 294 41 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 8344 24,354 8344 24,354 42 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 17,445 17,445 43 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ....................................................................... 0 1,028 1,028 44 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 974 22,614 974 22,614 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

46 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 0 1,519 1,519 47 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 305 12,478 305 12,478 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

50 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................... 0 2,113 2,113 51 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 2750 69,646 2750 69,646 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

52 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 28,913 28,913 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

53 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 97,091 97,091 

54 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) .......................................................................... 0 246 246 55 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 0 5,362 5,362 56 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 79,965 79,965 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

60 JTT/CIBS-M ................................................................................................................ 0 870 870 61 PROPHET GROUND ..................................................................................................... 11 55,896 11 55,896 63 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 2423 128,207 2423 128,207 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
314 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

64 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .............................................................. 2 5,286 2 5,286 65 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 12,614 12,614 66 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 3,901 3,901 67 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 358 7,392 358 7,392 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

68 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 3 24,828 3 24,828 70 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) ................................................................................................... 0 7,000 7,000 72 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 1,285 1,285 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

75 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 81 44,305 81 44,305 76 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 9700 160,901 9700 160,901 78 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 1935 18,520 1935 18,520 80 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 173 68,296 173 68,296 81 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 1716 49,205 –12,000 1716 37,205 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ [–12,000 ]

82 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 137 4,896 137 4,896 

83 PROFILER ................................................................................................................... 0 3,115 3,115 84 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ......................................................... 0 4,186 4,186 85 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 2622 97,892 –10,000 2622 87,892

Under execution of prior years funds .................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

86 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 41 27,450 41 27,450 87 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 34 14,085 34 14,085 

88 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 255 29,040 255 29,040 89 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 13 209,050 –80,400 13 128,650 

Excessive LRIP and concurrency .......................................................................... [–80,400 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
315 

92 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 13,823 13,823 95 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 5 27,374 5 27,374 97 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 2,508 2,508 99 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 21,524 21,524 

100 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 3748 95,455 3748 95,455

101 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 118,600 118,600 102 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 32,970 32,970 104 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 56 10,113 56 10,113 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

105 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 9,015 9,015 106 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 155,223 –15,000 140,223 

Reduce IT procurement ........................................................................................ [–15,000 ] 

107 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 16,581 16,581 108 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 65,252 65,252 110 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 17,631 17,631 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

112 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 51 5,437 51 5,437 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

113 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 0 426 426 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

113 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,707 3,707 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

115 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 937 937 116 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................... 0 1,930 1,930 117 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 14506 17,468 14506 17,468 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

119 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 6 5,442 6 5,442 120 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 11,013 11,013 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

121 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 37,649 37,649 122 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 84 18,545 84 18,545 123 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 1 4,701 1 4,701 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
316 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

124 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 6,346 6,346 125 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) .......................................... 133 15,856 133 15,856 126 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 4,485 4,485 127 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 92 4,938 92 4,938 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

128 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 628 9,235 628 9,235 130 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ........................................................................................... 1 1,677 1 1,677 131 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 12273 16,728 12273 16,728 132 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 3581 84,761 3581 84,761 134 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 141 15,179 141 15,179 135 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 1386 28,194 1386 28,194 137 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 336 41,967 336 41,967 138 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................... 859 20,090 859 20,090 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

139 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 1,435 1,435 140 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 599 40,692 599 40,692 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

141 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 2388 46,957 2388 46,957 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 60 23,758 60 23,758 143 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 585 2,789 585 2,789 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .................................................................... 22 5,827 22 5,827 145 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ........................................................................................ 22 14,926 22 14,926 

147 COMPACTOR .............................................................................................................. 617 4,348 617 4,348 148 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ............................................................................................ 14 4,938 14 4,938 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
317 

149 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ......................................................................................... 95 34,071 95 34,071 150 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 4 4,938 4 4,938 151 PLANT, ASPHALT MIXING ........................................................................................... 0 667 667 153 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ................................................ 0 14,924 14,924 154 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 79 15,933 79 15,933 155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 53 6,749 53 6,749 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

156 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 10,509 10,509 157 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 2,166 2,166 

GENERATORS 

158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 3882 115,190 3882 115,190 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 146 14,327 146 14,327 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

161 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 1 65,062 1 65,062 162 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 43 101,295 43 101,295 

163 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER .......................................................................... 0 13,406 13,406 164 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 14,440 14,440 165 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 10,165 10,165 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

166 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 5,726 5,726 167 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 1657 37,482 1657 37,482 168 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 415 16,061 415 16,061 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

170 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 2,380 2,380 171 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 30,686 30,686 172 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 1,008 1,008 173 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 3209 98,559 –18,000 3209 80,559 

Watercraft C4ISR early to need ........................................................................... [–18,000 ] 

174 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ......................................................................... 0 1,697 1,697 175 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 25,394 25,394 176 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS OPA3 ...................................................................................... 963 12,975 963 12,975 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
318 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OPA2 

180 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 11 50,032 11 50,032 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TOTAL ....................................................................... 4,893,634 –356,400 4,537,234 JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

4 OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 0 115,058 –115,058 0 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–115,058 ] 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND TOTAL .................................................. 115,058 –115,058 0 SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .................................................................. 13,631,775 –69,847 13,561,928 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

1 EA–18G ...................................................................................................................... 0 43,547 25,000 68,547 

Preserve option of buying more EA–18G aircraft ................................................ [25,000 ] 

5 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 2 610,652 2 610,652 

6 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 0 29,400 29,400 7 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 6 1,200,410 6 1,200,410 8 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 0 143,885 143,885 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 19 1,487,000 19 1,487,000 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 0 45,920 45,920 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 26 778,757 26 778,757 12 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 0 80,926 80,926 13 MH–60S (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 8 210,209 8 210,209 15 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 29 933,882 29 933,882 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
319 

16 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 0 106,686 106,686 17 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 8 2,003,327 8 2,003,327 18 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 0 48,457 48,457 19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 4 819,870 4 819,870 20 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 0 225,765 225,765 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

23 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 1 92,290 1 92,290 

26 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 0 37,445 37,445 27 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 40,663 40,663 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

29 EA–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 10,993 10,993 

30 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 34,768 34,768 31 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 65,472 65,472 32 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 8,418 8,418 33 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 679,177 679,177 34 H–46 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 480 480 36 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 38,159 38,159 37 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 108,850 108,850 38 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 45,033 45,033 39 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 32,890 20,000 52,890 

SPIRAL 3 & ELINT KITS ........................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

40 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 2,823 2,823 

41 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 21,208 21,208 42 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 12,608 12,608 44 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 40,378 40,378 45 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 640 640 46 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 4,635 4,635 47 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 212,876 212,876 48 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 71,328 71,328 49 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 21,317 21,31750 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 90,052 90,052 51 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 19,094 19,094 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
320 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

52 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 1,085 1,085 54 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 155,644 155,64455 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 157,531 157,531 56 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 1,958 1,958 57 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 38,880 38,880 58 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 29,797 29,797 59 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 14,770 14,770 60 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 8,741 8,741 61 RQ–7 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 2,542 2,542 62 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 135,584 135,584 63 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 285,968 285,968 64 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 20,502 20,502 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

65 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,229,651 –35,000 1,194,651 

Reduce rate of growth in replenishment spares ................................................. [–35,000 ] 

66 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 418,355 418,355 67 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 23,843 23,843 68 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 15,939 15,939 

69 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 5,630 5,630 70 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 65,839 65,839 71 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 1,768 1,768 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY TOTAL ................................................................... 13,074,317 10,000 13,084,317 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,190,455 11,000 1,201,455 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
321 

Additional FCET .................................................................................................... [11,000 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 5,671 5,671 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 100 194,258 100 82,000 200 276,258 

Maintain minimum sustaining rate of production .............................................. [100] [82,000 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 0 32,165 32,165 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 167 73,928 167 73,928 6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 200 130,759 200 130,759 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 110 445,836 110 445,836 8 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 90 80,792 90 80,792 

11 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 14 1,810 14 1,810 12 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 48,046 48,046 13 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 3,295 3,295 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

14 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 104 119,434 104 119,434 15 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 111,739 111,739 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 2,531 2,531 17 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 208,700 208,700 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 73,211 73,211 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

19 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 6,562 6,562 20 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 0 14,153 14,153 

21 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 2,515 2,515 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

22 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 98,928 98,928 

23 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 46,893 46,893 24 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 6,966 6,966 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
322 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

25 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 52,670 52,670 26 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 3,795 3,795 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

27 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 3,692 3,692 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

28 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 13,240 13,240 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

29 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 75,108 75,108 

30 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 18,948 18,94831 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 62,651 62,651 33 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 15,006 15,006 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

35 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 74,188 74,188 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TOTAL ................................................................... 3,217,945 93,000 3,310,945 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 107,069 107,069 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 70,396 70,396 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 20,284 20,284 4 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 26,701 26,701 

5 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 53,866 53,866 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 59,294 59,294 7 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,766 2,766 8 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ........................................................... 0 113,092 113,092 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 35,702 35,702 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
323 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 36,475 36,475 11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 43,906 43,906 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 51,535 51,535 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 11,652 11,652 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 4,473 4,473 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 0 31,708 31,708 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 0 692 692 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 0 13,630 13,630 18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 2,261 2,261 19 81MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 1,496 1,496 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 0 14,855 14,855 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 4,000 4,000 23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 16,853 16,853 24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 14,772 14,772 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 0 9,972 9,972 27 NON LETHALS ............................................................................................................ 0 998 998 28 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 12,319 12,319 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,178 11,178 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC TOTAL ........................................................ 771,945 0 771,945 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 1,300,000 1,300,000 2 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 3,553,254 2 3,553,254 

3 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 0 2,330,325 2,330,325 

04 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 0 46,000 46,000 

Transfer from OMN, line 360 ............................................................................... [46,000 ] 

6 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 419,532 419,532 7 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 2 2,671,415 2 2,671,415 8 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 0 134,039 134,039 9 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 3 1,427,049 3 1,427,049 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
324 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

10 LPD–17 ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,565 12,565 

14 LHA REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 0 29,093 29,093 15 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ....................................................................................... 0 4,590 4,590 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

16 MOORED TRAINING SHIP ........................................................................................... 1 737,268 1 737,268 17 MOORED TRAINING SHIP ........................................................................................... 0 64,388 64,388 18 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 546,104 546,104 19 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR .................................................................................... 2 123,233 2 123,233 20 LCAC SLEP ................................................................................................................. 2 40,485 2 45,000 4 85,485 

At USMC request transfer from RDTEN 53 .......................................................... [2] [45,000 ] 

21 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 1,007,285 1,007,285 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY TOTAL ....................................................... 14,400,625 91,000 14,491,625 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ............................................................................................ 0 7,822 7,822 2 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE .................................................................................... 0 2,155 2,155 3 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ................................................................................ 0 22,704 22,704 

GENERATORS 

4 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 29,120 29,120 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

5 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 45,431 45,431 

PERISCOPES 

6 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 60,970 60,970 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
325 

7 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 338,569 338,569 8 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 15,486 15,486 9 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,219 2,219 

10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 0 17,928 17,928 11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM ....................................................... 0 22,025 22,025 12 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 12,607 12,607 13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 16,492 16,492 14 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 74,129 74,129 15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 36,206 36,206 16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 37,352 37,352 17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 49,095 49,095 18 ELECTRONIC DRY AIR ............................................................................................... 0 2,996 2,996 19 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 11,558 11,558 20 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 5,518 5,518 22 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 7,158 7,158 23 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 58,783 58,783 24 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 68,748 68,748 25 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 2,937 2,937 26 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 8,385 8,385 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

28 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 288,822 288,822 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

29 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 10,572 10,572 

SMALL BOATS 

30 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 129,784 129,784 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

31 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 17,152 17,152 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

32 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 39,409 39,409 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

33 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 118,129 118,129 

34 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 37,413 37,413 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
326 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

35 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 15,270 15,270 36 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 2,729 2,729 37 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 44,208 44,208 38 REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) .................................................................... 0 42,276 42,276 

SHIP SONARS 

40 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 28,007 28,007 41 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 79,802 79,802 42 SSN ACOUSTICS ......................................................................................................... 0 165,655 165,655 43 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 9,487 9,487 44 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ..................................................................... 0 11,621 11,621 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

46 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 24,221 24,221 47 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 12,051 12,051 48 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 170,831 170,83149 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 9,619 9,619 50 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE ................................................... 0 14,390 14,390 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

51 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 214,582 214,582 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

52 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 124,862 124,862 

53 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 164 164 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

54 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ................................................................. 0 45,362 45,362 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

55 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 33,939 33,939 56 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) ...................................................................... 0 324 324 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
327 

57 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 18,192 18,192 58 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 16,768 16,768 59 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 5,219 5,219 60 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 42,108 42,108 62 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 15,232 15,232 63 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 4,524 4,524 64 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 6,382 6,382 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

65 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 46,122 46,122 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

66 MATCALS .................................................................................................................... 0 16,999 16,999 67 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................... 0 9,366 9,366 68 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 21,357 21,357 69 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 26,639 26,639 70 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 9,214 9,214 71 LANDING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 0 13,902 13,902 72 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 34,901 34,901 73 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 13,950 13,950 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

74 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL ............................................................. 0 1,205 1,205 75 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 3,447 3,447 76 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 16,766 16,766 77 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 23,649 23,649 78 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 357,589 357,589 79 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 8,343 8,343 80 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 65,015 65,015 81 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 6,284 6,284 82 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 4,016 4,016 83 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 4,113 4,113 84 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 45,053 45,053 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

85 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 14,410 14,410 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
328 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

86 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 20,830 20,830 88 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 14,145 14,145 89 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 11,057 11,057 90 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 67,852 67,852 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

91 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 13,218 13,218 92 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 272,076 272,076 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

93 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 4,369 4,369 94 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 1,402 1,402 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

95 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 110,766 110,766 96 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 979 979 97 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 11,502 11,502 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

98 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 2,967 2,967 

SONOBUOYS 

100 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 182,946 182,946 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

101 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 47,944 47,944 103 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 76,683 76,683 106 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 12,575 12,575 107 DCRS/DPL .................................................................................................................. 0 1,415 1,415 

109 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ...................................................................... 0 23,152 23,152 114 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 52,555 52,555 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
329 

115 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,572 5,572 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

118 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 165,769 165,769 123 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 61,462 61,462 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

126 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 229,832 229,832 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

127 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 66,020 66,020 128 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 7,559 7,559 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

132 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 20,619 20,619 133 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,251 11,251137 TRAINING DEVICE MODS ........................................................................................... 0 84,080 84,080 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

138 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 2,282 2,282 139 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 547 547 140 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 8,949 8,949 141 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 14,621 14,621 

142 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 957 957 143 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 8,187 8,187144 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,942 2,942 145 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 17,592 17,592 146 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,177 1,177 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

147 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 10,937 10,937 148 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 10,374 10,374 149 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,668 5,668 150 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 90,921 90,921 

TRAINING DEVICES 

151 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 22,046 22,046 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

152 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 24,208 24,208 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
330 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

153 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 874 874 154 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 2,634 2,634 156 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 3,573 3,573 157 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 3,997 3,997 158 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 9,638 9,638 159 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 21,001 21,001 160 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 94,957 94,957 161 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 87,214 –15,000 72,214 

Program reduction ................................................................................................ [–15,000 ] 

OTHER 

164 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 116,165 116,165 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

164 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 10,847 10,847 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

165 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 325,084 325,084 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY TOTAL ........................................................................ 5,975,828 –15,000 5,960,828 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 16,756 16,756 

2 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 77,736 77,736 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 5,742 5,742 4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 4,532 4,532 5 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 0 19,474 19,474 6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 7,250 7,250 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
331 

OTHER SUPPORT 

7 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 21,909 21,909 

8 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 0 3,208 3,208 

GUIDED MISSILES 

9 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 31,439 31,439 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 0 343 343 11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 0 4,995 4,995 12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 0 1,589 1,589 

OTHER SUPPORT 

13 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 5,134 5,134 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

14 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER ....................................................................................... 0 9,178 9,178 15 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 12,272 12,272 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

16 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 30,591 30,591 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

17 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 2,385 2,385 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

19 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 4,205 4,205 20 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 8,002 8,002 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

21 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 19,595 19,595 

22 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar ............................................................................... 2 89,230 2 89,230 23 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 3 70,565 3 70,565 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

24 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 11,860 11,860 

25 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 44,340 44,340 28 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 0 2,737 2,737 30 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 20,620 20,620 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

31 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 9,798 9,798

32 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 2,073 2,073 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
332 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

33 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 33,570 33,570 34 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 38,186 38,186 35 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 64,494 64,494 36 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 72,956 72,956 37 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 43,317 43,317 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

37 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 2,498 2,498 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

38 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES ........................................................................ 0 332 332 39 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 11,035 11,035 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

40 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) ...................................................................................... 0 57,255 57,255 41 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 938 938 44 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 7 7,500 7 7,500 45 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 10,179 10,179 

OTHER SUPPORT 

46 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,023 11,023 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

47 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 994 994 48 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 1,256 1,256

49 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 3,750 3,75050 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 8,985 2,900 11,885 

USMC unfunded priority ....................................................................................... [2,900 ] 

51 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 4,418 4,418 52 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 6,528 6,528 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
333 

53 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 26,510 26,510 54 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .................................................. 0 1,910 1,910 55 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ...................................................................................... 0 8,807 8,807 56 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 128 128 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

58 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 3,412 3,412 59 CONTAINER FAMILY ................................................................................................... 0 1,662 1,662 60 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 3,669 3,669 62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 4,272 4,272 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 16,210 16,210 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TOTAL ................................................................... 983,352 2,900 986,252 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ................................................................... 38,424,012 181,900 38,605,912 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 26 3,553,046 26 3,553,046 2 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 0 291,880 291,880 3 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 7 1,582,685 7 1,582,685 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

4 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 7 482,396 7 482,396 

5 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 140,000 140,000 6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 4 332,024 4 332,024 7 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 0 50,000 50,000 8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 190,971 2 190,971 9 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 0 80,000 80,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 6 2,562 6 2,562 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

13 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 37 98,576 37 98,576 

16 RQ–4 ......................................................................................................................... 0 54,475 –10,000 44,475 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
334 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Delayed trainer ..................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

17 AC–130J .................................................................................................................... 0 1 1 

18 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 12 240,218 –37,800 12 202,418 

Use available prior year funds for FY 15 requirements ...................................... [–37,800 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

20 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 23,865 23,865 21 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 140,252 140,252 22 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 180,148 180,148 23 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 13,159 13,159 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

25 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 387,314 387,314 26 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 12,336 12,336 27 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 180,207 180,207 28 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 187,646 187,646 29 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 0 28,500 28,500 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

30 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 14,731 14,731 31 C–5M ......................................................................................................................... 0 331,466 –50,000 281,466 

Delayed installation of RERP kits ........................................................................ [–50,000 ] 

33 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 127,494 127,494 34 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 264 264 35 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 8,767 8,767 36 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 18,457 18,457 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

38 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 132 132 

39 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 14,486 14,486 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
335 

40 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 7,650 7,650 41 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 34,845 34,845 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

42 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 64,300 64,300 

Keep U–2 rather than enhance Global Hawk Block 30 ...................................... [64,300 ] 

44 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 34,313 34,313 

45 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,960 1,960 48 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 1,072 1,072 49 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 7,292 7,292 50 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 35,869 47,600 83,469 

C–130 enigine upgrades ...................................................................................... [22,600 ] C–130 avionics modernization program .............................................................. [25,000 ] 

51 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 7,919 7,919 52 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 63,568 63,568 53 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 57,828 57,828 54 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 152,746 152,746 55 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 16,491 16,491 56 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 22,341 22,341 58 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 160,284 160,284 59 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 32,026 32,026 60 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 8,237 8,237 61 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 60,110 60,110 62 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 21,354 21,354 63 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 1,902 1,902 64 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 32,106 32,106 65 MQ–1 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 4,755 4,755 66 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 155,445 –30,000 125,445 

Lynx radar ............................................................................................................. [–30,000 ] 

69 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 74,874 74,874 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

70 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 466,562 466,562 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
336 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

71 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 22,470 22,470 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

74 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 44,793 44,793 75 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,249 5,249 77 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 20,110 20,110 78 CV–22 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT ........................................................................ 0 16,931 16,931 80 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 4,414 4,414 81 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,122 1,122 82 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 10,994 10,994 83 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 5,929 5,929 84 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 27 27

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

85 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 21,363 21,363 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

86 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 82,906 82,906 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

87 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,007,276 1,007,276 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

87 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 69,380 69,380 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TOTAL ......................................................... 11,542,571 –15,900 11,526,671 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 80,187 80,187 

TACTICAL 

3 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 224 337,438 224 337,438 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
337 

4 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 303 132,995 303 132,995 5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 200 329,600 200 329,600 6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 283 33,878 283 33,878 7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 246 70,578 –52,531 246 18,047 

Delay in Milestone C and contract award ........................................................... [–52,531 ] 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

8 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 749 749 

CLASS IV 

9 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 28,477 28,477 

10 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 276 276 11 AGM–88A HARM ........................................................................................................ 0 297 297 12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 16,083 16,083 13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 0 6,924 6,924 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

14 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 87,366 87,366 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

15 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 298,890 298,890 16 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 0 38,971 38,971 17 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 1 235,397 1 235,397 18 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 0 57,000 57,000 19 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 16,201 16,201 20 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .................................................................................. 0 52,090 52,090 21 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ................................................................ 0 87,000 –87,000 0 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–87,000 ] 

22 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH (INFRAST.) ...................................................... 0 750,143 750,143 23 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 3 630,903 3 630,903 24 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 450,884 450,884 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

28 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 60,179 60,179 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

28 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 888,000 888,000 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TOTAL ............................................................ 4,690,506 –139,531 4,550,975 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
338 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 4,696 4,696 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 133,271 133,271 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 31,998 31,998 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 148,614 8,800 157,414 

Readiness funding increase—PACOM unfunded priority list ............................. [8,800 ] 

5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 2973 101,400 2973 101,400 

OTHER ITEMS 

6 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 29,989 29,989 

7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 6,925 6,925 8 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 494 494 9 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 1,610 1,610 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 4,237 4,237 

FLARES 

11 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 86,101 86,101 

FUZES 

12 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 103,417 103,417 

SMALL ARMS 

13 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 24,648 24,648 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE TOTAL .............................................. 677,400 8,800 686,200 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
339 

PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 6,528 6,528 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 7,639 7,639 3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 961 961 

4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,027 11,027 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 4,447 4,447 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 693 693 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 10,152 10,152 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 15,108 15,108 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 10,212 10,212 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 57,049 57,049 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 106,182 106,182 12 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) ........................................................................................ 0 1,363 1,363 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

13 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 2,832 2,832 14 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 32,329 –3,000 29,329 

NCCT ..................................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] 

16 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 15,649 15,649 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

17 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 42,200 42,200 18 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 6,333 6,333 19 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 2,708 2,708 20 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 0 50,033 50,033 21 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 16,348 16,348 22 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 139,984 139,984 23 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 20,101 20,101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
340 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

26 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 9,060 9,060 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 39,100 39,100 28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 19,010 19,010 29 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 11,462 11,462 30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 37,426 37,426 31 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 26,634 26,634 32 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 1,289 1,289 33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 11,508 11,508 34 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 3,670 3,670 35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING AND MGMT SYSTEM ........................................ 0 15,298 15,298 36 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 9,565 9,565 37 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ................................................................ 0 25,772 25,772 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

38 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 81,286 31,300 112,586

Transfer from OPAF 39 ......................................................................................... [31,300 ] 

39 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 122,228 –31,300 90,928 

Transfer to OPAF 38 ............................................................................................. [–31,300 ] 

41 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 16,342 16,342 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

42 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 60,230 60,230 43 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE .................................................................... 0 26,100 26,100 44 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ................................................................................................ 0 2,075 2,075 

45 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ................................................................................. 0 4,656 4,656 46 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ................................................................ 0 54,630 54,630 47 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 69,713 69,713 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
341 

48 MILSATCOM SPACE .................................................................................................... 0 41,355 41,355 49 SPACE MODS SPACE ................................................................................................. 0 31,722 31,722 50 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 0 61,603 61,603 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

51 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 50,335 50,335 

53 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 14,846 14,846 54 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 3,635 3,635 55 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 79,607 79,607 

MODIFICATIONS 

56 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 105,398 105,398 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

57 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ............................................................................................ 0 12,577 12,577 

58 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 31,209 31,209 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

59 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 7,670 7,670 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

60 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 14,125 23,600 37,725 

ICBM training equipment ..................................................................................... [23,600 ] 

61 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 0 16,744 16,744 62 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT ........................................................................ 0 2,495 2,495 63 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 10,573 10,573 

64 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,462 5,462 66 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 24,710 24,710 67 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 206,743 206,743 69 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 537,370 537,370 70 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .............................................................. 0 77,898 77,898 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

70 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 13,990,196 13,990,196 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

72 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 32,813 32,813 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TOTAL .............................................................. 16,566,018 20,600 16,586,618 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
342 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE .......................................................... 33,476,495 –126,031 33,350,464 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 1,594 1,594 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 4,325 4,325 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 17,268 17,268 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 10,491 10,491 

10 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 80,622 80,622 

11 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 14,147 14,147 12 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 0 1,921 1,921 13 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 80,144 80,144 15 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 0 8,755 8,755 16 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 33,737 33,737 17 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 32,544 32,544 18 JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 0 13,300 13,300 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 7,436 7,436 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

21 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 3 11,640 3 11,640 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

22 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 1,269 1,269 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
343 

24 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 1,500 1,500 25 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,039 1,039 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

26 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 1 50 1 50 

27 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 3 7,639 3 7,639

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

28 AEGIS BMD ADVANCE PROCUREMENT ...................................................................... 0 68,880 68,880 29 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 31 464,424 31 464,424 30 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 30 435,430 30 435,430 

31 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 48,140 48,14032 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 0 225,774 225,774 34 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 1 175,972 –1 –175,972 0 

Transfer to RDT&E, Defense-Wide Line 96 .......................................................... -01 [–175,972 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

41 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 3,448 3,448 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 0 43,708 43,708 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 10,783 10,783 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

46 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 29,599 29,599 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

46 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 540,894 540,894 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

47 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 40,500 –40,500 0 

Unjustified Request .............................................................................................. [–40,500 ] 

48 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 112,226 112,226 49 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 3,021 3,021 50 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 48,200 48,200 

52 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 22,230 22,230 53 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ........................................................................ 0 6,397 6,397 54 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 25,578 25,578 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
344 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

56 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 15,651 5,700 21,351 

Capability Improvements ...................................................................................... [5,700 ] 

57 STUASL0 .................................................................................................................... 0 1,500 1,500 58 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 145,929 145,929 59 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 65,130 65,130 61 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 39,563 39,563 

SHIPBUILDING 

63 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 25,459 25,459 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

65 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 144,336 144,336 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

68 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 81,001 81,001 

70 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 17,323 17,323 71 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 84,852 84,852 72 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 51,937 51,937 74 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 31,017 31,017 75 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 63,134 63,134 76 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 192,448 192,448 78 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,984 19,984 81 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 5,044 5,044 82 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 38,126 38,126 88 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 243,849 243,849 

CBDP 

95 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 170,137 170,137 96 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 150,392 150,392 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE TOTAL .................................................................... 4,221,437 –210,772 4,010,665 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
345 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE ....................................................................................... 4,221,437 –210,772 4,010,665 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 20,000 20,000 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND TOTAL .................................................. 20,000 0 20,000 

PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS 

1 PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS ........................................................................................ –265,685 265,685 0 

PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS TOTAL ............................................................................ –265,685 265,685 0 TOTAL, TITLE I ........................................................................................................... 89,508,034 40,935 89,548,969 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(347) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
348 

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) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 13,464 13,464 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 238,167 238,167 3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 69,808 20,000 89,808 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 102,737 102,737 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 424,176 20,000 444,176 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 28,006 28,006 6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 33,515 33,515 

7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 16,358 16,358 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 63,433 63,433 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 18,502 18,502 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 46,194 46,194 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 28,528 28,528 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 27,435 27,435 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
349 

13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 72,883 72,883 14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 85,597 85,597 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 3,971 3,97116 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 6,853 6,853 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 38,069 38,069 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 56,435 56,435 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 38,445 38,445 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 25,939 25,939 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 23,783 23,783 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 15,659 15,659 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 33,817 33,817 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 10,764 10,764 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 63,311 63,311 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 23,295 23,295 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 25,751 25,751 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 76,068 76,068 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 862,611 0 862,611 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 65,139 65,139 

30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 67,291 67,291 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 88,990 88,990 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 57,931 57,931 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 110,031 110,031 

34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 6,883 6,883 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 13,580 13,580 36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 44,871 44,871 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 7,492 7,492 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 16,749 16,749 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ................................................................................................................................ 14,483 14,483 41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 24,270 24,270 42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 3,440 3,440 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
350 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 2,406 2,406 44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 26,057 26,057 45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 44,957 44,957 46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 11,105 11,105 47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 181,609 181,609 48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 13,074 13,074 49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 7,321 7,321 50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 44,138 44,138 51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 9,197 9,197 52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 17,613 17,613 53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 39,164 39,164 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 917,791 0 917,791 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 12,797 12,797 

55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 13,999 13,999 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 29,334 29,334 60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 9,602 9,602 61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 8,953 8,953 

62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 3,052 3,052 63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 7,830 7,830 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2,954 2,954 67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 13,386 13,386 69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 23,659 23,659 70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 6,830 3,000 9,830 

At Army request transfer from WTCV 19, 28, and 31 ............................................................... [3,000 ] 

72 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 9,913 9,913 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
351 

73 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 74,740 74,740 74 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 9,930 9,930 76 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 96,177 –30,000 66,177 

Program delay and funds requested early to need ................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 323,156 –27,000 296,156 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

79 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 37,246 37,246 

81 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 6,002 6,002 82 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ..................................................................................................................... 9,832 9,832 83 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 9,730 9,730 84 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 5,532 5,532 85 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 19,929 19,929 86 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 27,884 1,702 29,586 

Only for XM25 CDTEWS under execution of prior years funds .................................................. [–5,000 ] At Army request transfer from WTCV 19, 28, and 31 ............................................................... [6,702 ] 

87 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 210 210 

88 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 4,166 4,166 89 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 12,913 12,913 90 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 16,764 16,764 91 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ............................................................................ 6,770 6,770 92 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 65,333 65,333 93 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 1,335 1,335 94 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 8,945 8,945 96 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 15,906 15,906 97 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 4,394 4,394 98 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 11,084 11,084 99 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 10,027 10,027 

100 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 42,430 42,430 101 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 105,279 105,279 102 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ........................................................................................... 15,006 15,006 103 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 24,581 24,581 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
352 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

104 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 4,433 4,433 105 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 30,397 30,397 106 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 57,705 57,705 108 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 29,683 29,683 109 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5,224 5,224 111 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 37,492 37,492 112 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 6,157 6,157 113 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 1,912 1,912 116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 69,761 69,761 117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 138,465 138,465 118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 92,353 92,353 119 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 8,440 8,440 120 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 17,999 17,999 121 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 145,409 145,409 122 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3—FULL NETWORKING ..................................................................................... 113,210 113,210 123 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) ................................................................................... 6,882 6,882 124 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 83,838 83,838 125 0605456A PAC–3/MSE MISSILE ........................................................................................................................ 35,009 35,009 126 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 142,584 142,584 127 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ............................................................................................................. 49,160 49,160 128 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR ............................................................................................................... 17,748 17,748 129 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 15,212 15,212 130 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 45,718 45,718 131 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 10,041 10,041 132 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ..................................................................................... 83,300 83,300 133 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 983 983 134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 8,961 8,961 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
353 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 1,719,374 1,702 1,721,076 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 18,062 18,062 

136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 10,040 10,040 137 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 60,317 60,317 138 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 20,612 20,612 139 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 176,041 11,000 187,041 

Additional SSA operations (STRATCOM unfunded priority) ........................................................ [11,000 ] 

140 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 19,439 19,439 

142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 275,025 275,025 143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 45,596 45,596 144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 33,295 33,295 145 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 4,700 4,700 146 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 6,413 6,413 147 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 20,746 20,746 148 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 7,015 7,015 149 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 49,221 49,221 150 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 55,039 55,039 151 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 1,125 1,125 152 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 64,169 64,169 153 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 32,319 32,319 154 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 49,052 49,052 155 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 2,612 2,612 156 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 49,592 49,592 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................... 1,000,430 11,000 1,011,430 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

158 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 17,112 17,112 

159 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION ................................................................................................................... 3,654 3,654 160 0607664A BIOMETRIC ENABLING CAPABILITY (BEC) ........................................................................................ 1,332 1,332 161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 152,991 152,991 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
354 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

194 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 76,225 76,225 162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE ................................................................................................... 54,076 54,076 163 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM .............................................................................. 22,374 22,374 164 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) ....................................... 24,371 24,371 165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 295,177 295,177 166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 45,092 45,092 167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 264,887 264,887 168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 381 381 169 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 10,912 10,912 170 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 5,115 5,115 171 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 49,848 49,848 172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 22,691 22,691 173 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ............................................................ 4,364 4,364 174 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 834 834 175 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ......................................... 280 280 176 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 78,758 78,758 177 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 45,377 45,377 178 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10,209 10,209 181 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 12,525 12,525 182 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 14,175 14,175 183 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 4,527 4,527 184 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 11,011 11,011 185 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 2,151 2,151 187 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 22,870 22,870 188 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 20,155 20,155 189 0305219A MQ–1C GRAY EAGLE UAS ................................................................................................................ 46,472 46,472 191 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 16,389 16,389 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
355 

192 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................. 1,974 1,974 193 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2—INITIAL NETWORKING .................................................................................. 3,249 3,249 194 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,802 4,802 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1,346,360 0 1,346,360 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 6,593,898 5,702 6,599,600 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 113,908 20,000 133,908 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 18,734 18,734 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 443,697 443,697 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 576,339 20,000 596,339 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 95,753 95,753 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 139,496 139,496 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 45,831 45,831 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 43,541 43,541 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 46,923 46,923 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 107,872 107,872 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 45,388 45,388 

11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 5,887 5,887 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 86,880 86,880 13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 170,786 170,786 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 32,526 32,526 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 820,883 0 820,883 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 37,734 37,734 

16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 25,831 25,831 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
356 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

17 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 64,623 64,623 18 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 128,397 128,397 19 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 11,506 11,506 20 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 256,144 256,144 21 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,838 4,838 22 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 9,985 9,985 23 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 53,956 53,956 24 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 2,000 2,000 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 595,014 0 595,014 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

25 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 40,429 40,429 

26 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 4,325 4,325 27 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 2,991 2,991 28 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 12,651 12,651 29 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,782 7,782 30 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 5,275 5,275 31 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 1,646 1,646 32 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 100,349 100,349 

33 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 52,781 52,781 34 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 5,959 5,959 35 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 148,865 148,865 36 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 25,365 25,365 37 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 80,477 80,477 38 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 669 669 39 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,060 1,060 40 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 70,551 70,551 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
357 

41 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 8,044 8,044 42 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 17,864 17,864 43 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 23,716 23,716 44 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 499,961 499,961 45 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 21,026 21,026 46 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 542,700 542,700 47 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 88,734 88,734 48 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 20,881 20,881 49 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 849,277 849,277 50 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 196,948 196,948 51 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST (ATRT) .......................................................................................... 8,115 8,115 52 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 7,603 7,603 53 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 105,749 –67,700 38,049 

At USMC request transfer to RDTEN 183 ................................................................................... [–7,000 ] At USMC request transfer to SCN 20 ......................................................................................... [–45,000 ] At USMC request transfer to OMMC 130 ................................................................................... [–15,700 ] 

54 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 1,342 1,342 

55 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 21,399 21,399 56 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 43,578 43,578 57 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 7,764 7,764 58 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 13,200 13,200 59 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 69,415 69,415 60 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 2,588 2,588 61 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 176,301 176,301 62 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 3,873 3,873 63 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 376,028 376,028 64 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 272,096 272,096 65 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 42,233 42,233 66 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 46,504 46,504 67 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................... 25,109 25,109 68 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,659 9,659 69 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 318 318 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
358 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

70 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 40,912 40,912 71 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 54,896 54,896 73 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 58,696 58,696 74 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 43,613 43,613 75 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) ........................................................................................... 21,110 21,110 76 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 5,657 5,657 77 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................. 8,033 8,033 78 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 36,859 36,859 79 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) ................................... 15,227 15,227 81 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 22,393 22,393 82 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 202,939 –202,939 0 

Halt program pending analysis demonstrating need ................................................................ [–202,939 ] 

83 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 11,450 11,450 84 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 6,495 6,495 

85 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 332 332 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 4,591,812 –270,639 4,321,173 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

86 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 25,153 25,153 

87 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 46,154 46,154 88 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 25,372 25,372 89 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 53,712 53,712 90 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 11,434 11,434 91 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 2,164 2,164 92 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,710 1,710 93 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 9,094 9,094 94 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 70,248 70,248 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
359 

95 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 193,200 193,200 96 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 44,115 44,115 97 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 23,227 23,227 98 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 61,249 61,249 99 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 15,014 15,014 

100 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 18,730 18,730 101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 28,742 28,742 102 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 388,086 388,086 103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 246,856 246,856 104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 7,106 7,106 105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 189,112 189,112 106 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 376 376 107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 71,849 71,849 108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 53,198 53,198 109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 38,941 38,941 110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION ............. 7,832 7,832 111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 15,263 15,263 112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM ....... 403,017 403,017 113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 20,409 20,409 114 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 71,565 71,565 115 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 29,037 29,037 116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 122,083 122,083 118 0604522N ADVANCED MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM .................................................................. 144,706 144,706 119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 72,695 72,695 120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 38,985 38,985 121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 48,470 48,470 122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3,935 3,935 123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE (VPM) .................................................................................................. 132,602 132,602 124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 19,067 19,067 125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 25,280 25,280 126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 8,985 8,985 127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 7,669 7,669 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
360 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 4,400 4,400 129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 56,889 56,889 130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 96,937 96,937 131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 134,564 134,564 132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 200 200 133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 8,287 8,287 134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 29,504 29,504 135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 513,021 513,021 136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 516,456 516,456 137 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 2,887 2,887 138 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 66,317 66,317 139 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 573,187 573,187 140 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 67,815 67,815 141 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 6,300 6,300 142 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 308,037 308,037 143 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 202,522 202,522 144 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ................................................................................................ 1,011 1,011 145 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 10,357 10,357 146 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 23,975 23,975 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 5,419,108 0 5,419,108 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

147 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 45,272 45,272 

148 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 79,718 79,718 149 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 123,993 123,993 150 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 4,960 4,960 151 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 8,296 8,296 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
361 

152 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 45,752 45,752 154 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 876 876 155 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 72,070 72,070 156 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3,237 3,237 157 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 73,033 73,033 158 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 138,304 138,304 159 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 336,286 336,286 160 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 16,658 16,658 161 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 2,505 2,505 162 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 8,325 8,325 163 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 17,866 17,866 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................... 977,151 0 977,151 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

168 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT. 35,949 35,949 

169 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 215 215 170 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY (COD) FOLLOW ON .......................................................................... 8,873 8,873 172 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 96,943 96,943 173 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 30,057 30,057 174 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 4,509 4,509 175 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 13,676 13,676 176 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION (RTT) ........................................................................................... 12,480 12,480 177 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 76,216 76,216 179 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 27,281 27,281 180 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 2,878 2,878 181 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 32,385 32,385

182 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 39,371 39,371 183 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 4,609 7,000 11,609 

At USMC request transfer from RDTEN 53 ................................................................................ [7,000 ] 

184 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 99,106 99,106 

185 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 39,922 39,922 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
362 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

186 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 1,157 1,157 187 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 22,067 22,067 188 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 17,420 17,420 189 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 151,208 151,208 190 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 26,366 26,366 191 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 25,952 25,952 192 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 106,936 106,936 194 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 104,023 104,023 195 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 77,398 77,398 196 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 32,495 32,495197 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 156,626 156,626 198 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 20,999 20,999 199 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 14,179 14,179 200 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 47,258 47,258 201 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 10,210 10,210 206 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 41,829 41,829 207 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 22,780 22,780208 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 23,053 23,053 209 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 296 296 212 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) ................................................... 359 359 213 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 6,166 6,166 214 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 8,505 8,505 216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 11,613 11,613 217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 18,146 18,146 218 0305220N RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 498,003 498,003 219 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 47,294 47,294 220 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 718 718 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
363 

221 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 851 851 222 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 4,813 4,813 223 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 8,192 8,192 224 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 22,559 22,559 225 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 2,000 2,000 226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 4,719 4,719 227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 21,168 21,168 228 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................ 37,169 37,169 229 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 4,347 4,347 229 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,162,684 1,162,684 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,286,028 7,000 3,293,028 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 16,266,335 –243,639 16,022,696 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 314,482 314,482 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 127,079 20,000 147,079 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 12,929 12,929 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 454,490 20,000 474,490 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 105,680 105,680 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 105,747 105,747 6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 81,957 81,957 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 172,550 172,550 8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 118,343 118,343 9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 98,229 98,229 

10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 87,387 87,387 11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 125,955 125,955 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 147,789 147,789 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
364 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 37,496 37,496 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 1,081,133 0 1,081,133 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 32,177 32,177 

15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 15,800 15,800 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 34,420 34,420 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 91,062 91,062 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 124,236 124,236 19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 47,602 47,602 20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 69,026 69,026 21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 14,031 14,031 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 21,788 21,788 23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 42,046 42,046 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 23,542 23,542 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 42,772 42,772 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 35,315 35,315 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 593,817 0 593,817 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

27 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,408 5,408 

31 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 6,075 6,075 32 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 10,980 10,980 33 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2,392 2,392 34 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D .................................................................................... 833 833 35 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 32,313 32,313 37 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 30,885 30,885 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
365 

39 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ................................................................................................ 1,798 1,798 40 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ....................................................................................................................... 913,728 913,728 42 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 2,669 2,669 45 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 39,901 39,901 49 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 4,976 4,976 51 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 59,004 59,004 54 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 15,722 15,722 55 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 88,825 88,825 56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 156,659 156,659

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 1,372,168 0 1,372,168 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

59 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 13,324 13,324 

60 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 1,965 1,965 61 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 39,110 39,110 62 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 3,926 3,926 63 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 68,759 68,759 64 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 23,746 23,746 65 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 9,462 9,462 66 0604426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 214,131 214,131 67 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 30,687 30,687 68 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 319,501 –8,000 311,501 

Upgrade mobile ground units (STRATCOM unfunded priority) ................................................... [5,000 ] Hosted payload demonstration ................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] Wide field of view test bed ........................................................................................................ [–8,000 ] 

69 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 31,112 31,112 70 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,543 2,543 71 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 46,340 46,340 72 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 8,854 8,854 73 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 10,129 10,129 75 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 563,037 563,037 77 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 0 100,000 100,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
366 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Liquid rocket engine ................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

78 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 4,938 4,938 79 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 59,826 59,826 80 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 78 78 81 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 173,647 173,647 82 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 5,332 5,332 83 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 776,937 776,937 84 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 8,201 8,201 86 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 7,497 7,497 87 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 314,378 –16,000 298,378 

Satellite contractor support ........................................................................................................ [–9,000 ] Protected tactical demonstration ............................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

88 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 103,552 103,552 89 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 31,425 31,425 90 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 RDT&E ......................................................................................... 85,938 85,938 91 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 98,768 98,768 92 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 198,357 198,357 94 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 8,831 8,831 95 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS ............................................................................................................................. 73,088 –63,088 10,000 

Integrate exisitng technology in replacement ............................................................................ [–63,088 ] 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 3,337,419 12,912 3,350,331 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

97 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 24,418 24,418 98 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 47,232 47,232 99 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 30,443 30,443 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
367 

101 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 12,266 12,266 102 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 689,509 689,509 103 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 34,364 34,364 104 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 21,161 21,161 104 A OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 0 20,000 20,000 

Program Increase ........................................................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

105 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 46,955 46,955 106 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 32,965 32,965 107 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 13,850 13,850 108 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 19,512 19,512 110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 181,727 181,727 111 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 4,938 4,938 112 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 18,644 18,644 113 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,425 1,425 114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 3,790 3,790 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................... 1,183,199 20,000 1,203,199 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 299,760 299,760 118 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ..................................................................................................... 2,469 2,469 

119 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 90,218 –30,000 60,218 

Delayed contract award .............................................................................................................. [–30,000 ] 

120 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 34,815 34,815 122 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 55,457 55,457 123 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 450 450 124 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 5,353 5,353 125 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 131,580 131,580 126 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 139,109 139,109 127 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................. 35,603 35,603 128 0101314F NIGHT FIST—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................................................. 32 32 130 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................ 1,522 1,522 131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 3,134 3,134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
368 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

133 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 170,396 170,396 136 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 133,105 133,105 137 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 261,969 261,969 138 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 14,831 14,831 139 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 156,962 156,962 140 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 43,666 43,666 141 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 29,739 29,739 142 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 82,195 82,195 144 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 68,944 –19,500 49,444 

Delays in pre-EMD phase ........................................................................................................... [–19,500 ] 

145 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY .................................................................................................. 5,095 5,095 146 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 883 883 147 0207247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 5,812 5,812 148 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 1,081 1,081 149 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 14,411 14,411 150 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 109,664 109,664 151 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 15,897 15,897 152 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 41,066 41,066 153 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 552 552 154 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 180,804 180,804 155 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 3,754 3,754 157 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 7,891 7,891 158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 5,891 5,891 159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,782 1,782 161 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 821 821 163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 23,844 23,844 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 16,723 16,723 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
369 

165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 5,956 5,956 166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,457 4,457 167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 60,679 60,679 169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................... 67,057 67,057 170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 13,355 13,355 171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 5,576 5,576 179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 12,218 12,218 180 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 28,778 28,778 181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 81,035 81,035 182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 70,497 70,497 183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 692 692 185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS ................................................................................................................... 55,208 55,208 187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 106,786 –30,700 76,086 

ASIP 2C ....................................................................................................................................... [–30,700 ] 

190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,157 4,157 193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 20,806 20,806 194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 25,102 25,102 195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 23,516 23,516

196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 8,639 8,639 199 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 498 498 200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 13,222 13,222 201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 360 360 206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 3,674 3,674 207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 2,480 2,480 208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 8,592 8,592 209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 13,462 13,462 210 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 5,511 5,800 11,311 

Keep U–2 rather than enhance Global Hawk Block 30 ............................................................. [5,800 ] 

212 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 28,113 28,113 

213 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 13,516 13,516 214 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 27,265 27,265 215 0305219F MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV .................................................................................................................. 1,378 1,378 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
370 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

216 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 244,514 –136,000 108,514 

Keep U–2 rather than enhance Global Hawk Block 30 ............................................................. [–136,000 ] 

217 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 11,096 –8,800 2,296 

NCCT ............................................................................................................................................ [–8,800 ] 

218 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL) .............................................................................................................. 36,137 36,137 219 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 232,851 232,851 220 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 20,218 20,218 221 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 212,571 212,571 222 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 73,779 73,779 223 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 4,102 4,102 225 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 20,468 20,468 226 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 11,596 11,596 227 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4,938 4,938 228 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ..................................................................................................... 1,212 1,212 230 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 38,773 38,773 231 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 83,773 83,773 232 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 26,715 26,715 233 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 5,172 5,172 234 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 2,714 2,714 235 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 27,784 27,784 236 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 38,719 38,719 237 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT (PAR) ............................................................................... 11,006 11,006 238 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 8,405 8,405 239 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,407 1,407 241 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 109,685 –12,500 97,185 

Reduce unjustified program growth ........................................................................................... [–12,500 ] 

242 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 16,209 16,209 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
371 

243 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 987 987 244 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 126 126 245 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 2,603 2,603 246 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 1,589 1,589 247 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 5,026 5,026 248 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,394 1,394 249 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION—ADMINISTRATIVE ...................................................................................... 3,798 3,798 250 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 107,314 107,314 250 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 11,441,120 –48,646 11,392,474 

Classified program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–16,700 ] Classified adjustment ................................................................................................................. [–31,946 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 15,717,666 –280,346 15,437,320 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 23,739,892 –227,434 23,512,458 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 37,778 37,778 

2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 312,146 20,000 332,146 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 44,564 –10,000 34,564 

Faculty fellows program reduction ............................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 49,848 49,848 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 45,488 10,000 55,488 

Military Child STEM Education programs ................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 24,412 10,000 34,412 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 48,261 48,261 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 562,497 30,000 592,497 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 20,065 20,065 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
372 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 112,242 112,242 

11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 51,875 51,875 12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 41,965 –10,000 31,965 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

13 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 334,407 334,407 15 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 44,825 44,825 16 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 226,317 226,317 18 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 15,000 –7,500 7,500 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–7,500 ] 

20 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 305,484 305,484 21 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 160,389 160,389 22 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 179,203 179,203 23 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 151,737 151,737 24 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 9,156 9,156 

25 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 39,750 39,750 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 1,692,415 –17,500 1,674,915 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

26 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 26,688 26,688 

27 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 8,682 8,682 28 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 69,675 69,675 29 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 30,000 –10,000 20,000 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

30 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ...................... 283,694 283,694 32 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 8,470 8,470 

33 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 45,110 45,110 34 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 14,068 14,068 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
373 

35 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR ............................................................................................................................. 15,329 15,329 36 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 16,584 16,584 37 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 19,335 19,335 38 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ........................ 2,544 2,544 39 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 51,033 51,033 40 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 129,723 129,723 41 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 179,883 179,883 42 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 12,000 –7,500 4,500 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–7,500 ] 

43 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 60,000 –15,000 45,000 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

44 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 25,639 25,639 45 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 132,674 132,674 46 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 10,965 10,965 47 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 131,960 –20,000 111,960 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

52 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 91,095 91,095 53 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 33,706 33,706 54 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 16,836 16,836 

55 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 29,683 29,683 56 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 57,796 57,796 57 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 72,144 72,144 58 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 7,405 7,405 59 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 92,246 92,246 60 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 243,265 243,265 62 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 386,926 –20,000 366,926 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

63 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 312,821 312,821 64 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 10,692 10,692

65 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 15,776 15,776 66 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 69,319 69,319 68 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE ............................................................... 3,000 3,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
374 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

71 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 81,148 81,148 72 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 31,800 31,800 73 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 46,066 46,066 74 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 57,622 57,622 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 2,933,402 –72,500 2,860,902 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

77 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 41,072 41,072 79 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 90,558 90,558 

80 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS APPLICATION PROGRAM ................................................................................ 15,518 4,000 19,518 

Continue important test programs ............................................................................................. [4,000 ] 

81 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 51,462 51,462 82 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 299,598 –15,000 284,598 

THAAD 2.0 early to need ............................................................................................................. [–15,000 ] 

83 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 1,003,768 30,000 1,033,768 

GMD reliability and maintenance improvements ....................................................................... [30,000 ] 

84 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 179,236 179,236 

85 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 392,893 392,893 86 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 410,863 410,863 87 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 310,261 310,261 88 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 929,208 929,208 89 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 31,346 31,346 90 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 6,389 6,389 91 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

443,484 443,484 

92 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 46,387 46,387 93 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 58,530 58,530 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
375 

94 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 16,199 16,199 95 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 64,409 64,409 96 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 96,803 350,972 447,775 

Israeli Missile Defense Programs ............................................................................................... [175,000 ] Transfer from Procurement, Defense-Wide Line 34 ................................................................... [175,972 ] 

97 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 386,482 386,482 

98 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 485,294 485,294 99 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 10,194 10,194 

100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 10,139 10,139 101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 2,907 5,000 7,907 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 190,000 190,000 103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT 3,702 3,702 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................. 53,000 53,000 106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION FUND ................................................................................................. 0 75,000 75,000 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [75,000 ] 

107 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .......................................................................................................... 7,002 7,002 108 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM .............................................................. 7,102 7,102 109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 123,444 123,444 110 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 263,695 263,695 113 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 12,500 12,500 114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 2,656 2,656 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 961 961 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 6,047,062 449,972 6,497,034 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 7,936 7,936 117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 70,762 70,762 

118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 345,883 –10,000 335,883 

Program under-execution ............................................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO) ......................................................... 25,459 25,459 120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 17,562 17,562 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
376 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES .............................................................. 6,887 6,887 122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 12,530 12,530 123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 286 286 124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,244 3,244 125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 15,326 15,326 127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION .................................................................................................... 19,351 19,351 128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM .............................................................. 41,465 41,465 129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 10,135 10,135 130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 9,546 9,546 131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 14,241 14,241 132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 3,660 3,660 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 610,773 –10,000 600,773 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 5,616 5,616 

134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 3,092 3,092 135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 254,503 254,503 136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 21,661 21,661 138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 27,162 27,162 139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 24,501 24,501 142 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 43,176 43,176 145 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 44,246 44,246 146 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 2,665 2,665 147 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 4,366 4,366 148 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 27,901 27,901 149 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 2,855 2,855 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
377 

150 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 105,944 105,944 156 0605502KA SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 400 400 159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 1,634 1,634 160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 12,105 –4,750 7,355 

Program reduction ....................................................................................................................... [–4,750 ] 

161 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 50,389 50,389 162 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 8,452 8,452

163 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 15,187 15,187 164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 71,362 71,362 165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 4,100 4,100 166 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 1,956 1,956 167 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 10,321 10,321 170 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 11,552 11,552 172 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE ...................................................................................................................... 6,748 6,748 174 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2) ................................ 44,005 –4,000 40,005 

Program decrease—historical under-execution ......................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

175 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 36,998 36,998 

176 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS ............................................................................................... 612 612 177 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 44,367 44,367 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................... 887,876 –8,750 879,126 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 3,988 3,988 

179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,750 1,750 180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 286 286 181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 14,778 14,778 182 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2,953 2,953 183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 10,350 10,350 184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 28,496 28,496 185 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................... 11,968 11,968 186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 1,842 1,842 187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 63,558 63,558 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
378 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ........................................................................... 3,931 3,931 193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................ 924 924 194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 9,657 9,657 195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 25,355 25,355 196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 12,671 12,671 197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) ............................................................................................... 222 222 198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 32,698 32,698 199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 11,304 11,304 200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 125,854 30,000 155,854 

Sharkseer ..................................................................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

201 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 0 12,600 12,600 

Transfer from line 212 (PE 0305103K) ...................................................................................... [3,200 ] Cyber Situational Awareness ...................................................................................................... [9,400 ] 

202 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 33,793 33,793 203 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 13,423 13,423 204 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ................................................................................. 3,774 3,774 205 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 951 951 

206 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 2,697 2,697 208 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES ................................................................................. 19,294 19,294 212 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 3,234 –3,200 34 

Transfer to line 201 (PE 0303140K) .......................................................................................... [–3,200 ] 

213 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) .............................................................................. 8,846 8,846 217 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 7,065 7,065 218 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 23,984 23,984 221 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 5,286 5,286 224 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,400 3,400 229 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 8,670 8,670 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
379 

230 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,110 2,110 239 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................ 22,366 22,366 240 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 1,574 1,574 241 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ................................................................................................................ 4,409 4,409 242 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 9,702 5,200 14,902 

Capability Improvements ............................................................................................................ [5,200 ] 

243 1105232BB RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 259 259 245 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 164,233 164,233 247 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 9,490 9,490 248 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 75,253 75,253 252 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 24,661 24,661 253 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 20,908 20,908 259 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 3,672 3,672 262 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 57,905 57,905 264 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 3,788 3,788 265 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 16,225 16,225 265 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,118,502 3,118,502 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,957,490 44,600 4,002,090 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 16,766,084 415,822 17,181,906 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 74,583 74,583 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 45,142 45,142 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 48,013 48,013 

TOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 167,738 0 167,738 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 167,738 0 167,738 TOTAL, TITLE II ................................................................................................................................ 63,533,947 –49,549 63,484,398 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(381) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
382 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 969,281 969,281 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ................................................................................................................................................. 61,990 61,990 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ...................................................................................................................................................... 450,987 450,987 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ............................................................................................................................................................ 545,773 545,773 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 1,057,453 1,057,453 060 AVIATION ASSETS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,409,347 1,409,347 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 3,592,334 3,592,334 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ......................................................................................................................................... 411,388 411,388 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 1,001,232 185,600 1,186,832 

Readiness funding increase ................................................................................................................................................. [185,600 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 7,428,972 7,428,972 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 2,066,434 113,000 2,179,434 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [18,750 ] 

Readiness funding increase—fully funds 6% CIP ............................................................................................................. [94,250 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .................................................................................................................. 411,863 411,863 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 179,399 179,399 170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................... 432,281 432,281 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 20,018,734 298,600 20,317,334 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
383 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ................................................................................................................................................................. 316,776 316,776 190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ................................................................................................................................................. 187,609 187,609 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,463 6,463 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 510,848 0 510,848 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................................................... 124,766 124,766 220 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................... 51,968 51,968 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 43,735 43,735 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ......................................................................................................................... 456,563 456,563 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 886,529 886,529 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 890,070 890,070 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................... 193,291 193,291 280 TRAINING SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................................... 552,359 552,359 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 466,927 466,927 300 EXAMINING ................................................................................................................................................................................. 194,588 194,588 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 205,782 205,782 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................... 150,571 150,571 330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS ............................................................................................................................ 169,784 169,784 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................... 4,386,933 0 4,386,933 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 541,877 541,877 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................... 722,291 722,291 370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 602,034 602,034 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 422,277 422,277 390 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 405,442 405,442 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 1,624,742 1,624,742 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 289,771 289,771 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 390,924 390,924 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
384 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,118,540 1,118,540 440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 241,234 241,234 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 243,509 243,509 460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS .................................................................................................................... 200,615 200,615 470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................... 462,591 462,591 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 27,375 27,375 525 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,030,411 1,030,411 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 8,323,633 0 8,323,633 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

530 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –320,000 –320,000 

Foreign currency fluctuation savings ................................................................................................................................... [–48,900 ] 

Program decrease—overestimate of civilian personnel ...................................................................................................... [–250,000 ] Travel savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–21,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 –320,000 –320,000 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ............................................................................................................................ 33,240,148 –21,400 33,218,748 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ................................................................................................................................................. 15,200 15,200 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ...................................................................................................................................................... 502,664 502,664 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ............................................................................................................................................................ 107,489 107,489 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 543,989 543,989 060 AVIATION ASSETS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72,963 72,963 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 360,082 360,082 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ......................................................................................................................................... 72,491 72,491 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
385 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 58,873 15,000 73,873 

Readiness funding increase ................................................................................................................................................. [15,000 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 388,961 388,961 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 228,597 5,000 233,597 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .................................................................................................................. 39,590 39,590 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 2,390,899 20,000 2,410,899 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 10,608 10,608 140 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18,587 18,587 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 6,681 6,681 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 9,192 9,192 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 54,602 54,602 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 99,670 0 99,670 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 2,490,569 20,000 2,510,569 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 660,648 23,000 683,648 

Readiness funding increase ................................................................................................................................................. [23,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ................................................................................................................................................. 165,942 165,942 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ...................................................................................................................................................... 733,800 733,800 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ............................................................................................................................................................ 83,084 83,084 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 22,005 22,005 060 AVIATION ASSETS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 920,085 920,085 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 680,887 680,887 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ......................................................................................................................................... 69,726 69,726 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 138,263 138,263 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 804,517 804,517 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 490,205 5,000 495,205 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
386 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .................................................................................................................. 872,140 872,140 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 5,641,302 28,000 5,669,302 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 6,690 6,690 140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,765 1,765 150 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 63,075 63,075 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 37,372 37,372 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,484 6,484 180 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 274,085 –13,800 260,285 

Program decrease for advertising ........................................................................................................................................ [–13,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 389,471 –13,800 375,671 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 6,030,773 14,200 6,044,973 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4,947,202 4,947,202 020 FLEET AIR TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,647,943 1,647,943 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 37,050 37,050 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 96,139 96,139 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................................. 363,763 363,763 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 814,770 108,900 923,670 

Readiness funding increase ................................................................................................................................................. [108,900 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................. 36,494 36,494 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .................................................................................................................................................................. 350,641 350,641 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
387 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 3,865,379 3,865,379 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 711,243 711,243 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,296,408 5,296,408 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 1,339,077 1,339,077 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 708,634 708,634 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE .............................................................................................................................................................. 91,599 91,599 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 207,038 207,038 160 WARFARE TACTICS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 432,715 432,715 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 338,116 338,116 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 892,316 892,316 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 128,486 128,486 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 2,472 2,472 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 101,200 101,200 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................... 188,920 188,920 230 CRUISE MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 109,911 109,911 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,172,823 1,300 1,174,123 

Additional FCET .................................................................................................................................................................... [1,300 ] 

250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 104,139 104,139 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................................... 490,911 490,911 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................................... 324,861 324,861 290 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 936,743 936,743 300 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................ 1,483,495 104,000 1,587,495 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [18,750 ] 

Readiness funding increase—fully funds 6% CIP ............................................................................................................. [85,250 ] 

310 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,398,667 4,398,667 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 31,619,155 214,200 31,833,355 

MOBILIZATION 

320 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ........................................................................................................................................... 526,926 526,926 330 READY RESERVE FORCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 195 195 340 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 6,704 6,704 350 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 251,538 –46,000 205,538 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
388 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Transfer to SCN, line4, for CVN 73 RCOH ........................................................................................................................... [–46,000 ] 

360 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................... 124,323 124,323 370 INDUSTRIAL READINESS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,323 2,323 380 COAST GUARD SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 20,333 20,333 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 932,342 –46,000 886,342 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

390 OFFICER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................................................... 156,214 156,214 400 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,863 8,863 410 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ...................................................................................................................................... 148,150 148,150 420 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 601,501 601,501 430 FLIGHT TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8,239 8,239 440 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................... 164,214 164,214 450 TRAINING SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................................... 182,619 182,619 460 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 230,589 230,589 470 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 115,595 115,595 480 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................... 79,606 79,606 490 JUNIOR ROTC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41,664 41,664 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................... 1,737,254 0 1,737,254 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

500 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 858,871 858,871 510 EXTERNAL RELATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 12,807 12,807 520 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 119,863 119,863 530 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 356,113 356,113 540 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 255,605 255,605 550 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 339,802 339,802 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
389 

570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 172,203 172,203 590 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 283,621 283,621 600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 1,111,464 1,111,464 610 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 43,232 43,232 620 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................................... 25,689 25,689 630 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 73,159 73,159 640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................. 548,640 548,640 700 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES ...................................................................................................................... 4,713 4,713 705 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 531,324 531,324 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 4,737,106 0 4,737,106 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

710 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –88,700 –88,700 

Foreign currency fluctuation savings ................................................................................................................................... [–74,200 ] 

Travel savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–14,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 –88,700 –88,700 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................. 39,025,857 79,500 39,105,357 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 905,744 33,800 939,544 

Readiness funding increase—SPMAGTFs in CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM ............................................................................ [33,800 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 921,543 921,543 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 229,058 229,058 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ....................................................................................................................................................... 87,660 87,660 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 573,926 18,750 592,676 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [18,750 ] 

060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,983,118 1,983,118 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 4,701,049 52,550 4,753,599 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
390 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................... 18,227 18,227 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................................................... 948 948 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 98,448 98,448 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................... 42,305 42,305 110 TRAINING SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................................... 330,156 330,156 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 161,752 161,752 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 19,137 15,700 34,837 

At USMC request transfer from RDTEN 53 .......................................................................................................................... [15,700 ] 

140 JUNIOR ROTC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23,277 23,277 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................... 694,250 15,700 709,950 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 36,359 36,359 160 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 362,608 –9,193 353,415 

Program decrease—museum expansion .............................................................................................................................. [–9,193 ] 

180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 70,515 70,515 185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 44,706 44,706 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 514,188 –9,193 504,995 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

190 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –33,200 –33,200 

Foreign currency fluctuation savings ................................................................................................................................... [–28,400 ] 

Travel savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–4,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 –33,200 –33,200 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ............................................................................................................ 5,909,487 25,857 5,935,344 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
391 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 565,842 565,842 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................... 5,948 5,948 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 82,636 82,636 050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................. 353 353 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,007 7,007 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 8,190 8,190 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 556 556 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,571 4,571 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 14,472 14,472 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 119,056 119,056 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,852 1,852 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 25,354 25,354 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................ 48,271 5,000 53,271 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 101,921 101,921 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 986,029 5,000 991,029 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

160 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,520 1,520 170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 12,998 12,998 180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3,395 3,395 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 3,158 3,158 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 21,071 0 21,071 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ..................................................................................................................... 1,007,100 5,000 1,012,100 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .................................................................................................................................................................. 93,093 93,093 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 18,377 18,377 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
392 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................ 29,232 5,000 34,232 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 106,447 106,447 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 247,149 5,000 252,149 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 914 914 060 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11,831 11,831 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 8,688 8,688 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 21,433 0 21,433 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................................ 268,582 5,000 273,582 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,163,457 3,163,457 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,694,339 1,694,339 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ................................................................................................................. 1,579,178 1,579,178 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 6,119,522 6,119,522 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 1,453,589 18,750 1,472,339 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [18,750 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,599,419 2,599,419 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ........................................................................................................................................... 908,790 908,790 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................... 856,306 856,306 090 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................... 800,689 –8,000 792,689 

RC–135 ................................................................................................................................................................................. [–8,000 ] 

100 LAUNCH FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................... 282,710 282,710 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
393 

110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 397,818 397,818 120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................... 871,840 –11,000 860,840 

Program decrease—classified program .............................................................................................................................. [–11,000 ] 

130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 237,348 –20,000 217,348 

Program decrease—JECC ..................................................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

130A AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................... 0 34,600 34,600 

Retain current AWACS fleet .................................................................................................................................................. [34,600 ] 

130B A–10 FLYING HOURS ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 188,400 188,400 

Retain current A–10 fleet .................................................................................................................................................... [188,400 ] 

130C A–10 WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................. 0 68,100 68,100 

Retain current A–10 fleet .................................................................................................................................................... [68,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 20,965,005 270,850 21,235,855 

MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,968,810 1,968,810 150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................. 139,743 139,743 160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,534,560 1,534,560 170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 173,627 173,627 180 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 688,801 688,801 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,505,541 0 4,505,541 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

190 OFFICER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................................................... 82,396 82,396 200 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................... 19,852 19,852 210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) .......................................................................................................................... 76,134 76,134 220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 212,226 212,226 230 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 759,809 759,809 240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 356,157 356,157 250 FLIGHT TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 697,594 697,594 260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................... 219,441 219,441 270 TRAINING SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................................... 91,001 91,001 280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 316,688 316,688 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
394 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 73,920 73,920 300 EXAMINING ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,121 3,121 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 181,718 181,718 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................... 147,667 147,667 330 JUNIOR ROTC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 63,250 63,250 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................... 3,300,974 0 3,300,974 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,003,513 10,300 1,013,813 

Readiness funding increase—PACOM unfunded priority list .............................................................................................. [10,300 ] 

350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 843,449 843,449 360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 78,126 78,126 370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 247,677 247,677 380 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,103,442 1,103,442 390 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 597,234 597,234 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 506,840 506,840 410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 892,256 892,256 420 CIVIL AIR PATROL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24,981 24,981 450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 92,419 92,419 465 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,169,736 –5,360 1,164,376 

Classified adjustment .......................................................................................................................................................... [–5,360 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 6,559,673 4,940 6,564,613 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

470 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –69,200 –69,200 

Foreign currency fluctuation savings ................................................................................................................................... [–51,900 ] 

Travel savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–17,300 ] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
395 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 –69,200 –69,200 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 35,331,193 206,590 35,537,783 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,719,467 1,719,467 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 211,132 211,132 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 530,301 530,301 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 85,672 5,000 90,672 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 367,966 367,966 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 2,914,538 5,000 2,919,538 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59,899 59,899 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 14,509 14,509 080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ....................................................................................................................... 20,345 20,345 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) .............................................................................................................................. 6,551 6,551 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 101,304 0 101,304 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................. 3,015,842 5,000 3,020,842 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 3,367,729 3,367,729 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 718,295 718,295 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,528,695 1,528,695 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 137,604 5,000 142,604 

Facilities Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 581,536 581,536 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 6,333,859 5,000 6,338,859 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
396 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27,812 27,812 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ................................................................................................................................................. 31,188 31,188 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 59,000 0 59,000 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG ............................................................................................................................... 6,392,859 5,000 6,397,859 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ............................................................................................................................................................. 462,107 462,107 020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................. 4,762,245 29,600 4,791,845 

USSOCOM NCR ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] USSOCOM RSCC .................................................................................................................................................................... [–1,800 ] 

UFR Flying Hours .................................................................................................................................................................. [36,400 ] 

UFR Unit Readiness Training ............................................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 5,224,352 29,600 5,253,952 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

030 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY .......................................................................................................................................... 135,437 135,437 040 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................................... 80,082 80,082 050 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................. 371,620 371,620 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................... 587,139 0 587,139 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 119,888 25,000 144,888 

Starbase ................................................................................................................................................................................ [25,000 ] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
397 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ......................................................................................................................................... 556,493 556,493 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY ............................................................................................................................ 1,340,374 1,340,374 100 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 633,300 633,300 110 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................... 1,263,678 1,263,678 130 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ......................................................................................................................................... 26,710 26,710 140 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................... 381,470 12,700 394,170 

PTAP funding increase ......................................................................................................................................................... [12,700 ] 

150 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................................... 194,520 194,520 160 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 21,485 21,485 170 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 544,786 –7,000 537,786 

Program decrease—Combatting terrorism fellowship ......................................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

180 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 527,812 527,812 200 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................ 32,787 32,787 230 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ..................................................................................................................... 2,566,424 30,000 2,596,424 

Supplemental Impact Aid ..................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] Disability Impact Aid ............................................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

240 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................................ 416,644 416,644 260 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 186,987 –80,600 106,387 

Program decrease—ahead of need ..................................................................................................................................... [–80,600 ] 

270 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ................................................................................................................................. 1,891,163 –8,800 1,882,363 

Program decrease—BRAC 2015 .......................................................................................................................................... [–4,800 ] Program decrease for DOD rewards program ...................................................................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

280 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 87,915 87,915 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES .................................................................................................................................. 610,982 610,982 295 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,983,323 41,600 14,024,923 

Additional AFRICOM ISR Support ......................................................................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

DCS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... [–18,400 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 25,386,741 12,900 25,399,641 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

305 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –29,800 –29,800 

Foreign currency fluctuation savings ................................................................................................................................... [–17,500 ] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
398 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Travel savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–17,300 ] Blue water review ................................................................................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 –29,800 –29,800 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................................................... 31,198,232 12,700 31,210,932 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE .................................................................................................. 13,723 13,723 010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID .............................................................................................................. 100,000 100,000 010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT ........................................................................................................................... 365,108 365,108 010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ......................................................................................................................................................... 212,875 212,875 030 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ..................................................................................................................................... 201,560 201,560 040 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ...................................................................................................................................... 277,294 277,294 050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................. 408,716 408,716 060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ................................................................................................................................ 8,547 8,547 070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES .......................................................................................................... 208,353 208,353 080 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND ......................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 090 SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS, DEFENSE ......................................................................................... 10,000 –4,300 5,700 

Program decrease—SISC ..................................................................................................................................................... [–4,300 ] 

TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,811,176 –4,300 1,806,876 TOTAL, TITLE III ........................................................................................................................................................................ 165,721,818 353,147 166,074,965 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(399) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
400 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 128,957,593 –46,910 128,910,683 

Military Personnel Historical Underexecution ............................................................................................................... [–761,610 ] Restore lost savings relating to retiree COLA ............................................................................................................. [500,000 ] Restore assumed savings for TRICARE consolidation ................................................................................................. [78,000 ] Readiness funding increase—CTC rotations for Army National Guard ..................................................................... [45,000 ] Reduction in meals-ready-to-eat ................................................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] Retain current A–10 fleet ............................................................................................................................................ [82,800 ] Retain current AWACS fleet ......................................................................................................................................... [24,900 ] Increase state ESGR personnel .................................................................................................................................... [4,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 128,957,593 –46,910 128,910,683 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 6,236,092 6,236,092 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 6,236,092 0 6,236,092 TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 135,193,685 –46,910 135,146,775 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(401) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
402 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS .......................................................................................................................... 13,727 13,727 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 13,727 0 13,727 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

010 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL) ................................................................................................................ 61,717 61,717 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................. 61,717 0 61,717 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 44,293 –5,000 39,293 

Program decrease—MREs ........................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................................................................................... 44,293 –5,000 39,293 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,114,731 200,000 1,314,731 

Restore Commissary Cut .............................................................................................................................................. [200,000 ] 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .......................................................................................................................... 1,114,731 200,000 1,314,731 TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS ............................................................................................................................ 1,234,468 195,000 1,429,468 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
403 

NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND 

010 NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND .................................................................................................................. 0 100,000 100,000 

National Sea-based Deterrence Fund .......................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

TOTAL, NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND .......................................................................................................... 0 100,000 100,000 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION 

010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 222,728 222,728 

020 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 595,913 595,913 030 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 10,227 10,227 

TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 828,868 0 828,868 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 310,830 310,830 

020 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 311,830 0 311,830 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ................................................................................... 719,096 20,000 739,096 

Additional SOUTHCOM ISR Support ............................................................................................................................. [20,000 ] 

020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 101,591 101,591 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 820,687 20,000 840,687 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,799,086 8,799,086 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,412,599 15,412,599 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,462,096 2,462,096 

040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,557,347 1,557,347 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 366,223 366,223 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 750,866 750,866 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,683,694 1,683,694 

070A UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 –78,000 –78,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
404 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation .......................................................................................... [–88,000 ] Mental Health Assessments ......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DHP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................ 31,031,911 –78,000 30,953,911 DHP RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 

090 R&D RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................ 10,317 10,317 100 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 49,015 49,015 

110 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 226,410 226,410 120 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 97,787 97,787 130 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 217,898 217,898 140 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 38,075 38,075 150 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 15,092 15,092 

SUBTOTAL, DHP RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 654,594 0 654,594 DHP PROCUREMENT 

160 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................................................. 13,057 13,057 170 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 283,030 283,030 

180 PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 3,145 3,145 190 PROC IEHR ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9,181 9,181 

SUBTOTAL, DHP PROCUREMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 308,413 0 308,413 

DHP UNDISTRIBUTED 

190A TRANSFERS TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................. –161,857 –161,857 

SUBTOTAL, DHP UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –161,857 0 –161,857 

TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 31,833,061 –78,000 31,755,061 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
405 

TOTAL, TITLE XIV .............................................................................................................................................................. 35,028,914 237,000 35,265,914 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(407) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
408 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Military Construction, Army MC, Army CALIFORNIA Concord Access Control Point .................................................... 9,900 9,900 MC, Army CALIFORNIA Concord General Purpose Maintenance Shop ............................ 5,300 5,300 MC, Army CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ................................ 45,000 45,000 MC, Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 60,000 60,000 MC, Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ................................ 29,000 29,000 MC, Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Dining Facility .............................................................. 12,000 12,000 MC, Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Health Clinic ................................................................ 11,800 11,800 MC, Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility (SCIF) ......................... 96,000 –9,600 86,400 MC, Army JAPAN Kadena AB Missile Magazine ......................................................... 10,600 10,600 MC, Army KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Consolidated Shipping Center ..................................... 0 15,000 15,000 MC, Army KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ................................ 23,000 23,000 MC, Army NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ................................ 27,000 27,000 MC, Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cadet Barracks, Incr 3 ................................................ 58,000 58,000 MC, Army PENNSYLVANIA Letterkenny Army Depot Rebuild Shop ................................................................ 16,000 16,000 MC, Army SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks Complex 3, Ph1 ............................... 52,000 52,000 MC, Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Tactical Vehicle Hardstand .......................................... 7,700 7,700 MC, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support FY15 ........................................... 33,000 33,000 MC, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Minor Construction FY15 ............................................. 25,000 25,000 MC, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design FY15 .......................................... 18,127 18,127 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Army ......................................................................................................................................... 539,427 5,400 544,827 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
409 

Military Construction, Navy MC, Navy ARIZONA Yuma Aviation Maintenance and Support Complex .............. 16,608 16,608 MC, Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia P–8A Hangar ................................................................ 27,826 27,826 MC, Navy CALIFORNIA Bridgeport E-LMR Communications Towers .................................. 16,180 16,180 MC, Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Steam Distribution System Decentralization ............... 47,110 47,110 MC, Navy DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District Of Columbia Electronics Science and Technology Laboratory .......... 31,735 31,735 MC, Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Entry Control Point ....................................................... 9,923 9,923MC, Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville MH60 Parking Apron .................................................... 8,583 8,583 MC, Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville P–8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways ..................... 21,652 21,652 MC, Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS Operational Training Facility ................................ 20,520 20,520 MC, Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas GSE Shops at North Ramp .......................................... 21,880 21,880 MC, Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas MWSS Facilities at North Ramp .................................. 28,771 28,771 MC, Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Facility Modifications for VMU, MWSD, & CH53E ....... 51,182 51,182 MC, Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Road and Infrastructure Improvements ...................... 2,200 2,200 MC, Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Submarine Maneuvering Room Trainer Facility ........... 9,698 9,698 MC, Navy JAPAN Iwakuni Security Mods DPRI MC167–T (CVW–5 E2D EA–18G) 6,415 6,415 MC, Navy JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maint Hangar Alterations and SAP-F ............. 19,411 19,411 MC, Navy JAPAN MCAS Futenma Hangar & Rinse Facility Modernizations ..................... 4,639 4,639 MC, Navy JAPAN Okinawa LHD Practice Site Improvements ................................. 35,685 35,685 MC, Navy MARYLAND Annapolis Center for Cyber Security Studies Building ................. 120,112 –90,112 30,000 MC, Navy MARYLAND Indian Head Advanced Energetics Research Lab Complex Ph 2 ..... 15,346 15,346 MC, Navy MARYLAND Patuxent River Atlantic Test Range Facility ........................................ 9,860 9,860 MC, Navy NEVADA Fallon Air Wing Training Facility ............................................ 27,763 27,763 MC, Navy NEVADA Fallon Facility Alteration for F–35 Training Mission .............. 3,499 3,499 MC, Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio Bn Complex, Phase I ................................. 0 50,706 50,706 MC, Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point MCAS Water Treatment Plant Replacement ........................... 41,588 41,588 MC, Navy PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Ohio Replacement Power & Propulsion Facility .......... 23,985 23,985 MC, Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston Nuclear Power Operational Support Facility ................ 35,716 35,716 MC, Navy SPAIN Rota Ship Berthing Power Upgrades .................................... 20,233 20,233 MC, Navy VIRGINIA Dahlgren Missile Support Facility ............................................... 27,313 27,313 MC, Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk EOD Consolidated Ops & Logistics Facilities .............. 39,274 39,274 MC, Navy VIRGINIA Portsmouth Submarine Maintenance Facility ................................. 9,743 9,743 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
410 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MC, Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Ammunition Supply Point Expansion ........................... 12,613 12,613 MC, Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown Bachelor Enlisted Quarters .......................................... 19,152 19,152 MC, Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown FAST Company Training Facility .................................. 7,836 7,836 MC, Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Integrated Water Treatment Syst. DD 1, 2, & 5 ......... 16,401 16,401 MC, Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Explosives Handling Wharf #2 (INC) ........................... 83,778 83,778 MC, Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Regional Ship Maintenance Support Facility .............. 0 13,833 13,833 MC, Navy WASHINGTON Port Angeles TPS Port Angeles Forward Operating Location ............ 20,638 20,638 MC, Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island P–8A Aircraft Apron and Supporting Facilities ........... 24,390 24,390 MC, Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide F–35C Facility Addition and Modification ................... 16,594 16,594 MC, Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide F–35C Operational Training Facility ............................ 22,391 22,391 MC, Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCON Design Funds .................................................... 33,366 33,366 MC, Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 7,163 7,163 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Navy ......................................................................................................................................... 1,018,772 –25,573 993,199 

Military Construction, AF MC, AF ALASKA Clear AFS Emergency Power Plant Fuel Storage .......................... 11,500 11,500 MC, AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Hangar—Sqdn #2 ........................... 11,200 11,200 MC, AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Flightline Fillstands ............................................ 15,600 15,600 MC, AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas Guam Strike Fuel Systems Maint.Hangar Inc 2 .......... 64,000 64,000 MC, AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR Low Observable / Corrosion Control / Composite 

Repair Shop.

0 34,400 34,400 

MC, AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—Combat Comm Infrastr Facility ...................... 3,750 3,750 MC, AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—RED HORSE Logistics Facility ......................... 3,150 3,150 MC, AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—Satellite Fire Station ....................................... 6,500 6,500 MC, AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Mobility Bag Strg Expansion ................ 2,300 2,300 MC, AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Regional Mx Tng Facility ...................... 16,100 16,100 MC, AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Alter Composite Mx Shop ............................... 4,100 4,100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
411 

MC, AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Alter Taxiway Foxtrot ...................................... 5,500 5,500 MC, AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Fuselage Trainer ............................................ 6,400 6,400 MC, AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations Center, Increment 2 ...... 166,000 166,000 MC, AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Dormitory (72 RM) ....................................................... 13,500 13,500 MC, AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement Facility- Incr 4 ................ 180,000 180,000 MC, AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–22 Flight Simulator Facility ..................................... 14,000 14,000 MC, AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Unit—4 Bay Hangar ....................... 31,000 31,000 MC, AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Weapons School Facility ..................................... 8,900 8,900 MC, AF NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-DixLakehurst Fire Station .................................................................. 5,900 5,900 MC, AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot Maint Complex Spt Infrastr ................. 48,000 48,000 MC, AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Two-Bay Depot Mx Hangar ............................ 63,000 63,000 MC, AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Fire Station .................................................................. 5,800 5,800 MC, AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation—Phase 1 ...................................... 92,223 92,223 MC, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 10,738 10,738 MC, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Military Construction ..................... 22,613 22,613 

Subtotal, Military Construction, AF ............................................................................................................................................. 811,774 34,400 846,174 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide MC, Def-Wide ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Building 52120 Renovation ................................. 1,871 1,871 MC, Def-Wide AUSTRALIA Geraldton Combined Communications Gateway Geraldton .......... 9,600 9,600 MC, Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels Brussells Elementary/High School Replacement ......... 41,626 41,626 MC, Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Facility ......................................... 37,918 37,918 MC, Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California SOF Comm/Elec Maintenance Facility ......................... 11,841 11,841 MC, Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit 1 Ops Facility #1 ............ 41,740 41,740 MC, Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Support Activity Ops Facility #2 .......................... 28,600 28,600 MC, Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Lemoore Replace Fuel Storage & Distribution Fac. ................... 52,500 52,500 MC, Def-Wide COLORADO Peterson AFB Dental Clinic Replacement .......................................... 15,200 15,200 MC, Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location SOF Skills Training Facility .......................................... 53,073 53,073 MC, Def-Wide GEORGIA Hunter Army Airfield SOF Company Operations Facility ................................ 7,692 7,692 MC, Def-Wide GEORGIA Robins AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ...................................... 19,900 19,900 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
412 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MC, Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Incr 4 ............................ 259,695 –200,000 59,695 MC, Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Replace Fuel Tank ....................................................... 11,100 11,100 MC, Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay W.T. Sampson E/M and HS Consolid./Replacement .... 65,190 65,190 MC, Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Replace Fuel Tanks ...................................................... 3,000 3,000 MC, Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Upgrade Fire Supression & Ventilation Sys. ............... 49,900 49,900 MC, Def-Wide JAPAN Misawa AB Edgren High School Renovation .................................. 37,775 37,775 MC, Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Killin Elementary Replacement/Renovation ................. 71,481 71,481 MC, Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Kubasaki High School Replacement/Renovation ......... 99,420 99,420 MC, Def-Wide JAPAN Sasebo E.J. King High School Replacement/Renovation .......... 37,681 37,681 MC, Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky SOF System Integration Maintenance Office Fac ........ 18,000 18,000 MC, Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 1 ................................. 54,207 54,207 MC, Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #1/Site M Inc 3 .............. 45,521 45,521 MC, Def-Wide MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................... 18,300 18,300 MC, Def-Wide MICHIGAN Selfridge Angb Replace Fuel Distribution Facilities ............................. 35,100 35,100 MC, Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Applied Instruction Facility .................................. 10,323 10,323 MC, Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Land Acquisition Western Maneuver Area ........... 17,224 17,224 MC, Def-Wide NEVADA Fallon SOF Tactical Ground Mob. Vehicle Maint Fac. ............ 20,241 20,241 MC, Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF Squadron Operations Facility (STS) ..................... 23,333 23,333 MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, NC Lejeune High School Addition/Renovation ................... 41,306 41,306 MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, NC SOF Intel/Ops Expansion .............................................. 11,442 11,442MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Operations Facility ................................ 37,074 37,074 MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility ............ 8,000 8,000 MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Training Command Building ................................ 48,062 48,062 MC, Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ...................................... 8,500 8,500 MC, Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Replace Fuel Distibution Facilities .............................. 40,600 40,600 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
413 

MC, Def-Wide SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB Construct Hydrant System ........................................... 8,000 8,000 MC, Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 6 ....................................... 131,500 131,500 MC, Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 38,300 38,300 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Craney Island Replace & Alter Fuel Distibution Facilities ................. 36,500 36,500 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Def Dist Depot Richmond Replace Access Control Point ...................................... 5,700 5,700 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Parking Lot ................................................................... 7,239 7,239 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Hopsital Addition/CUP Replacement ............................ 41,200 41,200 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Exp Base Little Creek SOF Human Performance Center ................................. 11,200 11,200 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Exp Base Little Creek SOF Indoor Dynamic Range ......................................... 14,888 14,888 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Exp Base Little Creek SOF Mobile Comm Det Support Facility ...................... 13,500 13,500 MC, Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Redundant Chilled Water Loop .................................... 15,100 15,100 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction ............................................ 9,000 9,000 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ECIP Design ................................................................. 10,000 10,000 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Conservation Investment Program ................... 150,000 150,000 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor Construction ........................... 8,581 8,581 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design ....................................................... 38,704 38,704 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 24,425 24,425 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 745 745 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 42,387 42,387 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 599 599 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 1,183 1,183 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 2,700 2,700 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 4,100 4,100 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 5,932 5,932 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 6,846 6,846 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 2,000 2,000 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 10,334 10,334 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Milcon ............................................ 2,994 2,994 MC, Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 24,197 24,197 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Defense-Wide .......................................................................................................................... 2,061,890 –200,000 1,861,890 

Military Construction, Army National Guard 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
414 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MC, ARNG MAINE Augusta National Guard Reserve Center ................................... 30,000 30,000 MC, ARNG MARYLAND Havre De Grace National Guard Readiness Center ............................... 12,400 12,400 MC, ARNG MONTANA Helena National Guard Readiness Center Add/Alt .................. 38,000 38,000 MC, ARNG NEW MEXICO Alamagordo Readiness Cener ADD/ALT ........................................... 0 5,000 5,000 MC, ARNG NORTH DAKOTA Valley City National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ................. 10,800 10,800 MC, ARNG VERMONT North Hyde Park National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ................. 4,400 4,400 MC, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 17,600 17,600 MC, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 13,720 13,720 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Army National Guard .............................................................................................................. 126,920 5,000 131,920 

Military Construction, Air National Guard MC, ANG ARKANSAS Ft Smith Municipal Airport Consolidated SCIF ........................................................ 0 13,200 13,200 MC, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct C–130 Fuel Cell and Corrosion Contr ........ 16,306 16,306 MC, ANG IOWA Des Moines Map Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Targeting Group .......... 8,993 8,993 MC, ANG MICHIGAN W. K. Kellog Regional Airport RPA Beddown ............................................................... 6,000 6,000 MC, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

KC–46A ADAL Airfield Pavements & Hydrant Syst ...... 7,100 7,100 

MC, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

KC–46A ADAL Fuel Cell Building 253 ......................... 16,800 16,800 

MC, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

KC–46A ADAL Maint Hangar Building 254 ................. 18,002 18,002 

MC, ANG PENNSYLVANIA Willow Grove ARF RPA Operations Center ................................................ 5,662 5,662 MC, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 7,700 7,700 MC, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 8,100 8,100 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Air National Guard .................................................................................................................. 94,663 13,200 107,863 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
415 

Military Construction, Army Reserve MC, Army Res CALIFORNIA Riverside Army Reserve Center, Phase II .................................... 0 25,000 25,000 MC, Army Res CALIFORNIA Fresno Army Reserve Center/AMSA .......................................... 22,000 22,000 MC, Army Res COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Training Building Addition ........................................... 5,000 5,000 MC, Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-DixLakehurst Army Reserve Center .................................................... 26,000 26,000 MC, Army Res NEW YORK Mattydale Army Reserve Center/AMSA .......................................... 23,000 23,000 MC, Army Res VIRGINIA Fort Lee TASS Training Center ................................................... 16,000 16,000 MC, Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 8,337 8,337 MC, Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 3,609 3,609 

Subtotal, Military Construction, Army Reseserve ...................................................................................................................... 103,946 25,000 128,946 

Military Construction, Navy Reseserve MC, Navy Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh Reserve Training Center—Pittsburgh, PA ................... 17,650 17,650 MC, Navy Res WASHINGTON Everett Joint Reserve Intelligence Center ................................ 0 47,869 47,869 MC, Navy Res WASHINGTON Whidbey Island C–40 Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................ 27,755 27,755 MC, Navy Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Planning & Design ............................................ 2,123 2,123 MC, Navy Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Unspecified Minor Construction ........................ 4,000 4,000

Subtotal, Military Construction, Navy Reserve .......................................................................................................................... 51,528 47,869 99,397 

Military Construction, AF Reseserve MC, AF Res ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB Guardian Angel Operations .......................................... 0 14,500 14,500 MC, AF Res GEORGIA Robins AFB AFRC Consolidated Mission Complex, Ph I ................. 27,700 27,700 MC, AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–135 Tanker Parking Apron Expansion ................... 9,800 9,800 MC, AF Res TEXAS Fort Worth EOD Facility .................................................................. 3,700 3,700 MC, AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................... 6,892 6,892 MC, AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Military Construction ..................... 1,400 1,400 

Subtotal, Military Construction, AF Reserve .............................................................................................................................. 49,492 14,500 63,992 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction Chem Demil KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization Ph XV ............................ 38,715 38,715 

Subtotal, Chemical Demilitarization Construction ..................................................................................................................... 38,715 0 38,715 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
416 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NATO Security Investment Program NATO SIP WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment 

Program 

Nato Security Investment Program .............................. 199,700 –25,000 174,700 

Subtotal, NATO Security Investment Program ........................................................................................................................... 199,700 –25,000 174,700 

Total, Military Construction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,096,827 –105,204 4,991,623 

Family Housing Family Housing Construction, Army FHC, Army ILLINOIS Rock Island Family Housing New Construction ............................... 19,500 19,500 FHC, Army KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New Construction ............................... 57,800 57,800 FHC, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D ................................................. 1,309 1,309 

Subtotal, Family Housing Construction, Army ............................................................................................................................ 78,609 0 78,609 

Family Housing O&M, Army FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings .................................................................. 14,136 14,136 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leased Housing ............................................................ 112,504 112,504 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real Property Facilities ...................... 65,245 65,245 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account .................................................. 3,117 3,117 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account .................................................. 43,480 43,480 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Military Housing Privitization Initiative ....................... 20,000 20,000 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous ............................................................... 700 700 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services ........................................................................ 9,108 9,108 FHO, Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities ......................................................................... 82,686 82,686 

Subtotal, Family Housing O&M, Army ......................................................................................................................................... 350,976 0 350,976 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
417 

Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps FHC, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Design .......................................................................... 472 472 FHC, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements ............................................................... 15,940 15,940 

Subtotal, Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 16,412 0 16,412 

Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account .................................................... 17,881 17,881 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing ......................................................................... 65,999 65,999 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 97,612 97,612 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account .................................................. 55,124 55,124 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 366 366 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Privatization Support Costs ......................................... 27,876 27,876 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account .......................................................... 18,079 18,079 FHO, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account ........................................................... 71,092 71,092 

Subtotal, Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 354,029 0 354,029 

Family Housing O&M, AF FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account .................................................... 38,543 38,543 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization ................................................... 40,761 40,761 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing ......................................................................... 43,651 43,651 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance ................................................................. 99,934 99,934 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account .................................................. 47,834 47,834 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 1,993 1,993 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account .......................................................... 12,709 12,709 FHO, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account ........................................................... 42,322 42,322 

Subtotal, Family Housing O&M, AF ............................................................................................................................................. 327,747 0 327,747 

Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account .................................................... 3,362 3,362 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account .................................................... 20 20 

FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account .................................................... 746 746 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing ......................................................................... 42,083 42,083 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
418 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing ......................................................................... 11,179 11,179 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 344 344 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 2,128 2,128 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account .................................................. 378 378FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account .......................................................... 31 31 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account ........................................................... 170 170 FHO, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account ........................................................... 659 659 

Subtotal, Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide ........................................................................................................................... 61,100 0 61,100 

Family Housing Improvement Fund FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing Improvement Fund ............................. 1,662 1,662 

Subtotal, Family Housing Improvement Fund ............................................................................................................................ 1,662 0 1,662 Total, Family Housing .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,190,535 0 1,190,535 

Base Realignment and Closure Defense Base Closure Account—Army BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BRAC, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................... 84,417 84,417 

Subtotal, Defense Base Closure Account—Army ...................................................................................................................... 84,417 0 84,417 

Defense Base Closure Account—Navy BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BRAC, Navy Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 57,406 57,406 BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–100: Planing, Design and Management ............. 7,682 7,682 BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–101: Various Locations ....................................... 21,416 21,416 BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................... 904 904 BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO .............................. 40 40 BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................... 6,066 6,066 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
419 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP .......... 1,178 1,178 

Subtotal, Defense Base Closure Account—Navy ...................................................................................................................... 94,692 0 94,692 

Defense Base Closure Account—AF BRAC—AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force .................................. 90,976 90,976 

Subtotal, Defense Base Closure Account—AF .......................................................................................................................... 90,976 0 90,976 

Total, Base Realignment and Closure ........................................................................................................................................ 270,085 0 270,085 Grand Total, Military Construction & Family Housing ............................................................................................................... 6,557,447 –105,204 6,452,243 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(421) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
422 

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) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 104,000 0 104,000 

Advisory Board 

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health ....................................................................................... 0 2,000 2,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 8,314,902 0 8,314,902 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,555,156 285,000 1,840,156 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,377,100 0 1,377,100 Federal salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................... 410,842 –7,500 403,342 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 11,658,000 277,500 11,935,500 Environmental and other defense activities: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
423 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,327,538 –463,000 4,864,538 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 753,000 –2,000 751,000 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,080,538 –465,000 5,615,538 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 17,738,538 –187,500 17,551,038 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 17,842,538 –185,500 17,657,038 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 104,000 104,000 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 104,000 0 104,000 

Advisory Board 

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health ......................................................................................................... 0 2,000 2,000 

Total, Advisory Board ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 2,000 2,000 Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

B61 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................................. 643,000 643,000 W76 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................................. 259,168 259,168 W88 Alt 370 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 165,400 165,400 Cruise missile warhead life extension program .............................................................................................................. 9,418 7,500 16,918 Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 109,615 109,615 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 45,728 45,728 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 62,703 62,703 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 70,610 70,610 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 63,136 63,136 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 91,255 91,255 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 88,060 88,060 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 531,107 0 531,107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
424 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 30,008 30,008 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 350,942 350,942 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 29,649 29,649 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 201,479 201,479 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 241,805 241,805 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 144,575 144,575 Tritium readiness ..................................................................................................................................................... 140,053 140,053 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 1,108,503 0 1,108,503 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 2,746,604 7,500 2,754,104 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 58,747 58,747 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 112,000 112,000 

Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 117,999 117,999 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 79,340 79,340 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 88,344 88,344 

Total, Science campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 456,430 0 456,430 

Engineering campaign 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 52,003 52,003 

Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 20,832 20,832 

Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 25,371 25,371 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 37,799 37,799 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
425 

Total, Engineering campaign .......................................................................................................................................... 136,005 0 136,005 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 77,994 77,994 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 23,598 23,598 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimenta support ................................................................................................. 61,297 61,297 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 5,024 5,024 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 9,100 9,100 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 335,882 –7,500 328,382 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield campaign ....................................................................................... 512,895 –7,500 505,395 Advanced simulation and computing campaign ............................................................................................................. 610,108 610,108 Readiness Campaign 

Nonnuclear readiness .............................................................................................................................................. 125,909 125,909 

Total, Readiness campaign ............................................................................................................................................. 125,909 0 125,909 

Total, Campaigns ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,841,347 –7,500 1,833,847 

Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF) 

Operations of facilities 

Kansas City Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 125,000 125,000 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ....................................................................................................... 71,000 71,000 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ..................................................................................................................... 198,000 198,000 Nevada National Security Site ........................................................................................................................ 89,000 89,000 Pantex ............................................................................................................................................................. 75,000 75,000 

Sandia National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................ 106,000 106,000 

Savannah River Site ....................................................................................................................................... 81,000 81,000 Y–12 National security complex ..................................................................................................................... 151,000 151,000 

Total, Operations of facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 896,000 0 896,000 

Program readiness ............................................................................................................................................................ 136,700 136,700 Material recycle and recovery ........................................................................................................................................... 138,900 138,900 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
426 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Containers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26,000 26,000 Storage .............................................................................................................................................................................. 40,800 40,800 Maintenance and repair of facilities ............................................................................................................................... 205,000 205,000 Recapitalization ................................................................................................................................................................ 209,321 209,321 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ............................................................................................................ 1,652,721 0 1,652,721 

Construction: 

15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 15–D–612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL ..................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 15–D–611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL ....................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX ................................................................................................. 11,800 11,800 15–D–302, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL ...................................................................................... 16,062 16,062 12–D–301 TRU waste facilities, LANL .................................................................................................................... 6,938 6,938 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ........................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 07–D–220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, Lanl ........................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 06–D–141 PED/Construction, UPF Y–12, Oak Ridge, TN ....................................................................................... 335,000 335,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 402,800 0 402,800 

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities .................................................................................................................. 2,055,521 0 2,055,521 Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 132,851 132,851 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 100,962 100,962 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 233,813 0 233,813 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ............................................................................................................................. 173,440 173,440 Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 76,901 76,901 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
427 

Site stewardship 

Environmental projects and operations ........................................................................................................................... 53,000 53,000 Nuclear materials integration .......................................................................................................................................... 16,218 16,218 Minority serving institution partnerships program .......................................................................................................... 13,231 13,231 

Total, Site stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................. 82,449 0 82,449 Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 618,123 618,123 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 618,123 0 618,123 Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 179,646 179,646 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 307,058 307,058 

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 8,314,902 0 8,314,902 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,314,902 0 8,314,902 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global threat reduction initiative 

Global threat reduction initiative ................................................................................................................. 333,488 40,000 373,488 

Total, Global threat reduction initiative ........................................................................................................................ 333,488 40,000 373,488 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 360,808 30,000 390,808 

Nonproliferation and international security ..................................................................................................................... 141,359 141,359 International material protection and cooperation .......................................................................................................... 305,467 70,000 375,467 Fissile materials disposition 

U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
428 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Operations and maintenance 

U.S. plutonium disposition .................................................................................................................... 85,000 85,000 U.S. uranium disposition ....................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 

Total, Operations and maintenance ............................................................................................................. 110,000 0 110,000 Construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ................................................. 196,000 145,000 341,000 99–D–141–02 Waste Solidification Building, Savannah River, SC ..................................................... 5,125 5,125 

Total, Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 201,125 145,000 346,125 

Total, Fissile materials disposition ................................................................................................................................ 311,125 145,000 456,125 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,452,247 285,000 1,737,247 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 102,909 102,909 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,555,156 285,000 1,840,156 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 412,380 412,380 Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 425,700 425,700 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 156,100 156,100 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 126,400 126,400 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46,600 46,600 Construction: 

15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ............................................................................................................... 400 400 15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................. 600 600 15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .............................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 15–D–901 KS Central office building and prototype staff facility ................................................................................. 24,000 24,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
429 

14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 141,100 141,100 13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL ............................................................................................... 14,420 14,420 13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO .......................................................................................... 20,100 20,100 10-D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ................................................................................................................................ 7,400 7,400 08–D–190 Expended Core Facility M–290 receiving/discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID .............................. 400 400 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 209,920 0 209,920 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,377,100 0 1,377,100 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,377,100 0 1,377,100 

Federal Salaries And Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 410,842 –7,500 403,342 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .......................................................................................................... 332,788 332,788 

Central plateau remediation: 

Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................... 474,292 474,292 Construction 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge (Rl-0012) ................................................................................................... 26,290 26,290 

Total, Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................ 500,582 0 500,582 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 848,071 0 848,071 Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 364,293 364,293 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 2,910 2,910 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
430 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 367,203 0 367,203 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,366 1,366 Nuclear facility D & D Nevada ......................................................................................................................................... 64,851 64,851 Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,801 2,801 Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Los Alamos National Laboratory .............................................................................................................................. 196,017 196,017 Construction: 

15–D–406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030) ............................................................................... 28,600 28,600 

Total, Los Alamos National Laboratory .......................................................................................................................... 224,617 0 224,617 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 293,635 0 293,635 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ....................................................................................................................................... 73,155 73,155 Construction 

14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 9,400 9,400 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 82,555 0 82,555 

U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 41,626 41,626 OR cleanup and disposition 

OR cleanup and disposition .................................................................................................................................... 71,137 71,137 Construction: 

15–D–405—Sludge Buildout ......................................................................................................................... 4,200 4,200 

Total, OR cleanup and disposition ................................................................................................................................. 75,337 0 75,337 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
431 

OR reservation community and regulatory support ......................................................................................................... 4,365 4,365 Solid waste stabilization and disposition Oak Ridge technology development ................................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 206,883 0 206,883 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

01–D–416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction ..................................................................................................... 575,000 575,000 01–D–16E Pretreatment facility .............................................................................................................................. 115,000 115,000 

Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant ......................................................................................................... 690,000 0 690,000 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 522,000 522,000 

Construction: 

15–D–409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, Hanford ........................................................... 23,000 23,000 

Total, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................................................. 545,000 0 545,000 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,235,000 0 1,235,000 

Savannah River sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations: 

Savannah River risk management operations ........................................................................................................ 416,276 416,276 

SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,013 11,013 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 553,175 553,175 Construction: 

15–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #6 ....................................................................................................... 34,642 34,642 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 135,000 135,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 169,642 0 169,642 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
432 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 722,817 0 722,817 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,150,106 0 1,150,106 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Waste isolation pilot plant ............................................................................................................................................... 216,020 216,020 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 280,784 280,784 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14,979 14,979 Safeguards and Security: 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,382 16,382 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7,297 7,297 Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,492 8,492 Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 63,668 63,668 Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 132,196 132,196 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 4,455 4,455 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,471 1,471 

Total, Safeguards and Security ............................................................................................................................................... 233,961 0 233,961 Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 13,007 13,007 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 4,864,538 0 4,864,538 

Legislative Proposal 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ................................................................................................................... 463,000 –463,000 0 

Subtotal Legislative Proposal .................................................................................................................................................. 463,000 –463,000 0 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,327,538 –463,000 4,864,538 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
433 

Other Defense Activities 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 202,152 202,152 Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 118,763 –1,000 117,763 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 62,235 62,235 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 180,998 –1,000 179,998 Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 49,466 49,466 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 73,534 0 73,534 

Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 158,639 –1,000 157,639 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,341 13,341 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 171,980 –1,000 170,980 Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 46,877 46,877 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 71,959 71,959 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 118,836 0 118,836 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,500 5,500 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 753,000 –2,000 751,000 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 753,000 –2,000 751,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
434 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

Two separate legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 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. 

Executive Communication No. Dated Received in the Committee on Armed Serv- ices: 

EC–5276 ................................................. April 1, 2014 ......................................... April 3, 2014 

EC–5717 ................................................. May 5, 2014 .......................................... May 9, 2014 

On May 5, 2014, Senators Levin and Inhofe introduced by request the Administration’s proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This bill—S. 2289—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. 2289. 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015 passed by roll call vote, 25–1, 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, Vitter, Blunt, and Cruz. Opposed: Senator Lee. 

The 9 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 conduct full committee markups in closed session 

because classified information will be discussed. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 18–8. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Fischer, Graham, and Blunt. 

Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Ayotte, Vitter, Lee, and Cruz. 

2. MOTION: To include a provision addressing decontamination 

of a portion of former bombardment area on the island of Culebra, 

Puerto Rico. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 20–6. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Vitter, 

and Lee. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
435 

3. MOTION: To include a provision prohibiting direct or indirect 

use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with 

Rosoboronexport. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 15–11. 

In favor: Senators McCaskill, Hagan, Manchin, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Shaheen, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, and Fischer. 

4. MOTION: To modify language in a sense of the Senate on sequestration. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 22–3. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, 

Blunt, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Sessions, Vitter, and Lee. 

5. MOTION: To include language on consideration by Congress 

of a Secretary of Defense report within a provision limiting transfer 

or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

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. 

6. MOTION: To strike a provision regarding assistance to foster 

a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 3–23. 

In favor: Senators Manchin, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt. 

7. MOTION: To include a provision prohibiting transfer or release to Yemen of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 14–12. 

In favor: Senators Hagan, Donnelly, King, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, 

and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, and 

McCain. 

8. MOTION: To include a provision repealing mandates on use 

of renewable energy by the Department of Defense. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 10–16. 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Fischer, and Blunt. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
436 

9. MOTION: To include a provision limiting military cooperation 

with countries that violate the sovereignty of other countries or do 

not abide by certain treaty obligations. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 5–21. 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, 

and Graham. 

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 2015. 

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 

This bill includes numerous provisions that improve U.S. national security and provide the needed training, equipment and 

support our service men and women—active, guard and reserve— 

deserve. However, the President is underfunding defense and despite the best efforts of this committee, our overall readiness will 

continue to degrade, putting the lives of not only U.S. 

servicemembers at risk, but all Americans. 

Acquisition and Audit 

Fewer resources are being dedicated to our national defense, 

making every dollar count. Accordingly, I have arranged for the inclusion of a number of provisions designed to increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of our defense acquisition system. In addition, I 

have grown increasingly concerned over what has been referred to 

as the ‘‘personnel churn’’ of acquisition program managers. Specifically, program managers are transferred in and out of programs 

haphazardly. I included provisions in the bill which require acquisiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:08 Jun 04, 2014 Jkt 088034 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR176.XXX SR176

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
437 

tion program managers to remain with a program until milestone 

decisions are ready to be made or other seminal events are completed. This will help ensure greater accountability and help to improve the performance of acquisition programs. 

Also included in the bill’s report language is a requirement for 

a GAO report which will determine the advantages and disadvantages of conducting property valuations as the Department works 

to achieve its audit obligations. Specifically, I question whether the 

Department truly needs to know the monetary value of each piece 

of its property. Unlike a private business that needs this information to determine a company’s worth, what are the benefits to the 

warfighter and taxpayer of knowing the cash value of every destroyer or tank in the Department’s inventory? In addition, will not 

such an exercise result in the Department hiring a large number 

of accountants? Therefore, I hope this report will answer a number 

of these questions. 

Military Compensation 

In an era of declining financial resources, the President’s budget 

presented a troubling dilemma to the members of this committee 

on how to maintain the right balance between properly compensating our military men and women while at the same time ensuring they have the training and capabilities necessary to defend the 

nation with the least risk to their lives. The members of this committee all agree that there needs to be a serious look at military 

pay and compensation. A piecemeal approach is the wrong way to 

go about any changes. When the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission was created, Congress sought 

outside guidance and expertise on any possible structural changes 

to the military compensation and benefits systems. I am pleased 

that the provisions of the Chairman’s Mark allow for non-structural changes to generate cost savings while we await the results 

of the Commission’s work in February 2015. 

Force Structure and Modernization 

Defense budget cuts are driving force structure decisions that increase risk to unacceptable levels. Under this Administration, we 

will see our Air Force at the smallest level in history, our Navy at 

a historical low level of ships, and our ground forces falling to levels not seen since the beginning of World War II. Through 

prioritization, exploitation of efficiency and elimination of waste, 

this committee was able to authorize funding for refueling the USS 

George Washington, acquiring a 12th LPD–17, developing and procuring the KC–46, F–35 and Long Range Strike Bomber, enabling 

the Navy to keep open its EA–18 Growler production line, and sustaining the armor industrial base through Abrams and Bradley 

modifications as well as the Hercules recover vehicle. I also supported the committee’s decision to limit aircraft movements and retirements until the Air Force and the Army provide additional 

analysis on their proposed force structure moves. Finally, I remain 

concerned about the drastic cut to the size of our Army and supported creating the National Commission on the Future of the 

Army to study the size and force structure of the Army and the 

transfer of Apache helicopters from the Army National Guard to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
438 

the regular Army. Despite steps taken by this committee on the 

bill, our capability, readiness, and modernization continue to decrease and our capacity to decidedly defeat and deter our adversaries is less certain. 

Space Launch 

To address our critical national security space requirements, I 

am pleased that the bill includes language that will end our dependence—and eventually prohibit—the use of Russian rocket engines for National Security Space launch. To begin the process of 

developing and procuring a new domestically sourced world class 

rocket engine, the bill authorizes $20 million in funds already appropriated in FY14 and an additional $100 million in FY15 to further expedite the development. This effort, which quite frankly 

should have started years ago, is a national priority and will require a whole-of-government approach and sustained funding over 

the next six years. The provision recognizes that the need to develop a domestic engine should be pursued regardless of the viability of a Russian rocket engine and is consistent with the findings 

and recommendations of the Air Force chartered quick reaction review on the ‘‘RD–180 Availability Risk Mitigation Study Summary’’ 

by Maj. Gen. (ret) H.J. ‘‘Mitch’’ Mitchell. 

Missile Defense 

The Fiscal Year 2015 budget request includes $1.2 billion for the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system—our only protection for the homeland against long-range ballistic missiles. Of this 

amount approximately $766 million is devoted to research and development which includes the work necessary to continue to develop the system, discover and fix problems associated with recent 

intercept test failures, and maintain and sustain the system over 

its projected 20 year lifetime. Funding reductions to the MDA program over the past few years, coupled with higher-than-anticipated 

costs to fix problems associated with the GBI kill vehicle, have 

meant that stockpile reliability work has been substantially delayed and deferred in order to help resolve technical issues with 

the kill vehicle. As a result, the ten-year old GMD system has not 

undergone needed improvements and technology upgrades—as any 

military system would require. Efforts to assess the impact of aging 

on the system, such as rocket motor life assessments, have also 

been deferred—which means we don’t know for certain whether the 

system will last for its intended 20 years. 

Shortfalls in GMD maintenance and aging have been known for 

some time, but were brought to light by an independent assessment of the GMD system, which indicated to this Committee that 

‘‘a number of important reliability and maintenance functions are 

not included in the current GMD program of record.’’ The GAO has 

reached a similar conclusion, informing committee staff recently 

that ‘‘while MDA has indicated in its budget material in the past 

several years that it was requesting funds to pursue such work, as 

it has encountered technical difficulties resolving CE–II design 

issues, that reliability work was often substantially delayed and 

funds redirected to help resolve technical issues.’’ According to an 

April 30, 2014 report from GAO, ‘‘the cost to demonstrate, as well 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
439 

as fix, the already produced CE–IIs has increased from $236 million to $1.3 billion.’’ Clearly, this unanticipated cost to improve the 

readiness of the GBI has eaten into funding originally intended for 

maintenance and upgrades to the important ground systems that 

support the interceptor. 

To be sure, even while the need has grown for additional funding 

to address flight test failures and improve the reliability of an 

aging stockpile of missiles, funding for the GMD program has been 

in decline. In Fiscal Year 2008, the GMD budget was just over $2.0 

billion, yet between FY 2010 and FY 2015, funding for GMD would 

decline to about $1.0 billion per year. This decline is even more 

troubling when you consider the sharp decrease in GMD research 

and development funding, which fell from $1.4 billion in FY 2008 

to $761 million in FY 2014, and which will be as low as $509 million by FY 2019. This is the funding category that provides hardware and software upgrades, conducts aging assessments, provides 

network communications improvements, and develops and implements the solutions to flight test failures. 

To his great credit, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, 

Admiral James Syring, recognizes this shortfall. I trust that the 

additional $30 million provided in this bill for these efforts in FY 

2015, which matches a similar amount included in the Housepassed National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2015, will send 

a strong message to the Department of Defense that additional 

funding and attention is needed for life cycle improvements, maintenance, and stockpile reliability for the only missile defense system that protects the homeland against the growing threat of longrange ballistic missiles. It is not enough for the President to add 

14 GBIs in Alaska to address this threat; it is time for us to accord 

the same level of commitment to the GMD system that we provide 

our nuclear strategic systems. 

Global Train and Equip 

Regarding U.S. ability to build defense capabilities of other nations, permanently authorizing the highly successful ‘‘1206’’ Global 

Train and Equip authority codifies what has become an essential 

tool for combatant commanders to address urgent and emerging 

threats to U.S. national security, including to improving partner 

counterterrorism capabilities. The proliferation of al Qaeda from 

Afghanistan and Pakistan to Syria and Iraq, Yemen, and North Africa presents a growing challenge. Commanders have told the defense committees that the use of this authority has proven essential in their efforts to defeat terrorist threats and to enable more 

capable coalition partners to participate in U.S. combat operations 

around the globe. 

Guantanamo Bay Detention Center 

Further, the Chairman’s Mark contained a provision authorizing 

the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States for 

‘‘detention and trial.’’ I continue to adamantly oppose any provision 

that would allow the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the 

Homeland. Therefore, I was very pleased to support an amendment 

by Senator Graham that was adopted unanimously by the Committee which will ensure Congress continues to have substantial 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
440 

oversight of any decision by the Executive Branch to transfer detainees to the United States. Specifically, in the Chairman’s Mark 

is a requirement for the President to file a report to Congress detailing a closure plan of Guantanamo Bay’s detention facility before 

the transfer of detainees to the Homeland can occur. Under the 

Graham amendment, the filing of the report will trigger the expedited consideration of a Joint Resolution of disapproval in both 

Houses of Congress. This will ensure Congress maintains an important say in any effort by the Administration to close Guantanamo 

Bay by authorizing a ‘‘fast-track’’ process which can terminate the 

transfer of detainees to the United States for detention and trial. 

Finally, I am pleased with the bipartisan adoption of Senator 

Ayotte’s amendment which was adopted by a 14–12 vote and imposes a one year prohibition on the transfer of detainees to Yemen. 

Yemen is a critical ally and friend of the United States. Unfortunately, there have been a number of significant and well-coordinated prison breaks in Yemen where a number of al Qaeda terrorists have been able to escape. According to the Yemeni media, since 

2006, 459 inmates have escaped in 23 prison breaks. Of that number, 306 inmates escaped just in 2012 alone. In an attack this February, armed gunmen assaulted the Sanaa Central Prison using 

vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. As a result of this attack, 19 al Qaeda prisoners escaped and seven Yemeni guards were 

killed. 

Currently, the population at Guantanamo Bay consists of 154 detainees including 88, more than half, from Yemen. In addition, half 

of those detainees slated for transfer are from Yemen. For detainees as a whole, there is a 29 percent recidivism rate in which individuals are confirmed or suspected to have returned to the battlefield. Clearly, the United States would not be assisting our ally by 

sending what have been referred to as the ‘‘worst of the worst’’ to 

Yemen, until the security situation improves. 

I thank my colleagues on the committee and commend the continued leadership of Chairman Levin for completing markup of this 

bipartisan bill. However, we must stand together to ensure this bill 

is brought up and passed on the Senate floor in an expeditious 

fashion to avoid further impacting our military and their readiness. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(441) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE 

A–10 

When we send our troops into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation to ensure they have the very best support possible so they 

can accomplish their missions and return home safely. This is certainly true when it comes to close air support (CAS) aircraft, which 

provide ground troops with the decisive firepower they need when 

they are engaged in close combat with the enemy. 

When it comes to CAS, there is no question which aircraft is the 

best: the A–10. 

Echoing the virtually unanimous praise offered by soldiers and 

special operators with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

General Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, testified before the 

Senate Armed Services Committee on April 3 and April 8, 2014, 

that the A–10 is ‘‘the best close air support aircraft’’ and that ‘‘obviously, we prefer the A–10.’’ 

While the F–15, F–16, and B–1 aircraft are excellent airframes 

with important capabilities and missions, none of them can fully 

replace the A–10’s CAS capabilities—especially in situations involving moving targets, bad weather, and the close proximity of friendly and enemy forces. 

In a world that is less stable and predictable, any proposal to 

eliminate the A–10 before an adequate replacement achieves full 

operational capability is dangerously short-sighted. We have a responsibility to ensure our ground troops in the next conflict receive 

the best possible CAS. When we fail to fulfill that responsibility, 

the cost can be measured in the lives of our troops. 

The fact that the House Armed Services Committee, the full 

House, and now the Senate Armed Services Committee have voted 

in an overwhelming and bipartisan manner to prevent the divestment of the A–10 in fiscal year 2015 represents great news for our 

ground troops. 

I appreciate that the Air Force confronts difficult budget decisions, but it does not make sense to prematurely retire the Air 

Force’s most combat-effective and cost-efficient CAS aircraft to save 

money. 

In future conflicts, when our ground troops are about to be overrun by enemy forces and call for assistance, we have an obligation 

to send the very best to help them. That is why I will continue to 

work with my colleagues to prevent the premature divestment of 

the A–10 that would create a dangerous CAS capability gap. 

Military Compensation Reform 

Personnel costs are consuming significant portions of the Department of Defense budget. Without significant reform, especially if 

defense sequestration resumes in 2016, these personnel costs will 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
442 

increasingly crowd out the resources available to ensure our troops 

have the best weapons and training in the world. 

However, any proposed reforms to military compensation must 

recognize the uniquely difficult and valuable nature of military 

service. Service members and their families voluntarily endure sacrifices that cannot be compared to any other profession. Therefore, 

their compensation should reflect that fact. 

The committee has responded to these personnel costs by authorizing some of the Department of Defense’s personnel proposals. For 

example, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 

by the Senate Armed Services Committee calls for at least a doubling over five years in cost-sharing for certain prescription drugs 

for service members who cannot utilize military treatment facilities. It also authorizes a lower basic pay raise and implements 

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) reforms that, after three years, 

will require a five percent out-of-pocket contribution by service 

members. 

Some argue these reforms are modest, but we should not ask 

service members and their families—those who have sacrificed the 

most for our country—to sacrifice again when Congress has not 

shown the courage to undertake the necessary structural reforms 

to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 

While of great importance, our entitlement programs—not the 

housing allowances for our junior enlisted service members or the 

costs of their prescriptions—are the real drivers of our debt. We 

could eliminate the entire defense budget and it would not fully address our deficit. 

Addressing our national debt and our budget deficit—and preserving and protecting critically important entitlement programs 

for future generations—requires Congress to demonstrate just a 

fraction of the courage our service members have shown in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

I stand ready to work with members from both sides of the aisle 

to develop a bipartisan solution that will put our country on a more 

sustainable fiscal path that does not require us to cut the benefits 

our service members and their families have earned. 

KELLY A. AYOTTE. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(443) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE, SESSIONS, 

CHAMBLISS, WICKER, MS. AYOTTE, AND MR. VITTER 

Guantanamo Bay 

When we capture al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the focus must be 

on gathering the intelligence necessary to protect our country and 

prevent future attacks. Consistent with U.S. and international law, 

the best way to accomplish this is to detain foreign enemy combatants at a secure, humane, and state of the art facility that allows 

for long-term law of war detention and interrogation. 

The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay provides just such a 

place. Unfortunately, this administration has refused to place new 

detainees at Guantanamo for detention and interrogation and has 

instead reiterated its goal to close Guantanamo and bring detainees to the United States. 

To make matters worse, the administration has failed to develop 

a comprehensive policy for the law of war long-term detention and 

interrogation of foreign enemy combatants. On February 15, 2011, 

now-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Michael Vickers, 

testified, ‘‘The administration is in the final stages of revising its— 

or establishing its detention policy.’’ More than three years later, 

we are still waiting for this detention policy. 

As we saw with Ahmed Abudulkadir Warsame and Abu Anas alLibi, this has led to the use of substandard, ad-hoc workarounds 

for detaining and interrogating high-value terrorists. Rather than 

placing these individuals at Guantanamo for long-term law of war 

detention and interrogation, the administration conducted rushed 

interrogations onboard U.S. Navy vessels and then flew them to 

the United States and read them their Miranda Rights. 

Treating members of al Qaeda like common criminals and focusing more on indictments rather than the collection of intelligence 

has resulted in a dangerous failure to gather the intelligence our 

country desperately needs to prevent future attacks. 

We hope this is not the model the administration plans to use 

if we capture Ayman al-Zawahiri. 

As FBI Director James Comey testified on November 14, 2013, 

‘‘The more flexibility we have to delay the reading of those rights, 

the better.’’ He also said that reading a detainee his Miranda 

Rights ‘‘would end the interrogation. And in situations like that, 

it’s not that I’m looking for confessions to be able to use in a court.’’ 

Similarly, on November 13, 2013, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson described captured terrorists as a ‘‘gold mine’’ in 

terms of what we may learn through national security interrogations.’’ 

We take Director Comey and Secretary Johnson’s words seriously, and remain concerned about the effect that the administration’s policies will have on our military and intelligence community’s ability to fully interrogate terrorists and utilize intelligence 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
444 

assets to both exploit enemy vulnerabilities and protect the homeland from planned terrorist attacks. 

For these reasons, we were troubled by some of the Guantanamorelated provisions in the Chairman’s mark for the fiscal year (FY) 

2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The most troubling provision permits the administration—after certain requirements are met—to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United 

States. 

We would have preferred to strike this provision from the bill 

and replace it with language similar to section 1034 of the FY 2014 

NDAA, but we are pleased that Senator Graham’s amendment to 

strengthen Congressional oversight of any plan to close Guantanamo and bring the detainees there to the United States received 

a unanimous vote. 

Under the Graham amendment, the filing of the report will trigger the expedited consideration of a Joint Resolution of disapproval 

in both Houses of Congress. This will ensure Congress maintains 

an important say in any effort by the administration to close Guantanamo Bay by authorizing a ‘‘fast-track’’ process which can terminate the transfer of detainees to the United States for detention 

and trial. 

We are pleased that a bipartisan majority of the committee voted 

to adopt Senator Ayotte’s amendment to impose a one year prohibition on the transfer of detainees to Yemen. While the government 

of Yemen is an important partner in the war in terrorism, Yemen 

is home to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—one of the most 

dangerous al Qaeda affiliates. Yemen also has a long history of jail 

breaks and terrorist attacks—some of which have occurred as recently as the last few months. For these reasons, the administration was wrong to end its moratorium on detainee transfers to 

Yemen. The security of the American people, not a misguided desire to close Guantanamo Bay, should guide detainee transfer decisions. 

We stand ready to work with the administration to develop a detention policy that will best protect our country. The security of the 

American people will be best served by a facility not in the United 

States, as well as a plan, for conducting long-term law of war detention and interrogation of foreign enemy combatants to gather 

the intelligence we need to protect our country. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 

ROGER F. WICKER. 

KELLY A. AYOTTE. 

DAVID VITTER. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS