" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

113–102 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 1960 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

JUNE 7, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

81–321 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2013

113–102 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 1960 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

JUNE 7, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Legislation ...................................................................................... 1 

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 10 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 10 

Explanation of the Committee Amendments ........................................................ 10 

Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations .................................................. 10 

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill .......................................... 10 

Budget Authority Implication ................................................................................. 11 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 13 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 13 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 13 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 13 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 13 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 13 

Apache helicopter transmission ............................................................... 13 

Lightweight combat medical evacuation systems ................................... 14 

UH–72 Light Utility Helicopter ............................................................... 14 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 15 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 15 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 15 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 15 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 15 

Armor Brigade Combat Team force structure and industrial base ....... 15 

Abrams tank upgrades .......................................................................... 16 

Bradley fighting vehicle and transmission upgrades .......................... 17 

Improved recovery vehicle ..................................................................... 18 

Carbine program ....................................................................................... 18 

M9 product improvement strategy ........................................................... 19 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 19 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 19 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 19 

Acquisition strategy for 40mm ammunition ........................................... 19 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 20 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 20 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 20 

Army unmanned ground vehicle upgrades .............................................. 20 

Civil Support Team information management needs ............................. 20 

Criteria on the Recertification and Quantity of GEM-Ts ...................... 21 

Gunshot detection systems ....................................................................... 21 

Joint Tactical Radio System Manpack radio production strategy ......... 21 

Patriot Modernization Costs ..................................................................... 22 

Personal protection equipment acquisition strategy .............................. 24 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 24 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 24 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 25 

F/A–18E/F advance procurement ............................................................. 25 

MQ–8 Fire Scout ....................................................................................... 25 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 26 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 26 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 26 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 26 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 26 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 26 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 26 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IV 

Air and Missile Defense Radar deployment on naval vessels ............... 26 

Joint High Speed Vessel report ................................................................ 27 

Littoral Combat Ship radar capabilities .................................................. 28 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) oversight ..................................................... 28 

Long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels ........................... 29 

Navy Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) modernization .......................... 30 

Navy fleet oilers ......................................................................................... 30 

Use of fixed-price incentive fee contracts for ship construction contracts ....................................................................................................... 30 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 31 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 31 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 31 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 31 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 31 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 31 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 32 

A–10 oxygen delivery systems modernization ........................................ 32 

B–52 Bomber modernization programs ................................................... 32 

Battlefield airborne communications node .............................................. 33 

C–130H Avionics and Propulsion System Modernization and Upgrade 

Programs ................................................................................................ 33 

Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft ................................................................. 34 

MQ–9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft ................................................... 35 

Upgraded ejection seats ............................................................................ 36 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 36 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 36 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 36 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 36 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 37 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 37 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 37 

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers for the Air 

National Guard ...................................................................................... 37 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 37 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 37 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 37 

Concurrent fielding of equipment for the Army National Guard and 

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 37 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund .................................................... 39 

Multiyear procurement authority for ground-based interceptors .......... 39 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 40 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 40 

Section 101—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 40 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 40 

Section 111—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Stryker Vehicle 

Program ...................................................................................................... 40 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 40 

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2D Aircraft Program ........................................................................................................... 40 

Section 122—Cost Limitation for CVN–78 Aircraft Carriers .................... 40 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 41 

Section 131—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Multiple Variants 

of the C–130J Aircraft Program ............................................................... 41 

Section 132—Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics 

Modernization Program for C–130 Aircraft ............................................ 41 

Section 133—Retirement of KC–135R Aircraft .......................................... 41 

Section 134—Competition for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Providers .......................................................................................................... 41 

Subtitle E—Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ......................... 42 

Section 141—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Ground-based Interceptors ........................................................................................................ 42 

Section 142—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical Wheeled 

Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 42 

Section 143—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of 

RQ–4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems .................................. 42 

Section 144—Personal Protection Equipment Procurement ..................... 42 

Section 145—Repeal of Certain F–35 Reporting Requirements ............... 43 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

V 

Section 146—Study on Procurement of Personal Protection Equipment . 43 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 43 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 43 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army ................................... 43 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 43 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 43 

Active protection system research and development .............................. 43 

Army advanced multi-purpose tank round program .............................. 44 

Army air and missile defense ................................................................... 44 

Army cargo unmanned aerial system ...................................................... 44 

Army directed energy testing ................................................................... 45 

Army modernization strategy for tactical communications waveforms 45 

Combat vehicle fuel efficiency engine development ............................... 46 

Continued development of vehicle underbody protection systems ........ 46 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment ...................................... 46 

Improved turbine engine program ........................................................... 47 

Innovative approaches in wound care research ...................................... 47 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program ...................................................... 48 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System .................................................................................................... 48 

M4 Carbine powered rail system ............................................................. 49 

Man-portable electronic warfare .............................................................. 49 

Modeling and simulation for advanced materials .................................. 50 

Modular protective systems for wheeled vehicles ................................... 50 

Multi-mission electronic warfare ............................................................. 51 

Nano-scale electronics and materials ...................................................... 51 

Night vision systems engineering development ...................................... 51 

Regenerative and rehabilitative engineering .......................................... 52 

Stryker survivability systems integration program ............................... 52 

Tactical vehicle armor development program ......................................... 53 

Thermal injury protection in combat and tactical vehicles .................... 53 

Third generation forward-looking infrared sensors ................................ 54 

Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotic capability ........................... 54 

Use of simulation technology in medical training .................................. 54 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy .................................... 55 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 55 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 55 

Acoustic intelligence collection capability ............................................... 55 

Augmentation of ultra high frequency communications satellite systems using near space technologies ..................................................... 55 

Carrier-based unmanned air vehicle system testing and development 56 

Cognitive wireless networks for naval applications ............................... 56 

Marine Corps unmanned airborne electronic attack systems ............... 57 

Maritime Laser Weapon System .............................................................. 57 

Multi-Stage Supersonic Target development program ........................... 58 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development ............................. 58 

Precision Extended Range Munition Program ........................................ 59 

Prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits ........................................... 60 

Service Life Extension of Navy Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research vessels ....................................................................... 60 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle ............................................................... 61 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force ............................. 61 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 61 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 61 

Adaptive engine technology development ................................................ 61 

Aircraft engine component laser peening ................................................ 62 

F–35 aircraft program ............................................................................... 62 

Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control System .......................................................................................................... 63 

Hypersonic test facilities ........................................................................... 63 

In-space solar electric propulsion ............................................................. 64 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System ..................................... 64 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system ........................................ 65 

Liquid rocket engine technology .............................................................. 65 

Metals Affordability Initiative .................................................................. 66 

Operationally Responsive Space .............................................................. 66 

Overhead persistent infrared processing and exploitation .................... 67 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VI 

Secure wireless networking applications ................................................. 68 

Sense and avoid research for MQ–1 and MQ–9 remotely piloted aircraft ......................................................................................................... 68 

Space Fence ............................................................................................... 68 

Trusted autonomy for unmanned aerial systems ................................... 69 

Unmanned aerial systems development .................................................. 69 

Wide area surveillance strategy ............................................................... 70 

Wideband Global Satellite communications ............................................ 70 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ..................... 71 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 71 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 71 

Advanced sensor application program ..................................................... 71 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System ................................................... 72 

Request for multi-year procurement authority for Standard Missile–3 Block IB beginning in FY15 ................................................... 72 

Service Life Extension Program for Standard Missile-3 Block IA 

missile interceptor .............................................................................. 72 

Standard Missile 3 Block IB ballistic missile interceptor .................. 73 

Airborne weapons layer ............................................................................ 73 

Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance Model 2 Radars ........... 74 

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology ....................................................... 74 

Missile defense directed energy application development .................. 74 

Solid Divert and Attitude Control System ........................................... 75 

Ballistic missile threat analysis ............................................................... 75 

Common Kill Vehicle for missile defense ................................................ 75 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike ......................................................... 76 

Defense Science Board recommendations on Deterrent Response 

Capabilities ......................................................................................... 77 

Defense research in remote sensing ........................................................ 78 

Detection and threat identification technologies .................................... 78 

Distributed Common Ground System enterprise ................................... 79 

Electro Magnetic Rail Gun for Missile Defense ...................................... 79 

Enhancing participation at minority-serving universities and institutions ........................................................................................................ 80 

Foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military systems ..................... 81 

Future missile defense sensor architectures ........................................... 82 

Ground-based midcourse defense system ................................................ 82 

East Coast missile defense site ............................................................ 83 

Fort Greely Missile Field 1 ................................................................... 84 

Two-stage Interceptor for Ground-based Midcourse Defense ............ 84 

High-powered microwave applications .................................................... 84 

Highly integrated photonics ..................................................................... 85 

Human-computer interaction ................................................................... 85 

Improving military medical innovation ................................................... 86 

Individual equipment for female service members ................................. 86 

Inner-aural communications hearing protection capability development ........................................................................................................ 87 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense ..................................................... 87 

Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Systems .......................................... 88 

Medical research information sharing ..................................................... 88 

Microscale liquid plasmas ......................................................................... 88 

Missile defense cooperation with Japan .............................................. 89 

Mitochondrial research ............................................................................. 90 

Modeling and simulation concurrency ..................................................... 90 

Modeling and simulation grand challenges ............................................. 90 

National Defense Education Program ..................................................... 91 

Next generation Aegis missile—Standard Missile 3 block IIB .............. 92 

Non-Lethal directed energy applications ................................................. 92 

Non-profit research institutions ............................................................... 93 

Open architecture systems ....................................................................... 93 

Potential missile defense cooperation with the Republic of Korea .... 94 

Precision Tracking Space System ............................................................ 95 

Quantum information science .................................................................. 95 

Report on boost phase missile defense options ....................................... 96 

Report on HALT/HASS Testing of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems 

and Components .................................................................................... 96 

Ribonucleic acid technology research ....................................................... 97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VII 

Soft biometrics for non-cooperative identification of personnel ............. 97 

Special operations technology development ............................................ 98 

Standardization of directed energy weapon systems characterization . 98 

Synthetic protein development ................................................................. 99 

Technology harvesting of the Medium Extended Air Defense System . 99 

Tele-medicine applications for ophthalmic injury ................................... 100 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System ....................................... 100 

Three dimensional integrated circuits ..................................................... 101 

U.S. Special Operations Command undersea systems strategy ............ 101 

Vertical Lift Consortium ........................................................................... 101 

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 102 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 102 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 102 

Assessment of the Army Distributed Common Ground System ............ 102 

Test and evaluation capabilities for electromagnetic pulse 

vulnerabilities ........................................................................................ 103 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 103 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 103 

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 103 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 104 

Section 211—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ground Combat 

Vehicle Engineering and Manufacturing Phase ..................................... 104 

Section 212—Limitation on Milestone A Activities for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System Program ...... 104 

Section 213—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Air Force Logistics 

Transformation .......................................................................................... 104 

Section 214—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defensive Cyberspace Operations of the Air Force ............................................................ 105 

Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Precision Extended Range Munition Program ............................................................. 105 

Section 216—Limitation on the Availability of Funds for the Program 

Manager for Biometrics of the Department of Defense ......................... 105 

Section 217—Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration Testing 

Requirement .............................................................................................. 105 

Section 218—Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirement ........................ 105 

Section 219—Review of Software Development for F–35 Aircraft ............ 105 

Section 220—Evaluation and Assessment of the Distributed Common 

Ground Station .......................................................................................... 106 

Section 221—Requirement to Complete Individual Carbine Testing ....... 106 

Section 222—Establishment of Funding Line and Fielding Plan for 

Navy Laser Weapon System ..................................................................... 106 

Section 223—Sense of Congress on Importance of Aligning Common 

Missile Compartment of Ohio-Class Replacement Program with the 

United Kingdom’s Vanguard Successor Program ................................... 106 

Section 224—Sense of Congress on Counter-electronics High Power 

Microwave Missile Project ........................................................................ 107 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 107 

Section 231—Prohibition on Use of Funds For MEADS Program ............ 107 

Section 232—Additional Missile Defense Site in the United States for 

Optimized Protection of the Homeland ................................................... 107 

Section 233—Limitation on Removal of Missile Defense Equipment 

from East Asia ........................................................................................... 108 

Section 234—Improvements to Acquisition Accountability Reports on 

Ballistic Missile Defense System ............................................................. 108 

Section 235—Analysis of Alternatives for Successor to Precision Tracking Space System ...................................................................................... 108 

Section 236—Plan To Improve Organic Kill Assessment Capability of 

the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System ....................................... 108 

Section 237—Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket 

Defense Program ....................................................................................... 109 

Section 238—NATO and the Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile 

Defense in Europe ..................................................................................... 109 

Section 239—Sense of Congress on Procurement of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle ....................................................... 109 

Section 240—Sense of Congress on 30th Anniversary of the Strategic 

Defense Initiative ...................................................................................... 109 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 110 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VIII 

Section 251—Annual Comptroller General Report on the Amphibious 

Combat Vehicle Acquisition Program ...................................................... 110 

Section 252—Report on Strategy To Improve Body Armor ....................... 110 

Section 253—Report on Main Battle Tank Fuel Efficiency Initiative ...... 110 

Section 254—Report on Powered Rail System ........................................... 110 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 111 

Section 261—Establishment of Cryptographic Modernization Review 

and Advisory Board ................................................................................... 111 

Section 262—Clarification of Eligibility of a State to Participate in 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research ... 111 

Section 263—Extension and Expansion of Mechanisms to Provide 

Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of 

Technologies for Military Missions .......................................................... 111 

Section 264—Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced 

Technology Achievements ......................................................................... 111 

Section 265—Five-Year Extension of Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features During Research and Development of Certain Defense Systems ................................................................................ 111 

Section 266—Briefing on Power and Energy Research Conducted at 

University Affiliated Research Centers ................................................... 111 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 112 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 112 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 113 

Budget Request Adjustments .......................................................................... 113 

Office of Economic Adjustment .................................................................... 113 

Logistics and Sustainment Issues ................................................................... 114 

Air Force Fuel Leak Maintenance Efficiencies ........................................... 114 

Anti-corrosion Protective Covers for Military Hardware ........................... 114 

Army Logisticians ......................................................................................... 115 

Comptroller General Littoral Combat System Sustainment Review ........ 115 

Continuous Technology Refreshment .......................................................... 116 

Defense Logistics Agency Roles and Missions Assessment ....................... 116 

Disposition of Retrograded Equipment from Afghanistan ........................ 117 

F–35 Sustainment Plan ................................................................................ 118 

Item Unique Identification and Automated Information and Data Capture ............................................................................................................. 119 

Laser Peening Technology ............................................................................ 119 

Logistical Support to the Department of Defense ...................................... 120 

Long-term Investment Plan for Land, Facilities, and Equipment of 

Former Guam Ship Repair Facility ......................................................... 120 

Navy Fleet Readiness ................................................................................... 121 

Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul ................................................ 121 

Readiness Issues ............................................................................................... 122 

Advanced Situational Awareness Training ................................................. 122 

Combat Training Centers ............................................................................. 122 

Comptroller General Encroachment Study ................................................. 122 

GAO Review of DOD Readiness and Risks ................................................. 124 

Identification of Foreign-Language Competency ........................................ 125 

Missile Defense Capabilities for Guam ....................................................... 125 

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command ...................................................... 126 

Military Ocean Terminal Concord ............................................................... 126 

Report on Career Progression of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

Advisory Personnel .................................................................................... 127 

Sustainable Range Planning ........................................................................ 128 

Water Egress Training ................................................................................. 128 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 129 

Concerns Related to Fuel Rate Determinations ......................................... 129 

Department of Defense Travel Restrictions ................................................ 130 

Navy Arctic Roadmap ................................................................................... 130 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters ... 131 

Operations and Maintenance of the Ballistic Missile Defense System .... 131 

Weather Data and Modeling ........................................................................ 131 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 132 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 132 

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 132 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environment ............................................................ 132 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IX 

Section 311—Deadline for Submission of Reports on Proposed Budgets 

for Activities Relating to Operational Energy Strategy ......................... 132 

Section 312—Facilitation of Interagency Cooperation in Conservation 

Programs of the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Interior 

to Avoid or Reduce Adverse Impacts on Military Readiness Activities 132 

Section 313—Reauthorization of Sikes Act ................................................. 132 

Section 314—Cooperative Agreements Under Sikes Act for Land Management Related to Department of Defense Readiness Activities ........ 133 

Section 315—Exclusions from Definition of ‘‘Chemical Substance’’ under 

Toxic Substances Control Act ................................................................... 133 

Section 316—Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative 

Fuel Procurement Requirement ............................................................... 133 

Section 317—Clarification of Prohibition on Disposing of Waste in 

Open-Air Burn Pits ................................................................................... 133 

Section 318—Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction 

of Biofuels Refineries ................................................................................ 133 

Section 319—Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels ................................ 133 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 134 

Section 321—Littoral Combat Ship Strategic Sustainment Plan ............. 134 

Section 322—Review of Critical Manufacturing Capabilities within 

Army Arsenals ........................................................................................... 134 

Section 323—Inclusion of Army Arsenals Capabilities in Solicitations ... 134 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 134 

Section 331—Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to Personnel 

and Unit Readiness ................................................................................... 134 

Section 332—Repeal of Annual Comptroller General Report on Army 

Progress ...................................................................................................... 135 

Section 333—Revision to Requirement for Annual Submission of Information Regarding Information Technology Capital Assets ................... 135 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority ................................... 135 

Section 341—Limitation on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air 

Force Base, Azores .................................................................................... 135 

Section 342—Prohibition on Performance of Department of Defense 

Flight Demonstration Teams Outside the United States ...................... 136 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 136 

Section 351—Requirement to Establish Policy on Joint Combat Uniforms ........................................................................................................... 136 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 136 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 136 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 137 

Operational Reserves ....................................................................................... 137 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 137 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 137 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 137 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 138 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 138 

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 138 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support 

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 138 

Section 413— End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ..... 139 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2014 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians .......................................................................................... 139 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To 

Be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................ 140 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 140 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 140 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 140 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 140 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 141 

Air Force Education Programs ........................................................................ 141 

Assessing the Trend in Costs of General and Flag Officers on Active 

Duty ............................................................................................................... 142 

Clarification of Conferees Statement on the Assignments of Military Officers as Academic Instructors at Military Service Academies as Joint 

Duty Assignments ......................................................................................... 142 

Community-Based Youth Organizations ........................................................ 143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

X 

Comptroller General Review of Recommendations to Prevent Sexual Misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base and Other Basic and Technical 

Training Facilities ......................................................................................... 143 

Consistency Among Exceptional Family Member Programs ........................ 144 

Disposition of Remains by Host Nations ........................................................ 144 

Domestic Violence and Child Abuse ............................................................... 145 

Department of Defense Efforts to Ensure Operation of Current Prohibition on Accrual of Interest on Direct Student Loans of Members of 

the Armed Forces Receiving Imminent Danger Pay .................................. 145 

Foreign Exchange Program for Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets 

and Critical Military Language Training ................................................... 145 

Fully Burdened Life Cycle Cost of Military Personnel .................................. 146 

Mental Health Professional on a Physical Evaluation Board ....................... 147 

National Support for Service Members, Veterans, Retirees and their Families ................................................................................................................. 147 

Navy Sea Cadet Corps Sustainment ............................................................... 148 

Relocation Assistance Program Resource Access Review .............................. 148 

Reserve Component Temporary Duty Assignments ...................................... 148 

Review of Programs for Male Victims of Sexual Assault in the U.S. 

Military .......................................................................................................... 149 

Suicides and Military Families ....................................................................... 149 

Support for the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children ................................................................................................. 150 

Transition Assistance Program ....................................................................... 150 

Tuition Assistance ............................................................................................ 150 

U.S. Special Operations Command Educational Initiatives ......................... 151 

Use of Radio in Department of Defense Advertising ..................................... 151 

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program ........................................................... 152 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 152 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy Generally ............................................. 152 

Section 501—Limitations on Number of General and Flag Officers on 

Active Duty ................................................................................................ 152 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 153 

Section 511—Minimum Notification Requirements for Members of Reserve Components Before Deployment or Cancellation of Deployment 

Related to a Contingency Operation ........................................................ 153 

Section 512—Information to be Provided to Boards Considering Officers 

for Selective Early Removal from Reserve Active-Status List ............... 153 

Section 513—Temporary Authority to Maintain Active Status and Inactive Status Lists of Members in the Inactive National Guard .............. 153 

Section 514—Review of Requirements and Authorizations for Reserve 

Component General and Flag Officers in an Active Status ................... 154 

Section 515—Feasibility Study on Establishing a Unit of the National 

Guard in American Samoa and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .................................................................................. 154 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 154 

Section 521—Review of Integrated Disability Evaluation System ........... 154 

Section 522—Compliance Requirements for Organizational Climate Assessments ................................................................................................... 154 

Section 523—Command Responsibility and Accountability for Remains 

of Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Who 

Die Outside the United States ................................................................. 155 

Section 524—Contents of Transition Assistance Program ........................ 155 

Section 525—Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records ................................. 155 

Section 526—Establishment And Use of Consistent Definition of Gender-Neutral Occupational Standard For Military Career Designators . 155 

Section 527—Expansion and Enhancement of Authorities Relating to 

Protected Communications of Members of The Armed Forces and 

Prohibited Retaliatory Actions ................................................................. 156 

Section 528—Applicability of Medical Examination Requirement Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury 

to Proceedings Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice ................. 156 

Section 529—Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains 

to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the 

Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing 

Faith Group ............................................................................................... 156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XI 

Section 530—Expansion and Implementation of Protections of Rights 

of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of 

Such Members ........................................................................................... 156 

Section 530A—Service Members’ Accountability, Rights, and Responsibilities Training ...................................................................................... 157 

Section 530B—Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review 

of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces who Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault. .......................................................... 157 

Section 530C—Report on Data and Information Collected in Connection 

with Department of Defense Review of Laws, Policies, and Regulations Restricting Service of Female Members of the Armed Forces ..... 157 

Section 530D—Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service 

Implementation Plan ................................................................................ 157 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Legal Matters, Including Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response .......................................................................... 158 

Section 531—Limitations on Convening Authority Discretion Regarding 

Court-Martial Findings and Sentence ..................................................... 158 

Section 532—Elimination of Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Trial 

By Court-Martial for Additional Offenses Involving Sex-Related 

Crimes ........................................................................................................ 158 

Section 533—Discharge or Dismissal for Certain Sex-Related Offenses 

and Trial of Offenses by General Courts-Martial ................................... 159 

Section 534—Regulations Regarding Consideration of Application for 

Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer by Victims of Sexual 

Assault ....................................................................................................... 159 

Section 535—Consideration of Need for, and Authority to Provide for, 

Temporary Administrative Reassignment or Removal of a Member 

on Active Duty Who is Accused of Committing a Sexual Assault 

or Related Offense ..................................................................................... 159 

Section 536—Victims’ Counsel for Victims of Sex-Related Offenses and 

Related Provisions ..................................................................................... 160 

Section 537—Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of Retaliatory Personnel Actions Taken in Response to Making Protected Communications Regarding Sexual Assault ................................................... 160 

Section 538—Secretary Defense Report on Role of Commanders in Military Justice Process ................................................................................... 160 

Section 539—Review and Policy Regarding Department of Defense Investigative Practices in Response to Allegations of Sex-Related Offenses .......................................................................................................... 161 

Section 540—Uniform Training and Education Programs for Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program ............................................ 161 

Section 541—Development of Selection Criteria for Assignment as Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program Managers, Sexual 

Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates ............................................................................................................ 161 

Section 542—Extension of Crime Victims’ Rights to Victims of Offenses 

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice .......................................... 161 

Section 543—Defense Counsel Interview of Complaining Witnesses in 

Presence of Counsel for the Complaining Witnesses or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate ............................................................................... 162 

Section 544—Participation by Complaining Witness in Clemency Phase 

of Courts-Martial Process ......................................................................... 162 

Section 545—Eight-Day Incident Reporting Requirement in Response 

to Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault in Which the Victim is 

a Member of the Armed Forces ................................................................ 162 

Section 546—Amendment to Manual for Courts-Martial to Eliminate 

Considerations Relating to Character and Military Service of Accused 

in Initial Disposition of Sex-Related Offenses ........................................ 163 

Section 547—Inclusion of Letters of Reprimand, Nonpunitive Letters 

of Reprimand and Counseling Statements .............................................. 163 

Section 548—Enhanced Protections for Prospective Members and New 

Members of the Armed Forces During Entry-Level Processing and 

Training ...................................................................................................... 163 

Section 549—Independent Reviews and Assessments of Uniform Code 

of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases . 163 

Section 550—Review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal 

Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases ..................................... 164 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XII 

Subtitle E—Military Family Readiness .......................................................... 164 

Section 551—Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve in Combat Zones ......................... 164 

Section 552—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements For Parents 

Who Are Members of the Armed Forces .................................................. 164 

Section 553—Treatment of Relocation of Members of the Armed Forces 

for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage Refinancing .......................... 164 

Section 554—Family Support Programs for Immediate Family Members 

of Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special Operations 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 164 

Subtitle F—Education and Training Opportunities and Administration .... 165 

Section 561—Inclusion of Freely Associated States within Scope of 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program .................................. 165 

Section 562—Improved Climate Assessments and Dissemination and 

Tracking of Results ................................................................................... 165 

Section 563—Service-wide 360 Assessments .............................................. 165 

Section 564—Health Welfare Inspections ................................................... 165 

Section 565—Review of Security of Military Installations, Including 

Barracks and multi-family residences. .................................................... 166 

Section 566—Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and 

Training for Military Occupational Specialties with Skills and Training Required for Civilian Certification and Licenses ............................. 166 

Section 567—Use of Educational Assistance for Courses in Pursuit 

of Civilian Certifications or Licenses ....................................................... 166 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education ................................................. 166 

Section 571—Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational 

Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense Civilian Employees .................................... 166 

Section 572—Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement 

and Transition of Military Dependent Students ..................................... 167 

Section 573—Treatment of Tuition Payments Received for Virtual Elementary and Secondary Education Component of Department of Defense Education Program .......................................................................... 167 

Subtitle H—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 167 

Section 581—Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military 

Decorations or Medals ............................................................................... 167 

Section 582—Repeal of Limitation on Number of Medals of Honor 

That May Be Awarded to the same Member of the Armed Forces ....... 167 

Section 583—Standardization of Time-Limits for Recommending and 

Awarding Medal of Honor, Distinguished-Service Cross, Navy Cross, 

Air Force Cross, and Distinguished-Service Medal ................................ 167 

Section 584—Recodification and Revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll Requirements ............................ 167 

Section 585—Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting Station 

in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas ................................ 168 

Section 586—Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge ............. 168 

Section 587—Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining 

to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael 

Peralta ........................................................................................................ 168 

Section 588—Authorization For Award Of The Distinguished-Service 

Cross To Sergeant First Class Robert F. Keiser For Acts Of Valor 

During The Korean War ........................................................................... 168 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 169 

Section 591—Revision of Specified Senior Military Colleges to Reflect 

Consolidation of North Georgia College and State University and 

Gainesville State College .......................................................................... 169 

Section 592—Authority to Enter into Concessions Contracts at Army 

National Military Cemeteries ................................................................... 169 

Section 593—Commission on Military Behavioral Health and Disciplinary Issues ................................................................................................. 169 

Section 594—Commission on Service to the Nation .................................. 169 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 170 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 170 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 170 

Military Exchanges, Commissaries, and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

Activities ........................................................................................................ 170 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 170 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIII 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 170 

Section 601—Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase 

in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances ................................................................................................. 170 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 171 

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Reserve Forces ................................................................. 171 

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Health Care Professionals .............................................. 171 

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 

for Nuclear Officers ................................................................................... 171 

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 

Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities ........ 171 

Section 615—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 

of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays ........................................... 172 

Section 616—One-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Incentive 

Pay for Members of Precommissioning Programs Pursuing Foreign 

Language Proficiency ................................................................................ 172 

Section 617—Authority to Provide Bonus to Certain Cadets and Midshipmen Enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps ....... 172 

Subtitle C—Disability, Retired Pay, Survivor, and Transitional Benefits .. 172 

Section 621—Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for Dependents of Certain Members Separated for Violation of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice ............................................................................ 172 

Section 622—Prevention of Retired Pay Inversion for Members whose 

Retired Pay is Computed Using High-Three Average ............................ 172 

Subtitle D—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ........................................................................... 173 

Section 631—Expansion of Protection of Employees of Nonappropriated 

Fund Instrumentalities from Reprisals ................................................... 173 

Section 632—Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food Products, 

and Recyclable Materials for Resale in Commissary and Exchange 

Store Systems ............................................................................................ 173 

Section 633—Correction of Obsolete References to Certain Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities ...................................................... 173 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 173 

Section 641—Authority to Provide Certain Expenses for Care and Disposition of Human Remains Retained by the Department Of Defense 

for Forensic Pathology Investigation ....................................................... 173 

Section 642—Provision of Status under Law by Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Components as Veterans ......................................... 174 

Section 643—Survey of Military Pay and Benefits Preferences ............... 174 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 174 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 174 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 174 

Additional Therapeutic Treatment Activities Available Under Exceptional 

Care Health Option ...................................................................................... 174 

Administration of Blood Products On-board U.S. Medical Evacuation Aircraft ................................................................................................................ 175 

Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs ............................................................... 175 

Department of Defense and Early Autism Diagnosis and Intervention 

for Military Families ..................................................................................... 175 

Efforts to Advance Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics .................. 176 

Efforts to Improve Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress and Traumatic 

Brain Injury ................................................................................................... 176 

Healthy Base Initiative .................................................................................... 177 

Military Health System Governance Reform Report ..................................... 177 

Report on Prostate Cancer Imaging Research ............................................... 177 

Report on Provider Referrals for Ancillary Services Under TRICARE ........ 178 

Review of the Military Health System Medical Training Consolidation ..... 178 

Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program ................................................... 178 

Trauma Clinical Research Repository ............................................................ 179 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 179 

Subtitle A—Improvements to Health Benefits .............................................. 179 

Section 701—Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIV 

Section 702—Periodic Mental Health Assessments for Members of the 

Armed Forces ............................................................................................. 180 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 180 

Section 711—Future Availability of TRICARE Prime for Certain Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime ..................................................... 180 

Section 712—Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities ................... 180 

Section 713—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Integrated Electronic Health Record Program ................................................................. 180 

Section 714—Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party Collection Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment Facilities ........................... 180 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 180 

Section 721—Display of Budget Information for Embedded Mental 

Health Providers of the Reserve Components ........................................ 180 

Section 722—Authority of Uniformed Services University of Health 

Sciences to Enter Into Contracts and Agreements and Make Grants 

to Other Nonprofit Entities ...................................................................... 181 

Section 723—Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and Families .............................................................................................................. 181 

Section 724—Research Regarding Hydrocephalus ..................................... 181 

Section 725—Traumatic Brain Injury Research ........................................ 181 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 181 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 181 

Advanced Technical Exploitation Program .................................................... 181 

Commercial Items Pricing Information .......................................................... 182 

Competition in Air Force Network-Centric Solutions Contracts .................. 182 

Implementation of Requirement for Designation of a Lead Inspector General for Certain Contingency Operations .................................................... 183 

Online Reverse Auctions .................................................................................. 184 

Report on Operational Contract Support in Afghanistan ............................. 184 

Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection Processes .... 185 

Utilization of Standardized Services Contract Approval Form .................... 186 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 187 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 187 

Section 801—Modification of Reporting Requirement for Department 

of Defense Business System Acquisition Programs when Initial Operating Capability is not Achieved within Five Years of Milestone A 

Approval ..................................................................................................... 187 

Section 802—Enhanced Transfer of Technology Developed at Department of Defense Laboratories ................................................................... 187 

Section 803—Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount 

Available for Contract Services ................................................................ 187 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ......................................................................................... 187 

Section 811—Additional Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts ...... 187 

Section 812—Amendments Relating to Detection and Avoidance of 

Counterfeit Electronic Parts ..................................................................... 188 

Section 813—Government-wide Limitations on Allowable Costs for Contractor Compensation ................................................................................ 188 

Section 814—Inclusion of Additional Cost Estimate Information in Certain Reports ............................................................................................... 189 

Section 815—Amendment Relating to Compelling Reasons for Waiving 

Suspension or Debarment ......................................................................... 189 

Section 816—Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other 

Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts .. 189 

Section 817—Requirement to Buy American Flags from Domestic 

Sources ....................................................................................................... 189 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency 

Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan ........................................................... 190 

Section 821—Amendments Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with 

the Enemy .................................................................................................. 190 

Section 822—Collection of Data Relating to Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan ................................................................................................... 190 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 190 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XV 

Section 831—Extension of Pilot Program on Acquisition of Military 

Purpose Non-Developmental Items .......................................................... 190 

Section 832—Extension of Authority to Acquire Products and Services 

Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan ............................................................................................................. 191 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 191 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 191 

Air Force Force Structure ................................................................................ 191 

Air Force Materiel Command Metrics ............................................................ 192 

Air Sea Battle Office ........................................................................................ 193 

Air Force High Consequence Information Technology Services ................... 193 

Assessment of Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence .................................. 194 

Briefing to Congress on ICBM motor stockpile .............................................. 194 

Cadastral Geographic Information Systems Inventory ................................. 195 

Comptroller General Review of the Department of Defense’s Implementation of Civilian Personnel Furloughs .......................................................... 195 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Cyber Resiliency .. 195 

Comptroller General Review of Conduct of Roles and Missions Analysis ... 196 

Coordination of Cyber and Electronic Warfare Capabilities ......................... 198 

Cost Drivers in the Department of Defense ................................................... 198 

Critical Program Information .......................................................................... 199 

Cyber Standards Framework .......................................................................... 199 

Data Management and Protection .................................................................. 200 

Defense Intelligence Collection Management ................................................ 200 

Enterprise Query and Correlation Pilot ......................................................... 201 

Exploitation of Foreign Commercial Cellular Networks ............................... 201 

Global Response Force ..................................................................................... 201 

Guidance on the Use of Borrowed Military Manpower ................................. 202 

Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Functions Performed by Nonappropriated Fund Employees ..................................................................... 203 

Input into National Intelligence Priorities Framework ................................ 203 

Integrated Science and Technology Campus for the Defense Intelligence 

Agency ............................................................................................................ 203 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft Utilization ........... 204 

Non-Perimeter Cyber Defenses ....................................................................... 205 

Open-Source Intelligence Utilization .............................................................. 205 

Pilot to Counter Brokers of Transnational Criminal Organizations ............ 206 

Science and Technology Community Intelligence Needs Planning .............. 206 

Software Assurance Policy ............................................................................... 207 

Space Training .................................................................................................. 207 

Technical Defense Intelligence Training ........................................................ 208 

Training Standards for Department of Defense Cyber Missions .................. 208 

Vulnerability of Tactical Data Links in Denied Areas .................................. 209 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 209 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 209 

Section 901—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps ........................................... 209 

Section 902—Revisions to composition of transition plan for defense 

business enterprise architecture .............................................................. 209 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 209 

Section 911—National Security Space Satellite Reporting Policy ............ 209 

Section 912—National Security Space Defense and Protection ................ 210 

Section 913—Space Acquisition Strategy ................................................... 210 

Section 914—Space Control Mission Report ............................................... 211 

Section 915—Responsive Launch ................................................................ 211 

Subtitle C—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Matters ............ 211 

Section 921—Revision of Secretary of Defense Authority to Engage 

in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities ......................................................................................................... 211 

Section 922—Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities .................... 212 

Section 923—Defense Clandestine Service ................................................. 212 

Section 924—Prohibition on National Intelligence Program Consolidation .............................................................................................................. 212 

Subtitle D—Cyberspace-related Matters ........................................................ 213 

Section 931—Modification of Requirement for Inventory of Department 

of Defense Tactical Data Link Systems ................................................... 213 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVI 

Section 932—Defense Science Board assessment of United States Cyber 

Command ................................................................................................... 213 

Section 933—Mission Analysis for Cyber Operations of Department 

of Defense ................................................................................................... 213 

Section 934—Notification of Investigations Related to Compromise of 

Critical Program Information ................................................................... 214 

Section 935—Additional Requirements Relating to the Software Licenses of the Department of Defense ....................................................... 214 

Subtitle E—Total Force Management ............................................................ 215 

Section 941—Requirement to Ensure Sufficient Levels of Government 

Oversight of Functions Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental Functions ....................................................................................... 215 

Section 942—Five-Year Requirement for Certification of Appropriate 

Manpower Performance ............................................................................ 215 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 215 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 215 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 215 

Counternarcotics Strategy in Central America .......................................... 215 

Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command ................................... 215 

National Guard Bureau Counter-drug Mission .......................................... 216 

Operation Martillo ........................................................................................ 216 

Transition of Tethered Aerostat Radar System Program .......................... 217 

U.S. Southern Command Assets .................................................................. 217 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 218 

Assessment of Military Construction Project ............................................. 218 

Combatant Command Headquarters Personnel and Resources Requirements .......................................................................................................... 219 

Comptroller General Review of Functional Combatant Commands ......... 220 

Comptroller General Review of Medical Countermeasures Against Genetically Engineered Bio-Terror Agents .................................................. 220 

Comptroller General Review of Planning and Preparedness for Threats 

Posed by Non-Traditional Chemical Agents ............................................ 221 

Comptroller General Review of Role of the Army and the Marine Corps 

in Access-denied Areas .............................................................................. 223 

Comptroller General Review of U.S. Central Command Headquarters ... 223 

Defense Forensic Enterprise ........................................................................ 224 

Detailed Report on Defense Efficiencies ..................................................... 225 

Energy Security Assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review ......... 225 

Humanitarian Mine Action and Counter-Improvised Explosive Device 

Technologies ............................................................................................... 225 

Hybrid Airship Technology .......................................................................... 226 

Nuclear Deterrence Education in the Armed Forces ................................. 226 

Nuclear Weapons Council and Commonality in Nuclear Forces and 

Nuclear Warheads ..................................................................................... 227 

Personnel Growth at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint 

Staff, and the Service Secretariats .......................................................... 228 

Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment Sales ............ 229 

Replacement Plan for E–4B ......................................................................... 229 

Report on Implementation of Acquisition Strategy to Minimize Costs 

for Defense Base Act Insurance ............................................................... 230 

Report on Security Exemptions and Waivers for U.S. Nuclear Forces .... 230 

Reporting Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution ................................... 230 

Secure Internet Protocol Router Network for the Congressional Defense 

Committees ................................................................................................ 230 

Sustainment of Sociocultural Understanding Capabilities ....................... 231 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 232 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 232 

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority ................................................ 232 

Section 1002—Budgetary Effects of This Act ............................................. 232 

Section 1003—Audit of Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2018 Financial Statements .......................................................................................... 232 

Section 1004—Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization . 232 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 232 

Section 1011—Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug 

and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia ........................................ 232 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVII 

Section 1012—Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide 

Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism 

Activities .................................................................................................... 233 

Section 1013—Two-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Additional 

Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments . 233 

Section 1014—Sense of Congress Regarding the National Guard 

Counter-narcotic Program ........................................................................ 233 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 233 

Section 1021—Clarification of Sole Ownership Resulting from Ship Donations at No Cost to the Navy ................................................................ 233 

Section 1022—Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of 

Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships .............................. 233 

Section 1023—Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards ............................. 234 

Section 1024—Sense of Congress Regarding a Balanced Future Naval 

Force ........................................................................................................... 234 

Section 1025—Authority for Short-term Extension or Renewal of Leases 

for Vessels Supporting the Transit Protection System Escort Program ........................................................................................................... 234 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 234 

Section 1030—Clarification of Procedures for Use of Alternate Members 

on Military Commissions .......................................................................... 234 

Section 1031—Modification of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism 

Fellowship Program Reporting Requirement .......................................... 234 

Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify 

Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .......................... 235 

Section 1033—Requirements for Certifications Relating to the Transfer 

of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities ....................... 235 

Section 1034—Prohibition on the Use Of Funds for the Transfer or 

Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ............................................................................ 236 

Section 1035—Unclassified Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Parwan, Afghanistan .............................................. 236 

Section 1036—Assessment of Affiliates and Adherents of Al-Qaeda Outside the United States .............................................................................. 236 

Section 1037—Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official 

for Facilitating the Transfer of Individuals Detained at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .................................................. 236 

Section 1038—Rank of Chief Prosecutor and Chief Defense Counsel 

in Military Commissions Established to Try Individuals Detained 

at Guantanamo .......................................................................................... 237 

Section 1039—Report on Capability of Yemeni Government to Detain, 

Rehabilitate, and Prosecute Individuals Detained at Guantanamo 

who are Transferred to Yemen ................................................................. 237 

Section 1040—Report on Attachment of Rights to Individuals Detained 

at Guantanamo if Transferred to the United States .............................. 237 

Section 1040A—Summary of Information Relating to Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who Became Leaders of Foreign Terrorist 

Groups ........................................................................................................ 237 

Subtitle E—Sensitive Military Operations ..................................................... 238 

Section 1041—Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military Operations .......................................................................................................... 238 

Section 1042—Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal 

Operations .................................................................................................. 238 

Section 1043—Counterterrorism Operational Briefings ............................ 238 

Subtitle F—Nuclear Forces .............................................................................. 238 

Section 1051—Prohibition on Elimination of the Nuclear Triad .............. 238 

Section 1052—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction of 

Nuclear Forces ........................................................................................... 239 

Section 1053—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction or 

Consolidation of Dual-Capable Aircraft Based in Europe ...................... 239 

Section 1054—Statement of Policy on Implementation of Any Agreement for Further Arms Reduction Below the Levels of the New 

START Treaty; Limitation on Retirement Or Dismantlement of Strategic Delivery Systems .............................................................................. 239 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVIII 

Section 1055—Sense of Congress on Compliance with Nuclear Arms 

Control Agreements .................................................................................. 240 

Section 1056—Retention of Capability to Redeploy Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles ........................................................... 240 

Section 1057—Assessment of Nuclear Weapons Program of the People’s 

Republic of China ...................................................................................... 241 

Section 1058—Cost Estimates for Nuclear Weapons ................................. 241 

Section 1059—Report on New START Treaty ............................................ 241 

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 241 

Section 1061—Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records ......................................................... 241 

Section 1062—Extension of Authority to Provide Military Transportation Services to Certain Other Agencies at the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate ....................................................................... 242 

Section 1063—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Modification of 

Force Structure of the Army .................................................................... 242 

Section 1064—Limitation on Use of Funds for Public-Private Cooperation Activities ............................................................................................. 242 

Subtitle H—Studies and Reports .................................................................... 243 

Section 1071—Oversight of Combat Support Agencies ............................. 243 

Section 1072—Inclusion in Annual Report of Description of Interagency 

Coordination Relating to Humanitarian Demining Technology ............ 243 

Section 1073—Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report 

on Assignment of Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense 

as Advisors to Foreign Ministries of Defense ......................................... 243 

Section 1074—Repeal of Requirement for Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Efficiencies ........................................... 243 

Section 1075—Matters for Inclusion in the Assessment of the 2013 

Quadrennial Defense Review ................................................................... 244 

Section 1076—Review and Assessment of United States Special Operations Forces and United States Special Operations Command ........... 244 

Section 1077—Reports on Unmanned Aircraft Systems ........................... 245 

Section 1078—Online Availability of Reports Submitted to Congress ..... 245 

Section 1079—Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and Contingency Operation Plan Information to Congress ...................................... 245 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 245 

Section 1081—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 245 

Section 1082—Transportation of Supplies for the United States by Aircraft Operated by United States Air Carriers ........................................ 245 

Section 1083—Reduction in Costs to Report Critical Changes to Major 

Automated Information System Programs .............................................. 246 

Section 1084—Extension of Authority of Secretary of Transportation 

to Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance ............................................. 246 

Section 1085—Revision of Compensation of Members of the National 

Commission on the Structure of the Air Force ....................................... 246 

Section 1086—Protection of Tier One Task Critical Assets from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems ........................ 246 

Section 1087—Strategy for Future Military Information Operations Capabilities ..................................................................................................... 246 

Section 1088—Compliance of Military Departments with Minimum 

Safe Staffing Standards ............................................................................ 247 

Section 1089—Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs 

Incurred by Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside 

the United States ...................................................................................... 247 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 247 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 247 

National Research Council Report on Chemical Biological Defense Programs Capabilities ........................................................................................ 247 

Wage Grade Pay Parity at Joint Installations ............................................... 247 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 248 

Section 1101—One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal 

Civilian Employees Working Overseas .................................................... 248 

Section 1102—One-year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant 

Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty 

in a Combat Zone ...................................................................................... 248 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIX 

Section 1103—Extension of Voluntary Reduction-In-Force Authority for 

Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense ................................. 248 

Section 1104—Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum Severance 

Payments to Department of Defense Employees .................................... 248 

Section 1105—Revision to Amount of Financial Assistance under Department of Defense Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program ................................... 248 

Section 1106—Extension of Program for Exchange of Information-Technology Personnel ........................................................................................ 248 

Section 1107—Defense Science Initiative for Personnel ............................ 248 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 248 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 248 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 251 

Assistance to Civilians in Locations where U.S. Combat Operations 

Occur .............................................................................................................. 251 

Congressional Notifications Relating To Status of Forces Agreements ....... 252 

Governance in Afghanistan and the Afghan Presidential Elections ............ 253 

Importance of International Security Assistance Force Retrograde for 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Role of U.S. European 

Command ....................................................................................................... 253 

Missile Defense Discussions between the United States and the Russian 

Federation ...................................................................................................... 253 

Missile Defense Programs of the Russian Federation and the People’s 

Republic of China .......................................................................................... 254 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commitment to International Security Assistance Force Mission ...................................................................... 255 

Semi-Annual Reporting on Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon Deployments ....................................................................................................... 255 

Report and Briefings on Declassification of Certain Missile Defense Information ............................................................................................................ 256 

Report on Operation Observant Compass ...................................................... 256 

Report on Terms and Agreements for Retrograde of U.S. Equipment 

and Supplies Through the Northern Distribution Network and Pakistan ................................................................................................................ 257 

Report on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan Post-2014 ....................................... 257 

Report on U.S. Support to Advising Mission in Afghanistan ....................... 258 

Resource Requirements For and Posture of Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security 

Teams and Commanders’ In-Extremis Forces ............................................ 259 

Resource Requirements to Support U.S. Policy Objectives in Syria ............ 259 

RIMPAC 2014 Oversight ................................................................................. 260 

Security Assistance and the Leahy Law ......................................................... 260 

Support for Military Information Sharing Agreement Between the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and Related Initiatives ... 261 

U.S. Extended Deterrence in Asia .................................................................. 262 

U.S. Military Engagement with Burma ......................................................... 262 

U.S. Policy and Interagency Strategy in Iraq ................................................ 263 

U.S. Strategic Partnership with Pakistan ...................................................... 263 

U.S. Security Sector Assistance ...................................................................... 264 

Use of Missile Defense Declassification Authority by Director, Missile 

Defense Agency ............................................................................................. 264 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 265 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 265 

Section 1201—Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to 

Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces ................... 265 

Section 1202—Three-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities ...................................................... 266 

Section 1203—Global Security Contingency Fund ..................................... 266 

Section 1204—Codification of National Guard State Partnership Program ........................................................................................................... 266 

Section 1205—Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Certain Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving 

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria and the Region ......................... 266 

Section 1206—One-Year Extension of Authority to Support Foreign 

Forces Participating in Operations to Disarm the Lord’s Resistance 

Army ........................................................................................................... 267 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan .............. 267 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XX 

Section 1211—One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for 

Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided 

to United States Military Operations ...................................................... 267 

Section 1212—One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan ...................................................... 268 

Section 1213—Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan ................................................................................. 268 

Section 1214—Extension of Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq ............................. 269 

Section 1215—One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority for 

Program to Develop and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan ................................................................................................... 269 

Section 1216—Special Immigrant Visas for Certain Iraqi and Afghan 

Allies ........................................................................................................... 269 

Section 1217—Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 100 Percent of All 

Taxes Assessed By Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed By Afghanistan ............................................................................. 270 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Afghanistan Post 2014 .............................. 270 

Section 1221—Modification of Report on Progress Toward Security and 

Stability in Afghanistan ............................................................................ 270 

Section 1222—Sense of Congress on United States Military Support 

in Afghanistan ........................................................................................... 271 

Section 1223—Defense Intelligence Plan .................................................... 271 

Section 1224—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Authorities for Afghanistan ................................................................................... 272 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Iran ............................................................. 273 

Section 1231—Report on United States Military Partnership with Gulf 

Cooperation Council Countries ................................................................. 273 

Section 1232—Additional Elements in Annual Report on Military 

Power of Iran ............................................................................................. 273 

Section 1233—Sense of Congress on the Defense of the Arabian Gulf .... 273 

Subtitle E—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 273 

Section 1241—Report on Posture and Readiness of United States 

Armed Forces to Respond to Future Terrorist Attacks in Africa and 

the Middle East ......................................................................................... 273 

Section 1242—Role of the Government of Egypt to United States National Security ........................................................................................... 274 

Section 1243—Sense of Congress on Military Developments on the 

Korean Peninsula ...................................................................................... 274 

Section 1244—Sense of Congress on Defense Cooperation with Georgia 274 

Section 1245—Limitation on Establishment of Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers ......................................................... 274 

Section 1246—Additional Reports on Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ................. 275 

Section 1247—Amendments to Annual Report Under Arms Control 

and Disarmament Act ............................................................................... 275 

Section 1248—Limitation On Funds to Provide the Russian Federation 

with Access to Certain Missile Defense Technology ............................... 275 

Section 1249—Reports On Actions to Reduce Support of Ballistic Missile Programs of China, Syria, Iran, and North Korea .......................... 275 

Section 1250—Congressional Notifications Relating to Status of Forces 

Agreements ................................................................................................ 276 

Section 1251—Sense of Congress on the Conflict in Syria ........................ 276 

Section 1252—Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO Support Organizations and Related NATO Agreements .............................. 276 

Section 1253—Limitation on Funds to Implement Executive Agreements Relating to United States Missile Defense Capabilities ............. 277 

Section 1254—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Threat Reduction 

Engagement Activities and United States Contributions to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization ................................ 277 

Section 1255—Sense of Congress on Military-to-Military Cooperation 

Between the United States and Burma ................................................... 277 

Section 1256—Sense of Congress on the Stationing of United States 

Forces in Europe ........................................................................................ 277 

Section 1257—Sense of Congress on Military Capabilities of the People’s Republic of China .............................................................................. 277 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXI 

Section 1258—Rule of Construction ............................................................ 278 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 278 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 278 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 279 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Focus .............................................. 279 

Cooperative Biological Engagement Program ................................................ 279 

U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement Negotiations ............................................. 280 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 280 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 280 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 280 

Section 1303—Extension for Use of Contributions to the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Program ....................................................................... 281 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 281 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 281 

Working Capital Fund Cash Balance Concerns ............................................. 281 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 282 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 282 

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 282 

Section 1402—National Defense Sealift Fund ............................................ 282 

Section 1403—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense .... 282 

Section 1404—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 282 

Section 1405—Defense Inspector General .................................................. 282 

Section 1406—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 282 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 282 

Section 1411—Use of National Defense Stockpile for the Conservation 

of a Strategic and Critical Materials Supply .......................................... 282 

Section 1412—Authority to Acquire Additional Materials for the National Defense Stockpile ............................................................................ 282 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 283 

Section 1421—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department 

of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, 

Illinois ........................................................................................................ 283 

Section 1422—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home ........................................................................................... 283 

Section 1423—Cemeterial Expenses ........................................................... 283 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................... 283 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 283 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 283 

National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund ......................... 283 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for U.S. Special 

Operations Forces and Partner Nation Forces ........................................... 284 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 284 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 284 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 284 

Section 1502—Procurement ......................................................................... 284 

Section 1503—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................. 284 

Section 1504—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 284 

Section 1505—Military Personnel ............................................................... 284 

Section 1506—Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 284 

Section 1507—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 286 

Section 1508—Defense Inspector General .................................................. 286 

Section 1509—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 286 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 286 

Section 1521—Treatment as Additional Authorizations ........................... 286 

Section 1522—Special Transfer Authority .................................................. 286 

Subtitle C—Limitations and Other Matters .................................................. 286 

Section 1531—Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ..................................... 286 

Section 1532—Future Role of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Organization .............................................................................................. 287 

Section 1533—Limitation on Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for Operation Observant Compass .................................. 287 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXII 

Section 1534—Report on United States Force Levels and Costs of Military Operations in Afghanistan ............................................................... 287 

TITLE XVI—INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS ..................................................... 287 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 287 

Apportionment of Small Business Funds under Continuing Resolutions .... 287 

Carbon Nanotube Devices ................................................................................ 288 

Communication between the Department of Defense and Industry ............ 288 

Contracting for Textiles and Clothing ............................................................ 289 

Defense Security Service Access to Information in Conducting the National Industrial Security Program ............................................................. 289 

Export Control Reform ..................................................................................... 291 

Foreign Commercial Satellite Services Review .............................................. 291 

Germanium Wafer Defense Industrial Base .................................................. 292 

Improving Information Technology Acquisition Outcomes ........................... 292 

Monitoring and Enforcement of Mitigation Agreements Related to Foreign Investment in the United States ......................................................... 293 

National Defense Stockpile Beryllium Upgrade ............................................ 294 

Next Generation Global Positioning System Receiver Equipment ............... 294 

Regional Commercialization Activities ........................................................... 294 

Report on Diversification of Supply Activities Related to Rare Earth 

Elements ........................................................................................................ 295 

Report on Export of Night Vision Devices ...................................................... 296 

Report on the Integrity of the Supply Chain for Nuclear Command and 

Control and Critical Defense Capabilities .................................................. 296 

Report on the Implementation of Rare Earth Elements Strategy in the 

Joint Strike Fighter Program ...................................................................... 298 

Risks to the Cruise Missile Industrial Base ................................................... 298 

Small Business Size Standards ....................................................................... 299 

Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base ................................................................ 300 

Space Surveillance Telescope .......................................................................... 301 

Specialty Metals Clause Waiver Processes and Notification ........................ 301 

Transfer of International Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled Missile 

Defense Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................................................................................. 303 

Trusted Sources of Microelectronics ............................................................... 303 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 304 

Section 1601—Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance by Inspector 

General of Department of Defense ........................................................... 304 

Section 1602—Expansion of the Procurement Technical Assistance Program to Advance Small Business Growth ............................................... 304 

Section 1603—Amendments Relating to Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program .................................................... 305 

Section 1604—Strategic Plan for Requirements for War Reserve Stocks 

of Meals Ready-To-Eat .............................................................................. 305 

Section 1605—Foreign Commercial Satellite Services .............................. 305 

Section 1606—Proof of Concept Commercialization Pilot Program .......... 306 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 306 

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 306 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ......... 306 

Section 2001—Short Title ............................................................................ 307 

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To 

Be Specified by Law .................................................................................. 307 

Section 2003—Effective Date ....................................................................... 307 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 307 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 307 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 307 

Explanation of Funding Adjustment ............................................................... 307 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 307 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 307 

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 308 

Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 308 

Section 2104—Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 

2004 Project ............................................................................................... 308 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2010 Project ...................................................................................... 308 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXIII 

Section 2106—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2011 Project ...................................................................................... 308 

Section 2107—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 308 

Section 2108—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 308 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 309 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 309 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 309 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 309 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 309 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 309 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 309 

Section 2205—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project ................................................................... 309 

Section 2206—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2011 Project ...................................................................................... 309 

Section 2207—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2012 Project ...................................................................................... 310 

Section 2208—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 310 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 310 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 310 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 310 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 310 

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 310 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 310 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 310 

Section 2305—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2013 Project ...................................................................................... 311 

Section 2306—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project ................................................................... 311 

Section 2307—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Project ........................................................................................................ 311 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 311 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 311 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 312 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ............................................................. 312 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 314 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 314 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 314 

Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects ......................... 314 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 314 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 314 

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide .............................................................. 314 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 314 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 314 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 314 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 314 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 315 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 315 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 315 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 315 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ............................................................. 315 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 316 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 316 

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects ......................................................................... 316 

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ............................................................................................ 316 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXIV 

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ........................................... 316 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 316 

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 316 

Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and 

Reserve ....................................................................................................... 316 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 317 

Section 2611—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2013 Project ...................................................................................... 317 

Section 2612—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 317 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 317 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 317 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 317 

Subtitle A—Authorization Of Appropriations ................................................ 317 

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment 

and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base 

Closure Account ......................................................................................... 317 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 317 

Section 2711—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) Round ...................................................................... 317 

Section 2712—Elimination of Quarterly Certification Requirement Regarding Availabilty of Military Health Care in National Capital Region ............................................................................................................. 317 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 318 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 318 

Air Education and Training Command .......................................................... 318 

Air Force Institute of Technology Laboratory Recapitalization .................... 318 

Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads ..................... 318 

Blast Protection for Forward Military Locations in Contingency Operations .............................................................................................................. 319 

Foreign Materiel Exploitation ......................................................................... 319 

Dayton Peace Accord Exhibit .......................................................................... 319 

Department of Defense Joint Bases ................................................................ 320 

Distributed Generation and Energy Security ................................................ 320 

European Consolidation Initiative .................................................................. 321 

Industrial Control Systems Integration into the Department of Defense 

Networks ........................................................................................................ 321 

KC–46A Air National Guard Basing Strategy ............................................... 321 

Leased Space Assessment ................................................................................ 322 

Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization ............................................................... 322 

Military Heritage Sites .................................................................................... 323 

Plan for Replacement of MQ–1 Aircraft of the National Guard ................... 323 

Report on Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment ..................................... 323 

Space Management .......................................................................................... 324 

Study on Treating Defense Nuclear Facilities as Military Construction ..... 325 

Update to Master Plan for Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti ................................. 326 

U.S. Air Force Space Command Infrastructure ............................................. 326 

Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative 327 

Vulnerability of Defense Infrastructure to Seismic Hazards ........................ 327 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 328 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 328 

Section 2801—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Military Construction ...................................................................................... 328 

Section 2802—Repeal of Requirements for Local Comparability of Room 

Patterns and Floor Areas for Military Family Housing and Submission of Net Floor Area Information .......................................................... 328 

Section 2803—Repeal of Separate Authority to Enter into Limited Partnerships with Private Developers of Housing ......................................... 328 

Section 2804—Military Construction Standards to Reduce Vulnerability 

of Structures to Terrorist Attack ............................................................. 328 

Section 2805—Treatment of Payments Received for Providing Utilities 

and Services in Connection with Use of Alternative Authority for 

Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing ................................ 329 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXV 

Section 2806—Repeal of Advance Notification Requirement for Use of 

Military Family Housing Investment Authority ..................................... 329 

Section 2807—Additional Element for Annual Report on Military Housing Privatization Projects ......................................................................... 329 

Section 2808—Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects in Certain 

Areas Outside the United States ............................................................. 329 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 329 

Section 2811—Codification of Policies and Requirements Regarding Closure and Realignment of United States Military Installations in Foreign Countries ........................................................................................... 329 

Subtitle C—Energy Security ........................................................................... 330 

Section 2821—Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum 

Certification ............................................................................................... 330 

Subtitle D—Provisions Related to Guam Realignment ................................. 330 

Section 2831—Change From Previous Calendar Year to Previous Fiscal 

Year for Period Covered by Annual Report of Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment ..................... 330 

Section 2832—Repeal of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of Marine 

Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region ........................................................ 330 

Subtitle E—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 330 

Section 2841—Real Property Acquisition, Naval Base Ventura County, 

California ................................................................................................... 330 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Former Oxnard Air Force Base, Ventura County, California ............................................................................. 331 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................................................................... 331 

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Camp Williams, Utah .......................... 331 

Section 2845—Conveyance, Air National Guard Radar Site, Francis 

Peak, Wasatch Mountains, Utah ............................................................. 331 

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Former Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia ............................................................................................................ 331 

Section 2847—Land Conveyance, Mifflin County United States Army 

Reserve Center, Lewistown, Pennsylvania ............................................. 331 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 331 

Section 2861—Repeal of Annual Economic Adjustment Committee Reporting Requirement ................................................................................. 331 

Section 2862—Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies ........................................................................................................ 332 

Section 2863—Redesignation of the Graduate School of Nursing at 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the 

Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing ....................................... 332 

Section 2864—Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National 

Historical Park, Ohio ................................................................................ 332 

Section 2865—Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in Riverside, California .......................................................................................... 332 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 332 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 332 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 332 

Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Project ........................................................................................................ 332 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO 

SUPPORT READINESS AND SECURITY .................................................... 333 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 333 

Subtitle A—Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana .................................. 333 

Section 3001—Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Lands for Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana ........................................................ 333 

Section 3002—Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands ............. 333 

Section 3003—Special Rules Governing Minerals Management .............. 333 

Section 3004—Grazing ................................................................................. 333 

Section 3005—Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation .......................... 333 

Section 3006—Payments in Lieu of Taxes .................................................. 333 

Section 3007—Hunting, Fishing and Trapping .......................................... 333 

Section 3008—Water Rights ........................................................................ 334 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXVI 

Section 3009—Brush and Range Fire Prevention and Suppression ......... 334 

Section 3010—On-Going Decontamination ................................................. 334 

Section 3011—Application for Renewal of a Withdrawal and Reservation .............................................................................................................. 334 

Section 3012—Limitation on Subsequent Availability of Lands for Appropriation ................................................................................................. 334 

Section 3013—Relinquishment .................................................................... 334 

Subtitle B—White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico .................................. 334 

Section 3021—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, White Sands 

Missile Range, New Mexico ...................................................................... 334 

Section 3022—Water Rights ........................................................................ 334 

Section 3023—Withdrawal ........................................................................... 334 

Subtitle C—Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California ................. 335 

Section 3031—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air 

Weapons Station China Lake, California ................................................ 335 

Section 3032—Water Rights ........................................................................ 335 

Section 3033—Withdrawal ........................................................................... 335 

Subtitle D—Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California ........... 335 

Section 3041—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California ................................................... 335 

Section 3042—Management and Use of Transferred Land ....................... 335 

Section 3043—Realignment of Range Boundary and Related Transfer 

of Title ........................................................................................................ 335 

Section 3044—Effect of Termination of Military Use ................................ 335 

Section 3045—Temporary Extension of Existing Withdrawal Period ...... 336 

Section 3046—Water Rights ........................................................................ 336 

Subtitle E—Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, 

California ................................................................................................... 336 

Section 3051—Designation of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway 

Vehicle Recreation Area ............................................................................ 336 

Section 3052—Limited Biannual Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 

Center Twentynine Palms Use of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area .................................................................... 336 

Section 3053—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Southern Study 

Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, 

California ................................................................................................... 336 

Section 3054—Water Rights ........................................................................ 336 

Subtitle F—Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada .............................................. 337 

Section 3061—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada ................................................................................... 337 

Section 3062—Water Rights ........................................................................ 337 

Section 3063—Withdrawal ........................................................................... 337 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 337 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 337 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 337 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 337 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 337 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 337 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................................ 337 

Advanced manufacturing within the nuclear security enterprise ......... 337 

Budget tables for NNSA Production Office ............................................. 338 

Cyber Security ........................................................................................... 339 

Clarification of Congressional Intent Regarding National Security 

Laboratories ........................................................................................... 339 

Deferred Maintenance in the Nuclear Security Enterprise ................... 339 

Directed Stockpile Work ........................................................................... 340 

Exascale Computing .................................................................................. 341 

Ignition and Budget Prioritization ........................................................... 341 

Livermore Valley Open Campus .............................................................. 341 

Trilateral Cooperation ............................................................................... 342 

Risks within long-term schedule for life extension programs ............... 342 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................... 343 

Follow-on to Global Threat Reduction Initiative .................................... 343 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Analysis .................................... 343 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXVII 

Nonproliferation and arms control verification technology research 

and development .................................................................................... 344 

Naval Reactors .............................................................................................. 344 

Fissile material stockpiles ........................................................................ 344 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 344 

Office of the Administrator .......................................................................... 345 

Office of Infrastructure and Operations .................................................. 345 

Plan and roadmap to address security problems .................................... 345 

Reprogramming Procedure and Funding Control Levels ....................... 346 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 347 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 347 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................. 347 

Environmental Management Technology Development Program ......... 347 

Transuranic Wastes at Hanford Tank Farms ......................................... 347 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................................... 348 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security Program ................................. 348 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 349 

Subtitle A—National Security Program Authorizations ............................... 349 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 349 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 349 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 349 

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance .......................................... 349 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 349 

Section 3111—Clarification of Principles of National Nuclear Security 

Administration ........................................................................................... 349 

Section 3112—Termination of Department of Energy Employees to Protect National Security ............................................................................... 349 

Section 3113—Modification of Independent Cost Estimates on Life Extension Programs and New Nuclear Facilities ....................................... 350 

Section 3114—Plan for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition of Tank 

Farm Waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation ........................................ 351 

Section 3115—Enhanced Procurement Authority to Manage Supply 

Chain Risk ................................................................................................. 352 

Section 3116—Limitation on Availability of Funds for National Nuclear 

Security Administration ........................................................................... 352 

Section 3117—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the 

Administrator ............................................................................................ 353 

Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative ................................................................................... 354 

Section 3119—Establishment of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Testing, and Response ...................................................................... 354 

Section 3120—Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of Management 

and Operating Contracts .......................................................................... 355 

Section 3121—W88–1 Warhead and W78–1 Warhead Life Extension 

Options ....................................................................................................... 355 

Section 3122—Extension of Principles of Pilot Program to Additional 

Facilities of the Nuclear Security Enterprise ......................................... 356 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 357 

Section 3131—Annual Report and Certification on Status of the Security of the Nuclear Security Enterprise ................................................... 357 

Section 3132—Modifications to Annual Reports Regarding the Condition of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile .................................................... 358 

Section 3133—Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements ....................... 358 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 359 

Section 3141—Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the 

Nuclear Security Enterprise ..................................................................... 359 

Section 3142—Study of Potential Reuse of Nuclear Weapon Secondaries ............................................................................................................ 359 

Section 3143—Clarification of Role of Secretary of Energy ...................... 360 

Section 3144—Technical Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ...... 360 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 360 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 360 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 360 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 360 

Section 3202—Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board .......................................................................................................... 360 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 361 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXVIII 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 361 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 361 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 361 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 361 

Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee ......................................................................... 361 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 361 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National Security 

Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2014 ........................... 361 

Section 3502—5-Year Reauthorization of Vessel War Risk Insurance 

Program ...................................................................................................... 362 

Section 3503—Sense of Congress ................................................................ 362 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 362 

Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables ................... 362 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 369 

Section 4101—Procurement ......................................................................... 369 

Section 4102—Procurement for Overseas Contingency Operations ......... 410 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 420 

Section 4201—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................. 420 

Section 4202—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for Overseas Contingency Operations ................................................................... 451 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 453 

Section 4301—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 453 

Section 4302—Operation and Maintenance for Overseas Contingency 

Operations .................................................................................................. 471 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 482 

Section 4401—Military Personnel ............................................................... 482 

Section 4402—Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency Operations .......................................................................................................... 483 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 484 

Section 4501—Other Authorizations ........................................................... 484 

Section 4502—Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency Operations .......................................................................................................... 487 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 489 

Section 4601—Military Construction .......................................................... 489 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 507 

Section 4701—Department of Energy National Security Programs ......... 507 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ..................................................... 518 

Communications from Other Committees ............................................................. 520 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 533 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 534 

Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act ........................................ 534 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 535 

Advisory of Earmarks .............................................................................................. 535 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 535 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 535 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 537 

Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................................ 537 

Applicability to the Legislative Branch ................................................................. 537 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 537 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 537 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 537 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 556 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 557 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 563 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–102 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2014 

JUNE 7, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCKEON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1960] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 

construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the 

bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION 

The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 

for procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for 

operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; 

(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2014: (a) the personnel strength for 

each Active Duty component of the military departments; (b) the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements 

and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; 

(5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for 

Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for 

fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Energy national security 

programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 

Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for 

the Maritime Administration. 

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014, is a key mechanism through which the Congress of the 

United States fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 

States, which grants Congress the power to raise and support an 

Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 

government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of 

the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application 

of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The 

committee bill includes the large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the current 

year, as informed by the experience gained over the previous decades of the committee’s existence. 

The bill reflects the House Armed Services Committee’s steadfast 

support of the courageous, professional, and dedicated men and 

women of the United States Armed Forces and the committee’s appreciation for the sacrifices they make to accomplish their required 

missions. Events of the last year—ranging from on-going operations in Afghanistan, robust counter-terrorism efforts around the 

globe, to time-sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses— 

serve to highlight the United States military’s flexibility and responsiveness in defending our nation’s interests and addressing security challenges. The committee understands that the capabilities 

of our Armed Forces are underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department 

of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as 

the defense industrial base. Each of these elements is required to 

enable the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic 

security that it has been for generations. The committee is deeply 

committed to providing full authorization for the funding required 

to restore the readiness of our military; enhance the quality of life 

of military service members and their families; sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and properly safeguard the national security of the United States. 

In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, the committee bill ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around 

the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and 

time needed to successfully complete their missions and return 

home; mandates greater transparency and accountability for sensitive military operations to Congress; provides our warfighters and 

their families with the resources and support they need, deserve, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

and have earned; protects members of the Armed Forces from the 

unacceptable risk of sexual assault; invests in the capabilities and 

force structure needed to protect the United States from current 

and future threats; and incentivizes greater competition for defense 

dollars and greater fiscal responsibility within the Department of 

Defense. 

Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time To Accomplish Missions 

The committee considers it critical that the capabilities and capacity of the Armed Forces continue to improve so these forces can 

accomplish the full range of diverse missions within a complex operating environment, minimize risks associated with such challenges and effectively engage in hostilities when necessary. Thus, 

a top priority remains ensuring that our military personnel continue to receive the best equipment, weapon systems and training. 

As such, H.R. 1960 would provide for both near- and long-term 

military personnel and force structure requirements. 

The military continues to put pressure on Al Qaeda and its associated forces. The bill makes clear that Congress has a constitutional oversight role critical at each stage of sensitive military operations conducted to combat these forces. The committee includes a 

provision that would require an assessment of the affiliates and adherents of Al Qaeda and the evolving threat they pose to U.S. national security. The bill also would codify the requirement for notification and briefings following targeted lethal or capture operations by the Armed Forces overseas. The legislation would require 

the Secretary of Defense to submit an explanation of the legal and 

policy considerations and approval processes used in determining 

whether an individual or group of individuals could be the target 

of a lethal or capture operation conducted by the Armed Forces of 

the United States outside the United States. The committee bill 

also includes several additional provisions to extend detention policies and procedures. 

While the committee continues its inquiry into the tragic events 

in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the bill would ensure that the 

Department of Defense has begun to apply the lessons already 

learned. The committee bill also addresses concerns regarding the 

conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic and would ensure that Congress is kept informed of the resources required and risks associated with a variety of courses of action or inaction in Syria. Likewise, the committee expects that if the President determines that 

U.S. military involvement is required, the President will submit a 

supplemental funding request to Congress for consideration. Understanding that unilateral U.S. response to the Syrian crisis is not 

in America’s best interest, the bill would authorize the Armed 

Forces to train and equip regional partners for weapons of mass destruction response. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes the continued 

threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the steps taken 

by the committee to address gaps in U.S. intelligence, expand information about Iran’s global threat network, foster partnerships with 

the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, and express concerns about 

the strategic consequences of having only one carrier in the region 

of the Arabian Gulf. Likewise, the committee notes the rogue acVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

tions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which are unacceptable and contrary to international peace and stability and extends reporting on North Korea’s military capabilities. The committee also reflects concerns regarding the modernization efforts of 

the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), as reflected in testimony before the committee and the annual report on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China. 

The ballistic missile threat continues to increase both qualitatively and quantitatively. Defending against ballistic or theater 

missile attack is an important priority for the committee. The committee bill would restrict the removal of missile defense hardware 

from East Asia, while requiring analysis on missile defense capabilities in Guam, invest in proven and vital systems like Iron 

Dome, and provide significant resources for other Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense programs, like Arrow 2, Arrow 3 and the David’s Sling Weapon System. The legislation would provide authorization and funding for the deployment of an East Coast missile defense site, while the Missile Defense Agency undertakes siting and 

environmental studies. 

Additionally, robust intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are vital to current combat operations in 

Afghanistan, as well as emerging threats in North Africa and elsewhere. To ensure that use and availability of ISR resources are 

maximized, the bill would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan related to the drawdown of defense intelligence assets 

in Afghanistan and it would prevent the premature retirement of 

Global Hawk block 30 unmanned aircraft. 

Finally, recent reports only enhance the committee’s concerns 

about the threat posed by cyber attacks. The bill would require the 

Department of Defense to conduct a mission analysis for cyber operations and examine the proper balance of cyber capabilities 

across the national security organization, as well as a report on coordination of cyber and electronic warfare activities. The committee 

would also require the Department to provide congressional notification when investigations are initiated or completed regarding 

network cyber intrusions that result in the compromise of critical 

information. Additionally, the legislation would require the Defense 

Science Board to conduct an independent assessment of the organization, missions and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command, and require the Secretary of Defense to create standards for cyber operations training. The bill also would provide important authorities 

to the Department of Energy to ensure the integrity of its information technology supply chain—similar to authority available to the 

Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. 

Combatting Sexual Assault in the Military 

The American public holds the U.S. Armed Forces to the highest 

standards and in great esteem. Consequently, the scourge of sexual 

assault has no place within these ranks. The committee has made 

sexual assault prevention and prosecution a conerstone of this bill. 

The bill would reform the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ) to strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a finding 

by a court martial or from reducing guilty findings to lesser offenses. The committee bill would also establish minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual assault-related offenses. Currently, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

such guidelines only exist in the military for the crimes of murder 

and espionage. The proposed changes to the UCMJ would also enable the victim of a crime to provide the convening authority materials for the convening authority’s post-trial consideration; set 

guidelines for defense council interviews of the victim; and articulate the rights of a crime victim. 

Recognizing that victim support is as vital as prosecution, the 

legislation would allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a permanent change of station or unit transfer, while authorizing the 

Secretary of Defense to inform commanders of their authority to remove or temporarily reassign service members who are the alleged 

perpetrators of sexual assault. The committee bill would require 

the provision of victims’ counsels, qualified and specially trained 

lawyers in each of the services, to be made available to provide 

legal assistance to the victims of sex-related offenses. 

Moreover, the bill seeks to improve the climate for reporting of 

a sex-related offense by adding rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a member of Congress or an Inspector General. The committee recommends reforms to improve unit climate assessments, 

improve the performance evaluation process, increase commander 

accountability, and help establish a military culture intolerant of 

sexual assaults through improved security, as well as health and 

welfare inspections. 

Finally, to ensure that the military is better positioned to deal 

with the crisis of sexual assault within its ranks, the committee bill 

would require both the Secretary of Defense and the independent 

panel established in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to assess the current role 

and authorities of commanders in the administration of military 

justice and the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of offenses under the UCMJ; direct the Government Accountability Office to review implementation of the Air Force corrective actions 

following the sexual misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base; and 

mandate the processing for administrative separation of any service member guilty of an inappropriate and prohibited relationship, 

communication, conduct, or contact, including when such an action 

is consensual, with a prospective member of the Armed Forces or 

a member undergoing entry-level processing or training. 

Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity 

In April 2011, the President announced his intention to seek over 

$400.0 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over 

the next decade. Subsequently, the Congress passed the Budget 

Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 111–25) (BCA) in August 2011. 

The BCA significantly reduced discretionary spending across the 

Federal Government and for the military in particular. The Department of Defense noted that cuts relating to the BCA amounted to 

$489.0 billion. In addition, sequestration went into effect across the 

Federal Government on March 1, 2013. Should sequestration remain in effect, funding for national defense will be cut by an additional $42.5 billion during fiscal year 2013 and approximately half 

a trillion dollars through 2021. 

The committee is particularly concerned about readiness levels 

and threats to our national security once the full weight of sequesVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

tration is realized. History tells us that when readiness is low and 

our units ill-equipped and unprepared to fight, our troops pay the 

price with their lives. Areas of additional concern include the size 

and force structure of our armed forces and funding levels as we 

prepare to draw down in Afghanistan. 

The committee is concerned about the Navy’s overall fleet size 

and the continuous sustained demand for naval forces, especially in 

light of the Administration’s strategic shift to operations in the 

Asia-Pacific. Therefore, the restriction precluding the Navy from retiring seven Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and two amphibious ships well before the end of their expected service life continues for fiscal year 2014. The committee would provide additional 

funds to the Navy to properly modernize and maintain these critical naval assets. The committee notes that it is less costly to maintain existing assets than to procure new ones and this funding ensures the correct naval capabilities and fleet mix for the length of 

time originally authorized by Congress. The committee also would 

authorize multiyear procurements for the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye and the C–130J Super Hercules to ensure the Department is 

able to save significant resources over the term of the contract. 

The committee also would fund needed ship construction to obviate the negative consequences of sequestration on the various ship 

construction programs. The committee would provide sufficient 

funds to support the acquisition of the 10th DDG–51 class destroyer of a multiyear procurement; additional funds to support the 

continued acquisition of two Virginia Class attack submarines; and 

additional funds associated with the completion of the DDG–1000 

class destroyer, the Moored Training Ship, and the Joint High 

Speed Vessel. 

In noting concerns about potential strike fighter shortfalls and 

combat aviation capability, the committee would preserve the Air 

Force and Navy strike fighter industrial base by supporting the 

continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter program, provide 

for additional advance procurement for the F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet, and address a critical Air Force unfunded requirement for 

strike fighter engines. The committee notes the importance of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft. The bill would retain the Air Force’s 

Global Hawk Block 30 ISR aircraft, rather than shifting these assets to storage, as they are critical combat enablers for the deployed warfighter. The legislation would also provide additional 

funding for the Air Force Reaper UAS, a high-demand, low-density 

asset critical to Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee also 

recommends additional funding to allow for the continued 

sustainment of America’s heavy armored vehicle production base by 

maintaining at least minimum sustained production for Abrams 

tank upgrades and heavy improved recovery vehicles. The committee also would preserve the continued operational capability of 

the National Guard and Reserve Components by providing additional funding to address National Guard and Reserve Component 

unfunded modernization requirements. These changes preserve capability in the Active Component, as well as the Guard and Reserve, but not at the expense of the readiness of the Active Component. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

The committee would fund the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) at $85.8 billion, consistent with the House-passed fiscal year 

2014 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, thereby taking a partial 

step to replenish underfunded readiness accounts within the OCO. 

In so doing, the committee was able to replenish shortfalls resulting from unexpected costs in fiscal year 2013 to important accounts 

supporting reset and reconstitution of the force after more than a 

decade of combat and enabling support for wartime operations. 

Specifically, the committee took steps to restore critical readiness 

shortfalls by providing additional resources for training activities, 

flight hours, facilities sustainment, critical spares, combat support 

forces equipment and sustainment, and the stabilization of fuel 

rates. The committee also provided funding for unfunded priority 

items like a new Marine crisis response force for Africa and growth 

in the Marine Security Guard program responsible for security at 

our diplomatic posts. The bill would restore $400.0 million in critical equipment reset funding in the OCO that would refurbish wartorn equipment, specifically for the Army. 

In making these changes, the committee heeded the testimony of 

the service chiefs, who stressed the importance of ensuring the 

United States does not repeat the mistakes of the past by 

hollowing force structure in response to budget cuts. Therefore, for 

every change to force structure recommended by this bill includes 

funding for military personnel and operation and maintenance 

costs associated with such force structure. Moreover, each of these 

changes was funded within the top line funding allocation provided 

by the House-passed fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, H. Con. 

Res. 25, which reduced overall discretionary spending below the fiscal year 2014 cap mandated by the Budget Control Act (Public Law 

111–25). 

Resources for Warfighters and Families 

Recognizing the need to maintain a high quality all-volunteer 

combat-ready force, the committee bill supports current law, which 

mandates an automatic 1.8% annual increase in troop pay. 

The committee bill would ensure that end strength requests are 

within the limitations for reductions set by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), reflecting concerns that budgetary pressures will force each service to 

reduce its end strength too quickly and to divest vital battlefield 

experience and know how. 

Committee members believe access to quality healthcare during 

retirement is a benefit earned through prior service to our nation. 

Mindful of Congress’ commitment to service members and their 

families, the legislation would reject proposals to increase some 

TRICARE fees or establish new TRICARE fees. The committee has 

already put TRICARE on a sustainable path through reforms enacted in several recent defense authorization acts. Those reforms 

connect TRICARE fee increases to retiree cost of living increases. 

The record of the Department of Defense in incorrectly calculating 

TRICARE costs and its repeated requests to transfer billions of unused dollars out of the program to cover other underfunded defense 

priorities raises questions about repeated claims by the Department that the Defense Health Program is unsustainable. The committee bill also would provide beneficiaries an opportunity to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

main in TRICARE Prime after the Department of Defense reduces 

the availability of Prime to retired beneficiaries. 

After a decade of honorable service in hostile environments, 

women have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities in combat 

operations. The committee bill would establish the definition of a 

gender-neutral occupational standards that would be used by each 

military service to develop the standards required for all military 

career designators. 

Other provisions in the committee bill are designed to protect 

warfighters and their families from external threats, while ensuring that units and families are supported and prepared for deployments. The committee bill would require a minimum 120–day notification before deployment or the cancellation of a deployment for 

the operational reserves. It also would authorize the commander of 

U.S. Special Forces Command to provide additional family support 

services to U.S. Special Operations Forces and their families. The 

committee bill would take action on body armor, one of the most 

basic elements of protection provided to our troops. The bill would 

facilitate the development of ever more functional, lighter, and 

more protective body armor by requiring each service to create a 

separate procurement budget line for personal protective equipment, thus making body armor a more traditional weapon system 

acquisition program that can build on successive generations of innovation and investment, rather than the ad hoc procedure now in 

place. The bill also would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study and assessment on ways to improve 

personal protective equipment for female service members. 

Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability 

The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense’s budget 

and identified inefficiencies whose savings can be invested in higher national security priorities. The committee bill would reflect the 

fact that as a nation, we must make tough choices in order to provide for America’s common defense by examining every aspect of 

the defense enterprise to find ways that we can accomplish the 

mission of providing for the common defense more effectively. The 

findings of the committee’s Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform and the Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry continue to guide the committee’s consideration of legislation that would be included in this bill. 

The committee bill would include a number of provisions to 

strengthen fiscal responsibility, including direction to the Department of Defense to strengthen Item Unique Identification and 

other automated information and data capture initiatives which 

would lower total life cycle cost of items acquired and managed and 

save taxpayer money through improved accountability. The bill 

would also include the sense of Congress regarding the Department 

of Defense’s ongoing Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness 

process and support the goal of audit readiness across the Department by 2017, which have only increased in importance as sequestration is implemented. To that end, the bill would require that a 

full and complete audit take place for fiscal year 2018. Furthermore, recognizing that any future contingency operation will be 

heavily reliant on contractors and incorporating the lessons learned 

from U.S. operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

public of Afghanistan, the committee bill would encourage the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Department of 

State, and USAID to establish a memorandum of agreement that 

would serve as a framework for designating a lead Inspector General for overseas contingency operations not later than 30 days 

after the commencement of certain military operations. 

Controlling Costs and Making Wise Choices 

The committee recognizes that in an era of constrained resources, 

controlling costs should be a key priority. At the same time, the 

committee sought to avoid false short term savings at the expense 

of vital long-term strategic capabilities. 

The committee bill would require the Department of Defense to 

take several steps toward reducing wasteful bureaucracy. For example, the Secretary of Defense would be required to develop a 

plan for the future role of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization and to determine if the Air-Sea Battle Office 

is duplicative of efforts more efficiently carried out by the Joint 

Staff. The bill would also reduce general and flag officer billets by 

24. 

The bill would require greater accountability for cost overruns 

associated with troubled acquisition programs. The committee expresses concern regarding the design of the Arleigh Burke Class 

Destroyer Flight III and limits funding for the next stage of the 

Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle until the Secretary of the Army 

submits a status report to Congress. Likewise, the committee 

would require the Secretary of the Army to develop a strategy to 

improve the fuel efficiency of the M1 Abrams Tank. The bill would 

also scrutinize plans for the sustainment of the Littoral Combat 

Ship and the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. 

Significant emphasis is placed on identifying additional efficiencies. The committee bill would task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with carrying out several studies with an intent to reduce bureaucracy, including an examination of the headquarters functions of U.S. Central Command, all of the functional 

combatant commands, the office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint Staff, and service secretaries. The bill would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to report back on actions taken to address the 

recommendations of the GAO with regard to similar reviews undertaken at the remaining geographic combatant commands last year. 

Moreover, the committee notes that the Department has failed to 

adequately conduct the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181), nor has the Department submitted a 

mission based budget as required. Therefore, the committee would 

task GAO to examine contributing factors to this lack of compliance. 

In addition, the committee would seek to increase cost savings 

through enhanced competition and alternative contracting mechanisms. Among other initiatives, the committee bill would direct a 

federally funded research and development center to conduct a 

study to identify and assess alternative and effective means for 

stimulating competition and innovation in the personal protection 

equipment industrial base, to include body armor. Other enhancements to competition would include the requirement to ensure a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

fair evaluation of competing contractors in awarding a contract to 

a certified evolved expendable launch vehicle provider. The bill 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to enter into a 5-year 

pilot program for the multiyear procurement of tactical wheeled vehicles and authorize multiyear contracts for the E–2D Advanced 

Hawkeye and the C–130J Super Hercules. The committee would 

also direct a strategy to reduce the cost of commercial satellite 

services through multiyear awards. 

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 results from hearings that began on 

March 5, 2013, and that were completed on May 9, 2013. The full 

committee conducted 10 sessions. In addition, a total of 13 sessions 

were conducted by 6 different subcommittees. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On June 5, 2013, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 1960, as amended, by a vote of 59– 

2. 

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1960. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. 

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts will provide 

budget authority. However, the committee strives to adhere to the 

recommendations as issued by the Committee on the Budget as it 

relates to the jurisdiction of this committee. 

The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of 

Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test, and 

evaluation; operation and maintenance; military personnel; working capital funds; and military construction and family housing. 

The bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime Administration. 

Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in this 

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel 

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization 

of specific dollar amounts for military personnel. 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE 

BILL 

The President requested discretionary budget authority of $625.2 

billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the committee for fiscal year 2014. Of this amount, $526.6 billion was requested for 

‘‘base’’ Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency Operations requirements 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

covering the entire fiscal year, and $17.9 billion was requested for 

Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authoriza- tion of $630.2 billion in fiscal year 2014, including $85.8 billion for 

Overseas Contingency Operations. The base committee authorization of $544.4 billion is a $0.4 billion decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division 

D of this report summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2014 

and compares these amounts to the President’s request. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

The President’s total request for the national defense budget 

function (050) in fiscal year 2014 is $641.0 billion, as estimated by 

the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 request includes discretionary funding for national defense programs not in the committee’s jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not require additional authorization in fiscal year 2014, and mandatory 

programs. 

The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division 

D of this report details changes to all aspects of the national defense budget function. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(13) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $98.2 billion 

for procurement. This represents a $900.0 million decrease over the 

amount authorized for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends authorization of $99.6 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion from the fiscal year 2014 request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 procurement program are identified in division D of this Act. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $5.0 billion for 

Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $5.2 billion, an increase of $135.1 million, for fiscal year 

2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Apache helicopter transmission 

The budget request contained $759.4 million for procurement of 

the Apache helicopter program. 

The committee continues to support the AH–64E Apache helicopter program and believes that it provides a critical capability to 

the Army. The committee understands that the program has had 

production issues with the current transmission. The Apache transmission is a ‘‘single point-of-failure’’ component in that only one 

vendor is currently certified to make this particular transmission. 

The committee notes that the Army had to make difficult decisions 

to mitigate the impact to the industrial base and fielding schedule. 

The committee encourages the Army to continue its mitigation efforts with the prime contractor in regards to the transmission subcontractor meeting required production schedules. The committee 

also encourages the Army to work with the prime contractor and 

determine if the qualification of a second source is warranted considering the critical nature of the transmission. 

The committee recommends $759.4 million, the full amount of 

the request, for the Apache helicopter program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Lightweight combat medical evacuation systems 

The committee is concerned about weight-related performance 

issues impacting rotorcraft systems used for medical evacuation 

(MEDEVAC) missions. The committee understands that current 

MEDEVAC rotorcraft are required to operate over long distances in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as well as in other remote 

areas of operations. The committee is aware of recent efforts by the 

U.S. Army Aviation Research Laboratory under the Medical Research and Materiel Command and the Army Aviation Engineering 

Directorate at Redstone Arsenal to test ways to reduce the weight 

of MEDEVAC rotorcraft, including lightweight rack systems for the 

transport and treatment of injured military personnel. The committee notes that a lightweight rack system could provide flight 

medical personnel additional capabilities to accomplish critical 

evacuation missions by improving space, range, and altitude performance for the rotorcraft. 

The committee encourages the Army to continue expedited testing of lightweight tactical, rapidly installable medical evacuation 

racks as one of many possible options to better manage rotorcraft 

weight and improve overall performance. 

UH–72 Light Utility Helicopter 

The budget request included $96.2 million for procurement of 10 

UH–72 Light Utility Helicopters (LUH). 

According to the Army, this is the final year of UH–72 purchases, 

truncating the total program buy at 315 aircraft, instead of 346 as 

originally planned. The committee notes that even though this ends 

production short of the original plan, the final buy fully meets the 

agreed upon UH–72 requirements of the Army National Guard. 

The committee recognizes that funding constraints and assessments in investment priorities contributed to the Army’s decision 

to end UH–72 LUH production early, but also recognizes the platform has performed very well in valuable mission scenarios, to include homeland security, patrol along the Southwest boarder, and 

state and regional emergency response. These scenarios are important to operations in the permissive U.S. environment. However, 

the committee is concerned that the Army’s decision may have an 

impact on the UH–72 LUH industrial base that increase risks over 

time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315 aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $231.3 million, an increase of $135.1 million, for procurement of UH–72 LUH. The committee acknowledges that the additional procurement funds complete the total requirement for the LUH program. The committee 

understands that while no further requirements for additional platforms have been formally identified by the National Guard Bureau; 

should additional requirements be identified, the committee expects 

the National Guard to use National Guard and Reserve Equipment 

account funds. In addition, the committee encourages the Army to 

assess the feasibility of transferring additional UH–72 LUH rotorcraft from the Active Component to the National Guard if additional requirements are validated. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.3 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.3 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 

2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.6 billion for 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The 

committee recommends authorization of $1.8 billion, an increase of 

$191.0 million, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Armor Brigade Combat Team force structure and industrial base 

The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control Act 

of 2011 (Public Law 112–25), the Army is in the process of reducing 

its Active Duty end strength to 490,000. In addition, the Army has 

also announced plans to eliminate at least eight Active Component 

Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), reducing the total number from 45 

to 37. The active Army has 17 Armor BCTs (ABCT), 20 Infantry 

BCTs, and 8 Stryker BCTs. The Army has stated that at least two 

of the eight BCTs eliminated will be ABCTs. The committee notes 

that the ABCT, which is comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley 

fighting vehicles, is the only full-spectrum force in the Army’s force 

structure. With regard to the future utility of armored forces, the 

committee notes a Rand Corporation report from 2010 that concluded, ‘‘Heavy forces-based on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles-are key elements of any force that will fight hybrid enemies 

that have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced weapons. Light and medium forces can complement heavy forces, particularly in urban and other complex terrain; they do not provide 

the survivability, lethality, or mobility inherent in heavy forces. 

Quite simply, heavy forces reduce operational risks and minimize 

friendly casualties.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the Army may eliminate too 

many ABCTs based on resource constraints rather than meeting 

the needs of combatant commanders. The committee understands 

the Army has completed a force structure and BCT mix analysis. 

Although the committee has been informed that the Army will add 

a third maneuver battalion back into the Active Component Armor 

and Infantry BCTs which will also impact the total amount of 

BCTs, the committee has not been briefed on final force structure 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

and BCT mix decisions. The committee is supportive of all BCTs 

having a third maneuver battalion and notes that the committee 

opposed the Army’s original decision of two maneuver battalions 

per BCT in the committee report (H. Rept. 109–452) accompanying 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007. The committee also notes that in the committee report 

(H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army, 

or his designee, and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, or his designee, to brief and submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees on how the Army’s recent force structure and BCT mix 

analysis meet the needs of the combatant commanders. This information has not been provided to the congressional defense committees. 

In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee is also concerned 

about the Army’s position that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone 

is sufficient to protect the armor industrial base until follow-on programs begin around the fiscal year 2019 time-frame. The committee believes that the associated impact this position has on the 

industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level poses 

an unacceptable level of risk. The ABCT industrial base is not dependent upon one platform. The committee continues to believe 

that insufficient information is available to Congress to make an 

informed decision regarding current and potential future risks to 

the armor industrial base at the prime and vendor levels. The committee understands that the Army believes that it will soon have 

the necessary analytical information required to make informed decisions about the industrial base. The committee needs to understand the ramifications to the future ABCT industrial base capabilities regarding the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose 

Vehicle, and the Ground Combat Vehicle. The committee needs to 

understand the Army’s projected requirements in the fiscal year 

2019 time-frame to maintain a public and private workforce to sustain the current level of ABCTs, and what capabilities the Army 

will need in the future to produce new or improved platforms. 

The committee believes that FMS may help to mitigate some of 

the risk to the industrial base, but believes FMS alone will not be 

enough to ensure that the ABCT industrial base is maintained at 

viable levels until follow-on production efforts begin in the fiscal 

year 2019 time-frame. In the absence of a force mix BCT analysis, 

and a detailed quantitative analysis of the impacts to the ABCT industrial base, the committee recommends adjustments to the 

Army’s budget request elsewhere in this report. 

Abrams tank upgrades 

The budget request contained no funding for the Abrams tank 

upgrade program. 

The committee believes that the Army must maintain the ability 

for its Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) to over match any 

possible threat, and is concerned that the Army still does not have 

a realistic plan for maintaining the M1 Abrams tank industrial 

base for the future. The Army has testified, in support of the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request, that they do not have any plans to close 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

down the industrial facilities used to upgrade M1 Abrams tanks. 

The Army has also testified that they plan on proceeding with the 

next M1 Abrams tank upgrade program in 2019, which the committee assumes will require an active and healthy industrial base. 

In addition, the Army has testified that one of their top modernization programs, the Ground Combat Vehicle program, is also scheduled to enter production in the 2019 time frame and that the Army 

will need a viable industrial base to produce it as well. 

While the committee understands that the Army assumes that 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone are enough to keep the Abrams 

tank line ‘‘warm’’ until the 2019 time frame, based on current 

world events, the committee believes that reliance upon FMS alone 

poses an unacceptable level of risk to our heavy vehicle industrial 

base, and thus to our national security. As a result, the committee 

believes that the best course of action would be a combination of 

continued tank upgrades for the Army and ongoing FMS, the combination of which should maintain production lines and suppliers 

until the next Abrams tank upgrade program begins. To further 

mitigate risk to the industrial base, the committee encourages the 

Army to begin the next series of Abrams tank upgrades in the 2017 

or 2018 time frame, rather than delaying to 2019. 

With regard to the military need for more M1A2 tank upgrades, 

the committee notes that six National Guard ABCTs are currently 

equipped with a less capable version of the Abrams tank. In addition, the committee believes that in the future the National 

Guard’s share of ABCTs in the Army will increase due to possible 

Active Duty reductions, making the Army more reliant on its National Guard brigades in case of a major conflict. Therefore, the 

committee believes that as long as the National Guard has a less 

capable version of the Abrams tank, there will be a requirement for 

additional modernized M1A2 Abrams tanks. 

The committee recommends $168.0 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for the Abrams tank 

upgrade program. 

Bradley fighting vehicle and transmission upgrades 

The budget request contained $158.0 million for Bradley fighting 

vehicle modifications. 

The committee encourages the Army to use fiscal year 2013 authorized and appropriated funds to convert Bradley M2 Calvary vehicles into Bradley M3 infantry fighting vehicles. The committee 

understands that if the Bradley fighting vehicle production line is 

shut down, then other currently funded combat vehicle programs, 

such as the Paladin integrated management and the M88A2 recovery vehicle, will experience cost increases. 

The committee also notes that regardless of whether the Ground 

Combat Vehicle is developed and fielded on schedule, the Army 

must continue upgrades to the remaining fleet of Bradley fighting 

vehicles through the Bradley Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 

program. If the Army chooses to upgrade the vehicle transmission 

as part of the ECP program, than the committee encourages the 

Army to conduct a competitive award process for a transmission 

provided as government furnished equipment, or to require the 

prime contractor to conduct a competition to select the transVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

mission used in the upgrade. The committee believes that such a 

competition will ensure that the Army gets the best possible transmission available at the lowest possible cost. 

The committee recommends $158.0 million, the full amount requested, for Bradley fighting vehicle modifications. 

Improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request contained $111.0 million for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program. 

The committee is aware that in order to provide greater protection for soldiers, the Army’s current and future fleet of combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result, the M88A1 recovery vehicles are approaching their maximum capability with the 

current fleet, and its capability will be greatly exceeded by the future fleet. The committee supports the Army’s decision to include 

funds in the budget request for procurement of additional M88A2 

vehicles, but believes additional funds are necessary to maintain 

production. The committee believes this will provide the Army with 

ample time to finalize its force structure and Brigade Combat 

Team adjustments and to determine a more accurate requirement 

for the procurement of additional M88A2s. 

The committee recommends $186.0 million, an increase of $75.0 

million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program. 

Carbine program 

The budget request contained $70.8 million for the carbine program. Of this amount, $18.9 million was requested for 12,000 

M4A1 carbines and $48.6 million was requested for 29,897 new, individual carbine weapons. The budget request also contained $10.3 

million for M4 carbine modifications. 

As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 and in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 

committee continues to support the Army’s dual-path acquisition 

strategy for modernizing its inventory of carbine weapons, which 

would allow the Army to upgrade its current M4 carbines as well 

as procure a new carbine after the current individual carbine competition is complete. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) required the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional defense committees a business case assessment before making a procurement 

decision regarding the individual carbine program. The committee 

has yet to receive this business case assessment. Therefore, the 

committee is concerned that the amount of procurement funding requested for new carbines is too high given the individual carbine 

program’s current down-select and evaluation schedule as well as 

the requirement to provide a business case assessment. 

The committee recommends $48.8 million, a decrease of $22.0 

million for new carbine weapons, for the carbine program. The committee also recommends $10.3 million, the full amount of the request, for M4 carbine modifications. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

M9 product improvement strategy 

The budget request contained $0.3 million for the M9 pistol program. 

The committee notes that the M9 pistol has been a reliable pistol 

with consistent and reasonable life-cycle costs. The committee understands that the development of a requirement to replace the M9 

pistol has been slowed by budget constraints and system capability 

debates over the need for a replacement. The committee is aware 

that the Marine Corps has upgraded the M9 pistol with a series 

of product improvements that has extended the life-cycle of the program and improved the weapon’s capabilities. The committee believes that the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air 

Force should consider pursuing a similar product improvement program for their respective service’s M9 pistol inventory based on the 

Marine Corps’ experience and lessons learned. The committee expects that any product improvement program be managed and executed through a full and open competitive process. 

The committee recommends $0.3 million, the full amount of the 

request, for the M9 pistol program. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.5 billion for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1.4 billion, a decrease of $74.5 million, for fiscal 

year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in division 

D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acquisition strategy for 40mm ammunition 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in procurement of 

ammunition, Army for 40mm cartridges. 

The committee is concerned that the budget request for 40mm 

ammunition may disrupt 40mm cartridge production due to the potential changes in allocation between variants of 40mm cartridges. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report by February 15, 2014 to the congressional defense 

committees that provides a five year funding estimate and annual 

production profile for each 40mm cartridge variant, detailed information on proposed new variants, estimated production quantities, 

the associated acquisition strategies, strategies to avoid potential 

production gaps or workforce disruptions, and development and 

production schedules. 

The committee recommends $55.8 million for procurement of 

40mm cartridges. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $6.5 billion for 

Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $6.4 billion, a decrease of $54.3 million, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army unmanned ground vehicle upgrades 

The committee notes that over the past 10 years, the Army has 

procured more than 5,000 unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) of 

various sizes and for numerous missions. The committee also notes 

that if modified, many of these UGVs could support engineering, 

military police, and chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear missions, as well as gives them uses in domestic support scenarios. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Army has not 

transitioned many of its UGV programs to base budget programsof-record. For example, the PackBot and Talon systems continue to 

be managed primarily through Overseas Contingency Operations 

funding outside the Army’s normal upgrade programs. The committee believes that the continued ad hoc nature of the UGV programs will not allow for proper sustainment and upgrades in the 

future. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 

Army to establish a formal acquisition program for fiscal year 2015 

to properly facilitate repair, maintenance, and upgrades of the 

Army’s UGVs. The program should comply with current Federal 

Acquisition Regulations and should be funded through budget lines 

for research, development, test, and evaluation, procurement, and 

modifications. 

Civil Support Team information management needs 

The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD CST) currently field an information management system that provides a 

common operating picture, promotes information sharing and realtime collaboration in an emergency situation, and supports the 

CST mission of assisting and advising first responders and facilitating communications with other Federal resources. The committee has noted that it believes this system should be expanded 

to follow-on forces, such as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, 

Nuclear, and High-Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package 

and Homeland Defense Response Force units. However, this has 

not yet occurred to date. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ 

Security Affairs to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed 

Services of the House of Representatives within 90 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act on the information management 

system needs of the Department of Defense WMD response forces, 

including the needs of both Active and Reserve Components. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

Criteria on the Recertification and Quantity of GEM-Ts 

The committee is aware that the Patriot Guidance Enhanced 

Missile Tactical (GEM-T) missile provides an affordable, but critical, capability within the Patriot missile family that includes a 

complementary interceptor to the Patriot Advanced Capability–3 

(PAC–3) and PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE). At approximately $0.5 million per missile, the GEM-T provides a lower 

cost option to PAC–3 when used against the same threat and can 

make possible saving the PAC–3 inventory for other threats. 

The committee encourages the Army to undertake a GEM-T recertification program when the GEM-T missile certification requires renewal in fiscal year 2015. The committee is aware GEMT recertification could provide an additional 20 years of service life 

for the GEM-T missiles the Army believes it requires for its future 

interceptor inventory. The committee believes such recertification 

could also promote interoperatibility with allies in Asia and the 

Arabian Gulf, and it could enable an interceptor mix and inventory 

that more comprehensively addresses known threats in both quantity and characteristic. 

The committee is concerned that the missile inventory, both currently maintained and planned, does not take into account the full 

range of threats facing forward deployed forces; nor does it reflect 

the fiscal constraints the Army is likely to face in both procurement 

and research & development in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than October 15, 2013, 

on current and planned missile inventories, namely GEM-T. This 

report should review the proposed inventory criteria and quantity 

of GEM-T recertification. Additionally, it should include a cost-benefit analysis, including an assessment of whether or not recertification meets an Army requirement in a cost-effective manner, to 

address the full range of threats, including short range ballistic 

missiles, as well as sustainment and procurement costs of the recertified missiles. This report should be submitted in unclassified 

form with a classified annex as necessary. 

Gunshot detection systems 

The committee believes that gunshot detection systems have 

proven to be critical part of force protection of military personnel 

in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee notes that in response to joint urgent 

operational needs, these systems were rapidly fielded, in many 

cases, for use by soldiers and marines conducting mounted and dismounted operations in OEF and OIF. The committee is aware that 

these systems proved particularly effective in the sniper detection 

mission. The committee encourages the Chief of Staff of the Army 

and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to continue to resource 

and transition gunshot detection systems to official programs of 

record in order to continue to develop, test, and field Individual, 

Vehicle, and Helicopter-borne gunshot detection systems. 

Joint Tactical Radio System Manpack radio production strategy 

The budget request contained $382.9 million in other procurement, Army for procurement of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

radios. Of this amount, $323.7 million was for procurement of 2,648 

JTRS Manpack radios. 

The committee notes that the amount of competition in the JTRS 

program has increased dramatically over the past 3 years. Specifically, the committee notes that the Army is now planning full and 

open competition for production of each element of the JTRS program, including the JTRS small airborne networking radio, the 

JTRS small airborne link 16 terminal, the mid-tier networking vehicular radio, the JTRS handheld ‘‘rifleman’’ radio, and the JTRS 

‘‘Manpack’’ radio. 

The committee also supports the Army’s efforts to create a more 

flexible radio acquisition approach that allows multiple vendors to 

offer the best available communications technology to meet Army 

requirements in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

The committee believes that such an approach may reduce cost 

through competition, and encourage private sector innovation at little or no cost to the Government. The committee notes that this approach is very different from the Army’s traditional, ‘‘winner takes 

all’’ approach to radio competitions in the past, which usually resulted in a sole-source, multi-decade contract arrangements. 

The committee notes with concern, however, that the Army still 

has not provided the congressional defense committees formal acquisition strategies that would document the planned awards for 

JTRS radios. The committee understands that in the case of the 

Manpack radio the Army may award a single vendor a 5-year contract for full rate production. While such a strategy does provide 

incentive for manufacturers to reduce radio prices, the committee 

believes that such an award could discourage losing vendors from 

competing again in the future. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to consider alternative JTRS Manpack acquisition 

strategies that would maintain two or more vendors in full rate 

production for no more than 3 years before the next round of competition if the business case analysis is in the best interest to the 

warfighter and taxpayer. Such a strategy could balance the need to 

maintain efficient and cost effective radio production with continued competition and technology improvement. 

While the committee continues to support full and open competition for tactical radio systems, the committee also cautions the 

Army against sacrificing critical warfighter requirements to include 

size, weight, security protocols and life cycle cost of radios. The 

burden of winning any competition should fall on the manufacturer 

which must offer a proposal that is compliant with the Army’s stated requirements. In addition, the committee encourages the Army 

to avoid procuring tactical radio systems that operate on proprietary waveforms, have not been tested by the Director, Operational 

Test and Evaluation, and that have not been or are not procured 

through full and open competition. 

The committee recommends $382.9 million, the full amount of 

the request, for JTRS radios. 

Patriot Modernization Costs 

The committee notes that the Army’s Air and Missile Defense 

Strategy signed in September 2012 by the Secretary of the Army 

and Chief of Staff acknowledge that current Air and Missile DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

fense forces must be transformed due proliferated ballistic missiles 

growing in sophistication and growing threats from cruise missiles 

and unmanned aerial systems. Furthermore, the strategy reaffirms 

the need for 360-degree surveillance and fire control, a smaller and 

more expeditionary force, and integration of networked sensors and 

weapons. The strategy also stresses the need for modem, modular 

open architectures and admits that the Army’s ability to defeat 

missile threats is complicated by the decision not to procure the 

Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS). 

The committee is concerned that the alternatively proposed Patriot 30-year strategic modernization strategy is a significant expense, does not sufficiently address acknowledged air and missile 

defense capability gaps and includes no discernible intent to harvest the flight tested, modem, technically mature 360-degree sensors, 360-degree lightweight launchers, and battle manager software developed under MEADS, for which the US taxpayer has expended in excess of $2.4 billion. The draft Patriot modernization 

strategy proposes spending in excess of $1.0 billion over the next 

5 years mostly on sole-source contracts, while deferring development and fielding of expeditionary 360-degree capability until 

2029–2034. 

Due to declining defense budgets, and consistent with the Department’s better buying power initiatives, the committee therefore 

believes it is premature to commit to the Patriot modernization 

strategy without a comprehensive and independent life cycle cost 

analysis of the Patriot 30-year modernization strategy. 

The committee directs the Congressional Budget Office to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees not later than November 30, 2013, on an analysis of the estimated development and 

procurement costs associated with the Patriot modernization including integration activities to enable network operations and 

testing. Such analysis shall also include estimates of: 

(1) Unit Level Personnel: The direct costs of all operator, 

maintenance, and other support personnel at operating units 

(or at maintenance and support units that are organizationally 

related and adjacent to the operating units); 

(2) Unit Operations: The unit level consumption costs of operating materials such as fuel, electricity, expendable stores, 

training munitions, and other operating materials. Also to be 

included are costs of any unit-funded support activities, training devices, or simulator operations that uniquely support an 

operational unit, temporary additional duty/temporary duty associated with the unit’s normal concept of operations, and 

other unit-funded services; 

(3) Maintenance: The costs of labor (outside of the scope of 

unit level) and materials at all levels of maintenance in support of the primary system, simulators, training devices, and 

associated support equipment (this includes intermediate 

maintenance, depot support, and contractor support). Additionally, the cost of contractor labor, materials, and overhead incurred in providing all or part of the logistics support to a 

weapon system; 

(4) Sustaining Support: Costs for support services provided 

by centrally managed support activities external to the units 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

that own the operating systems and that can be identified to 

a specific system (excludes costs that must be arbitrarily allocated); 

(5) Continuing System Improvements: The costs of hardware 

and software updates that occur after deployment of a system 

that improve the system’s safety, reliability, maintainability, or 

performance characteristics to enable the system to meet its 

basic operational requirements throughout its life. (Costs for 

system improvement identified as part of the acquisition strategy or a pre-planned product improvement program and included in the acquisition cost estimate are not included. Also, 

any improvements of sufficient dollar value that would qualify 

as distinct major defense acquisition programs are not included.); and 

(6) Indirect Support: Installation and personnel support costs 

that cannot be directly related to the units and personnel that 

operate and support the system being analyzed. 

Personal protection equipment acquisition strategy 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to reconsider 

its acquisition process for personal protection equipment (PPE), to 

include body armor. Given the warfighter’s experiences during operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee notes that PPE, in particular body armor, 

constitutes an essential part of ‘‘warfighter equipment;’’ and therefore, it should be treated differently than other, more prosaic 

consumables, such as socks and undershirts, that are included in 

the Defense Logistics Agency operation and maintenance (O&M) 

accounts. 

The committee encourages the Department to consider adhering 

to ‘‘best value’’ performance standards in soliciting and evaluating 

proposals for PPE contracts rather than using lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) contract vehicles. The committee believes 

that categorizing PPE as ‘‘O&M’’ may decrease commercial interest 

in pursuing long-term commitments to developing next-generation 

PPE technology that could increase capability while also decreasing 

weight. The committee also notes that previous national defense 

authorization acts have directed the Department to establish dedicated research, development, test, and evaluation and procurement 

line items for body armor. The committee is disappointed that the 

Department has not sufficiently implemented congressional direction regarding this matter. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $17.9 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $18.0 billion, an increase of $30.0 million, for fiscal 

year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

Items of Special Interest 

F/A–18E/F advance procurement 

The budget request contained no funds for advance procurement 

of F/A–18E/F aircraft. The F/A–18E/F is a naval strike fighter aircraft designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy’s strike 

fighter shortfall forecast has decreased from last year’s predicted 

56 aircraft in fiscal year 2025 to a prediction of 18 aircraft in fiscal 

year 2023 for fiscal year 2014. However, the committee understands that these revised shortfall numbers are based on a decreased projected rate of F/A–18 utilization, successful high flight 

hour inspections on the fleet of F/A–18A through F/A–18D aircraft 

that would extend their useful flight hours to 9,000, and a service 

life extension program for 150 F/A–18A through D aircraft that 

would extend the useful flight hours of those aircraft to 10,000. The 

committee further notes that the Department of the Navy considers 

its plan to maintain the required strike fighter inventory with 

some risk, and the committee believes that a fiscal year 2015 procurement of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft, which have a useful life 

of 9,000 hours, would reduce the Department of the Navy’s risk in 

maintaining the required inventory of strike fighter aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million for advance procurement of F/A–18E/F aircraft and encourages 

the Department of the Navy to budget for 24 additional F/A–18E/ 

F aircraft in fiscal year 2015. 

MQ–8 Fire Scout 

The budget request contained $48.7 million for MQ–8 research, 

development, test and evaluation, and $61.0 million for the procurement of one MQ–8 Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV). 

The MQ–8 Fire Scout VTUAV provides real-time and non-real 

time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data to 

tactical users without the use of manned aircraft or reliance on 

limited theater or national assets. The committee understands that 

the MQ–8 has successfully flown over 4,187 hours in support of the 

Afghanistan ISR Task Force and that MQ–8 maritime ISR support 

to special operations forces continues aboard the USS Bradley and 

USS Roberts in fiscal year 2013. The committee also understands 

that future weapons and radar capabilities are being integrated 

into the MQ–8 to meet U.S. Central Command Naval Component 

urgent operational needs. Additionally, the committee notes that 

the Department of the Navy plans to procure 34 MQ–8 VTUAVs 

between fiscal years 2012–18 to support U.S. Africa Command joint 

emergent operational needs. 

The committee views the MQ–8 VTUAV as a critical ISR asset 

and encourages the Department of the Navy to fully execute its fiscal year 2014 and Future Years Defense Program plans for procurement and development of the MQ–8. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $3.1 billion for 

Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $3.1 billion, a decrease of $14.1 million, for fiscal year 

2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $589.3 million 

for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $589.3 million, no change to 

the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are 

identified in division D of this Act. 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $14.0 billion 

for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $15.0 billion, an increase of $934.3 million, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in division 

D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air and Missile Defense Radar deployment on naval vessels 

The Navy has reported that the Air and Missile Defense Radar 

(AMDR) suite is being developed to fulfill Integrated Air and Missile Defense requirements for multiple ship classes. This suite consists of an S-band radar (AMDR-S), an X-band radar and a Radar 

Suite Controller. AMDR would provide multi-mission capabilities, 

simultaneously supporting long-range, exoatmospheric detection, 

tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles, as well as Area 

and Self Defense against air and surface threats. For the ballistic 

missile defense capability, increased radar sensitivity and bandwidth over current radar systems are needed to detect, track, and 

support engagements of advanced ballistic missile threats at the required ranges, concurrent with Area and Self Defense against Air 

and Surface threats. For the Area Air Defense and Self Defense capability, increased sensitivity and clutter capability is needed to detect, react to, and engage stressing Very Low Observable/Very Low 

Flyer threats in the presence of heavy land, sea, and rain clutter. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

According to the Government Accountability Office report ‘‘Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs’’ (GAO–13–294SP) from 

March 2013, ‘‘the Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR 

on Flight III DDG 51s starting in 2019. According to draft AMDR 

documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold requirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet the 

Navy’s desired integrated air and missile defense needs.’’ 

The committee supports the continued development of the AMDR 

capability, but is concerned about the physical limitations associated with the future deployment of this capability on the Arleigh 

Burke-class Destroyer Flight III. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by March 1, 2014, that addresses the following: 

(1) The capability requirements associated with the AMDR; 

(2) Required space, cooling and electrical distribution upgrades necessary to support AMDR on the Arleigh Burke-class 

Destroyer Flight III; 

(3) An assessment as to whether the limitations associated 

with the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Flight III will negatively impact the deployment on AMDR; 

(4) An assessment of the deployment of AMDR on other 

naval platforms including the San Antonio-class Amphibious 

Transport Dock; and 

(5) An assessment of the expansion capacity of the Arleigh 

Burke-class Destroyer Flight III to support further spiral development associated with future weapons. 

Joint High Speed Vessel report 

According to the Navy’s fiscal year 2014 budget documentation, 

the Joint High Speed Vessel is being procured as an intra-theater 

sealift asset. However, the committee has observed growing indications from Department of the Navy leadership that the Joint High 

Speed Vessel will serve as much more than a troop transport vessel. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than March 1, 2014, on the following items: 

(1) A complete list of existing required operational capabilities for the JHSV approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC); 

(2) The number of vessels to be allocated to each combatant 

commander area of responsibility under that plan; 

(3) The overseas basing plan to fulfill combatant commander 

requirements and how dispersal of the vessels will affect each 

of the JROC-approved operational capability requirements; and 

(4) An assessment of the future options for additional missions to be fulfilled by the Joint High Speed Vessel and their 

operational benefits to include the following missions: mine 

countermeasure operations; joint task force command and control; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; counter-piracy operations; counter-drug operations; and counter-smuggling operations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

Littoral Combat Ship radar capabilities 

The committee is concerned that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 

radars are not being optimally used to provide maximum protection. The USS Independence variant’s radar can rapidly and accurately detect and track small, fast-moving targets at all altitudes; 

small surface targets in severe clutter; and rockets, artillery, and 

mortars launched from shore-based threats. The radar also can 

perform air and surface surveillance, target identification for weapon systems, and high-resolution splash spotting. The radar has successfully demonstrated simultaneous detection and tracking of air, 

surface (swarming small boats) and mortar targets in the world’s 

most challenging littoral environments. To ensure that the LCS 

program fully leverages the various capabilities of its modern radar 

technologies to protect this new class of ship, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to fully utilize the capabilities provided by the current LCS radar suite and ensure that the 

embarked crew is fully trained on the radar’s capabilities. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, 

on the steps the Navy has taken to enhance LCS sailors’ training 

on the radar’s full range of capabilities. 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) oversight 

The committee notes the Navy plans to acquire 52 Littoral Combat Ship seaframes and 64 mission packages at a cost of approximately $40.0 billion through 2035. Littoral Combat Ships 1–16 are 

under contract, and Littoral Combat Ships 17–24 are pending authorization. The committee further notes that the Navy’s acquisition strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship seaframes has changed 

several times and continues to evolve as the Navy approaches its 

next major planned contract award in fiscal year 2016. The Navy 

has indicated that 10 of the 64 planned mission modules will be 

procured before the seaframe Milestone B and that this milestone 

continues to be delayed due to lack of an approved test plan and 

acquisition program baseline. The Navy expects to procure more 

than half of the Surface Warfare and Mine Counter Measure modules before it demonstrates they meet minimum requirements. The 

committee has significant concerns regarding the levels of concurrency associated with the mission modules and the expected delivery of the Littoral Combat Ship seaframes. This dichotomy in capability development appears excessive and the committee believes 

it should be better aligned to ensure future success of this program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 2014 on the current status of the Littoral 

Combat Ship program. This report should assess the following: 

(1) Seaframe production and testing, including: (a) Seaframe 

developmental test activities and changes made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; (b) Weight management for both seaframe variants; (c) Planned Navy surrogate 

damage and survivability tests using aluminum structures; (d) 

Progress made in implementing commonality across both 

variants; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

(2) Mission module development and testing, including developmental test activities and changes made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to date; 

(3) Lessons learned and knowledge gained to date from the 

Singapore deployment; 

(4) Results of Navy technical and requirements studies and 

any recommendations for changes to the design and/or capabilities of either current or future LCS; 

(5) Navy studies, assessments, or potential plans to acquire 

the Joint High Speed Vessel to operate in conjunction with 

LCS or perform similar missions; and 

(6) Role of LCS Council in acquisition oversight and decisionmaking. 

Long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels 

Pursuant to section 231 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense provided the annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels on May 10, 2013, as informed by the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for fiscal years 2014–18. The 

Secretary also indicated that a force structure of ‘‘about 300 ships’’ 

would be necessary to support ongoing naval operations. The Secretary further highlights the ‘‘resourcing challenges outside the 

FYDP largely due to investment requirements associated with the 

SSBN(X) program’’. The Secretary acknowledges that these ship 

construction pressures will precipitate higher fiscal requirements 

in the mid-term planning period (fiscal years 2024–33) requiring an 

annual investment of $19.8 billion per year in fiscal year 2013 constant dollars. 

The committee supports a robust shipbuilding plan that invests 

in the near and long term needs of our Navy, and considers the recapitalization of the SSBN fleet a challenging but necessary strategic priority. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy’s 

ship construction accounts will face significant pressure in supporting long term ship requirements while also resourcing the 

Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine program. The 

committee also believes that a significant increase to the ship construction accounts is unsustainable in times of budget challenges. 

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the average 

ship construction investment over the last 30 years, in current dollars, is $16.0 billion. Therefore, to better understand the significance associated with even sustaining the current ship construction 

investment throughout the long-range plan, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committee by March 1, 2014, that provides an update to 

the long plan for the construction of naval vessels based on $16.0 

billion across the entirety of the long-range plan and to assess the 

corresponding reductions in the shipbuilding plan. The Secretary of 

the Navy should also provide an assessment of this investment in 

terms of the health associated with the industrial base, as well as 

a discussion of alternative strategies for the Navy and Congress to 

consider in alleviating any shortfalls between this assessment and 

the May 10 report. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

Navy Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) modernization 

The committee is aware of a backlog of overhauls and reliability, 

maintainability, and availability, (RMA) kits for ship self-defense 

systems including the Navy’s Close-in Weapon System (CIWS). The 

committee is aware that CIWS is a last line of defense against missiles, rockets and mortars for the preponderance of naval vessels 

including cruisers, destroyers, and aircraft carriers. The committee 

also remains concerned about credible threats posed to sailors and 

marines that rely on these systems for protection in a time of 

heightened operational tempo. The committee directs the Secretary 

of the Navy to deliver a briefing no later than December 31, 2013 

to the House Armed Services Committee which details the current 

situation pertaining to overhauls and RMA kits and efforts address 

the backlog of these systems. 

Navy fleet oilers 

The committee understands that most of the Navy’s current fleet 

oilers are single-hulled, and in 2010, the Navy announced plans to 

recapitalize fleet oilers with construction of modern, double-hulled 

ships while leveraging commercial technologies. While the Navy 

announced plans to start procurement of the new TAO(X) oilerclass in fiscal year 2014, the Navy’s fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 

2014 budgets have postponed procurement of the TAO(X) fleet oiler 

until fiscal year 2016. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Navy budget plans 

show no Advance Procurement (AP) funding in fiscal year 2014 or 

fiscal year 2015 toward long lead-time material and components for 

the first TAO(X), and budget plans reflect a gap year between procurement of the first and second ships. Both actions, unless addressed, are likely to lead to higher costs and delayed delivery of 

required TAO(X) ships. The committee encourages the Navy and 

the Department of Defense to allocate fiscal year 2015 funds for AP 

of long-lead time material and components for the first TAO(X) 

ship in fiscal year 2016 and to look for ways to eliminate the gap 

year between first and second ships. 

Use of fixed-price incentive fee contracts for ship construction contracts 

The Navy has a history of moving from cost-plus to fixed-price 

incentive fee (FPIF) contracts after acquiring the first few ships of 

the class. While fixed-price contracts are generally less risky for 

the U.S. Government, the committee is concerned about continued 

cost growth under the FPIF contracts. FPIF contracts are intended 

to allow the U.S. Government to acquire needed items at lower 

costs, and with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee to the contractor’s performance. 

In particular, two specific intended outcomes of using incentive 

contracts are to motivate contractor efforts and to discourage contractor inefficiency and waste. The committee is particularly interested in understanding whether the Navy’s use of FPIF contracts 

for shipbuilding are achieving the intended benefits to the U.S. 

Government. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, that assesses the following: 

(1) To what extent has the Navy entered into FPIF contracts 

for shipbuilding over the past 5-years? To what extent have 

other contract types been used, including firm-fixed-price? 

(2) What factors does the Navy consider in making decisions 

about contract type for shipbuilding programs, and what is the 

role of the program office, contracting officer, and others in 

these decisions? 

(3) For selected recent shipbuilding acquisitions, how has 

risk been apportioned between the government and the contractor in FPIF contract sharelines? Practically speaking, how 

has the risk apportionment compared to that under a cost-plus 

incentive fee contract? 

(4) Have the Navy’s FPIF contracts served, as intended, to 

motivate shipbuilding contractors to improve performance and 

reduce inefficiencies? What visibility does the Navy have into 

these intended outcomes? 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $6.3 billion for 

Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $6.2 billion, a decrease of $26.2 million, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act. 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $1.3 billion for 

Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $1.3 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal 

year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D of 

this Act. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $11.4 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $11.7 billion, an increase of $310.2 million, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

Items of Special Interest 

A–10 oxygen delivery systems modernization 

The budget request contained $47.6 million for A–10 aircraft 

modifications. 

The committee supports ongoing modernization of A–10 oxygen 

delivery systems with On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems 

(OBOGS). The committee notes that liquid oxygen-based systems 

are manpower intensive and require significant maintenance and 

support equipment. The committee is also concerned that the Air 

Force, at times, must rely upon foreign sources of liquid oxygen 

when A–10 aircraft are deployed. The committee understands that 

retrofitting the remaining A–10 aircraft within the Active Duty and 

Reserve Components that have yet to be modernized with OBOGS 

could produce significant cost savings over the service life of the 

aircraft. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to continue conversion of liquid oxygen-based systems to OBOGS in the 

A–10 fleet. 

The committee recommends $47.6 million, the full amount of the 

request, for A–10 aircraft modifications. 

B–52 Bomber modernization programs 

The budget request contains $12.6 million in PE 101113F for B– 

52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) development and $87.2 million for B–52 CONECT procurement of 10 

kits, but no funds for the B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement (SRR) 

program. 

The B–52 SRR program replaces the current B–52 fielded in the 

1960s and then upgraded in the 1970s and 1980s. Although modified several times, it has never been totally replaced, and several 

parts of the system remain from the original design, such as the 

antenna reflector, feed, and casting. Although sustainable through 

the current service life of the B–52, the legacy radar system meantime-between-failure continues to degrade and sustainment costs 

are expected to significantly increase after 2017. The SRR program 

is a radar replacement program that may take advantage of the advanced capabilities of modern non-developmental radars, maximizing commonality with other platforms. The B–52 SRR program 

would integrate, test, and field a modern radar system, which supports all weather targeting and navigation to support the requirements of keeping the B–52 combat capable for its extended service 

life. However, the SRR program was terminated in the budget request for fiscal year 2013 due to Air Force budget constraints and 

the need to fund other, higher priorities. Although the committee 

understands that affordability concerns was the primary driver for 

the SRR program termination, it is unclear to the committee how 

the Secretary of the Air Force intends to afford the legacy radar 

system knowing that sustainment costs are predicted to significantly increase after 2017. The committee encourages the Secretary 

of the Air Force to develop and implement an affordability strategy 

for maintaining radar capability on the B–52 aircraft through its 

predicted service-life of 2040 and to communicate that strategy to 

the congressional defense committees soon after the affordability 

strategy is developed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

Regarding the previously terminated B–52 CONECT program in 

the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the committee supports the 

Secretary’s decision reinstating the program in the fiscal year 2014 

budget request. However, the committee is concerned with the current plan to only fund and modernize 28 of 76 total aircraft with 

CONECT capability. The committee reminds the Secretary that 

section 137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requires the Secretary to maintain 

all B–52 aircraft in a common capability configuration. Realizing 

that the committee in the future may have to address not retaining 

the nuclear capability for a certain number of B–52 in order to 

comply with New START requirements, the committee intends to 

provide no flexibility for not maintaining B–52 aircraft in a common conventional capability configuration. A dissimilar capability 

configuration adds complexity to supply chain management, aircrew certification, training and employment, and would inherently 

complicate combatant commander operational planning and execution by having to account for dissimilar aircraft capabilities. 

Battlefield airborne communications node 

The committee notes that the battlefield airborne communications node (BACN) system was initially developed to meet an urgent warfighter need. The committee further notes that since its 

fielding, BACN has provided critical communications and information sharing capability between different tactical data and voice 

networks in support of operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee believes that the 

BACN is a needed capability for the future and encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue its effort to transition the 

BACN to a traditional program of record in fiscal year 2015. 

C–130H Avionics and Propulsion System Modernization and Upgrade Programs 

The budget request contained no funds for continuing low rate 

initial production of the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program 

(AMP) for C–130H aircraft and $0.4 million in PE 401115F for C– 

130 airlift squadrons, but no funds for C–130H propulsion system 

upgrades. 

The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Air 

Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars for engineering, manufacturing, development, and testing of the C–130 AMP 

program and has entered Low Rate Initial Production, but has no 

plans to continue procurement and installation of C–130 AMP onto 

legacy C–130H aircraft. The Secretary also has no plans to modernize or upgrade the C–130H propulsion system in order to increase reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing time of the 

engine, as well as decrease the overall cost and maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The Secretary has not articulated to the committee a coherent plan for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C–130H fleet or how they plan to maintain mediumsized intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the 

Active and Reserve Components. Knowing that the majority of the 

C–130H fleet resides within the Reserve Components of the Air 

Force and that the C–130H should remain reliable, capable, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

relevant to meeting current and future warfighter needs, the committee is concerned with the lack of initiative that the Secretary 

has taken with regard to the modernization and upgrade of C– 

130H aircraft. The committee also notes that through cost reduction initiatives and efficiencies gained in the C–130 AMP program 

over the past year, the cost data that the Secretary used as justification for canceling the C–130 AMP program in the budget request is no longer relevant. Therefore, the committee recommends $26.4 million, an increase 

of $26.0 million, in PE 401115F for C–130H propulsion system propeller upgrades; $74.3 million, an increase of $15.7 million, for C– 

130H propulsion system engine upgrades; and $47.3 million, an increase of $47.3 million, for continued procurement of 8 C–130 AMP 

kits and installation onto C–130H aircraft. Elsewhere in this title, 

the committee includes a provision that would preserve the nearly 

$1.5 billion taxpayer investment in the C–130 AMP program and 

would prohibit the Secretary from canceling the C–130 AMP program. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to immediately obligate authorized appropriations provided in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 to preserve the cost reduction 

initiatives and efficiencies gained in the C–130 AMP program over 

the past year. 

Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft 

The budget request contained $202.5 million in aircraft procurement, Air Force and research, development, test and evaluation, 

Air Force, for development and upgrade of Global Hawk unmanned 

aircraft. The budget request also contained $22.2 million in operation and maintenance, Air Force, for continued operation of Global 

Hawk unmanned aircraft. 

In section 154 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), Congress prohibited the proposed retirement of Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aircraft 

while also mandating their continued operations through 2014 to 

meet combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013, the committee stated that this legislation was based on 

the committee’s desire to maintain ISR capability to meet ever-increasing combatant command ISR needs, avoid the retirement of 

brand new aircraft procured at a cost of more than $100.0 million 

each, and support the Department of Defense’s new strategy that 

requires long-duration, long-range ISR assets. The committee believes that even after the war in the Republic of Iraq and transition 

to a reduced U.S. military presence in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, long-range ISR aircraft will be in more demand, not 

less. The committee notes that as the number of Global Hawk missions in Afghanistan has declined missions in support of U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Pacific Command 

have increased. The committee believes that this is due to ongoing 

and growing demand for ISR of all kinds. 

While the committee was pleased to see that the Air Force did 

request funding for Global Hawk Block 30 operations in the budget 

request for fiscal year 2014, the committee remains concerned that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

the Air Force is not fully committed to retaining much needed ISR 

capability, and Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft in particular. As a 

result, the committee supports further extending Global Hawk operations through 2016 and expects the Air Force to maintain Global Hawk operations and support infrastructure, including active 

duty and reserve units, through at least this timeframe. Additionally, consistent with its position for fiscal year 2013, the committee 

expects the Secretary of the Air Force to fully execute the fiscal 

year 2012 Global Hawk Block 30 program, including the procurement of 3 additional aircraft, in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) 

and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112– 

74). 

MQ–9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft 

The budget request contained $272.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for procurement of 12 MQ–9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) systems and $45.3 million for initial spares 

and repair parts for MQ–9 Reapers. The budget request also contained $30.0 million in research, development, test, and evaluation, 

Air Force, for the extended range capability for MQ–9 Reapers. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239) authorized procurement of 36 new MQ–9 

Reapers and associated ground equipment in an effort to accelerate 

fielding of the upgraded Block 5 version of the MQ–9 Reaper and 

meet the Air Force’s objective for increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. This represented an increase of 12 aircraft above the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The 

committee is concerned, however, that in response to this action, 

the Air Force chose to reduce the number of MQ–9 Reaper aircraft 

in the budget request for fiscal year 2014 from 24 to 12 aircraft. 

The committee believes that the Air Force must continue to aggressively invest in ISR aircraft. The committee notes that even 

when the Air Force achieves its current goal of supporting 65 combat air patrols of MQ–1 Predator and MQ–9 Reaper RPAs, there 

will be significant unmet demand for ISR capability worldwide. 

While the committee understands the Air Force’s desire to transition away from RPAs that are only capable of operating in permissive threat environments, it believes that the daily demand for 

both traditional ISR and strike missions in support of global 

counter-terrorism operations will not decline for many years. Furthermore, the Air Force’s efforts to increase the operational range 

and endurance of the baseline MQ–9 Reaper will expand their utility (when accounting for basing constraints) and further increase 

demand for these platforms. Finally, the committee seeks to sustain the industrial base for remotely piloted aircraft to ensure that 

it will be available to build the next generation of RPA systems. 

The committee recommends $352.2 million, an increase of $80.0 

million, in aircraft procurement, Air Force for procurement of 18 

MQ–9 Reaper RPA systems. The committee also recommends $56.3 

million, an increase of $11.0 million, in aircraft procurement, Air 

Force, for initial spares and repair parts for these aircraft. The 

committee expects the Air Force to place all of the funding provided 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

on contract for new MQ–9 aircraft and associated ground equipment during fiscal year 2014. 

Upgraded ejection seats 

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of 

upgraded ejection seats for B–2 and F–16 aircraft. 

The committee understands that aircraft aging and heavy operations tempo have produced fatigue and corrosion in legacy ejection 

seat designs which were designed and procured by the Department 

of the Air Force in the mid-1970s. The committee further understands that the incorporation of modern helmet mounted displays 

creates significant risk to pilot survival during high speed ejections 

because the aerodynamic forces of high-speed ejections could lift 

the modern helmet off the pilot and generate high neck tension 

loads. Today’s state-of-the-art upgraded ejection seats can effectively address these risks while at the same time providing significantly improved ease of maintenance and increased aircraft availability. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of the Air 

Force to begin replacing the 1970s-designed ejection seats equipped 

in most legacy fighter and bomber aircraft with a low cost approach 

that would emphasize a form, fit, and function solution requiring 

minimal qualification in legacy Department of the Air Force aircraft. The committee believes that minimizing sustainment lifecycle costs through commonality with currently-fielded components 

should also be included as a prime determinant in selecting the upgraded ejection seat, and that the B–2 and the F–16 aircraft, which 

would require the least effort toward flight-worthy qualification of 

a new ejection seat, should be given upgrade priority. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $759.4 million 

for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $759.4 million, no change to the budget 

request, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $5.3 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $5.3 billion, a decrease of $0.7 million, for fiscal year 

2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $16.8 billion 

for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $16.8 billion, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this 

Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers for the Air 

National Guard 

The budget request contained no funds for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Squadron Operations Centers (RSOC) for the Air National 

Guard. 

The committee notes that the Air Force fiscal year 2013 force 

structure changes approved by the committee included plans to create numerous MQ–1 and MQ–9 remotely piloted aircraft remotesplit operations and targeting squadrons in the Air National 

Guard. However, the committee notes with concern that the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public 

Law 113–6) did not include sufficient funding to begin acquiring 

the ground-based equipment necessary to stand up these units. 

Specifically, the committee understands that to reach full capability these units will need fully modernized RSOCs, and that the 

infrastructure provided by the RSOC supports hosting up to five 

ground control stations, intelligence analysts, weather personnel, 

and other critical personnel required for full operations. 

The committee encourages the Air Force, starting by the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request, to fully fund RSOC and other equipment 

required to stand up fully modernized Air National Guard MQ–1 

and MQ–9 remote-split operations and targeting units. 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $4.5 billion for 

Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $4.6 billion, an increase of $107.0 million, for fiscal year 

2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D of 

this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Concurrent fielding of equipment for the Army National Guard and 

Air National Guard 

The budget request contained $2.7 billion for National Guard 

equipment modernization. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

The National Guard and Reserve Components are no longer considered a ‘‘strategic reserve,’’ and are now regarded as an ‘‘operational’’ force. Since September 2001, over 860,000 members of the 

National Guard and Reserve Components have been mobilized and 

served on Active Duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation 

New Dawn, of whom over 900 have been killed in action. Domestically, over 50,000 members of the National Guard responded to 

Hurricane Katrina and, more recently, more than 7,000 members 

of the National Guard and Reserve Components mobilized in support of Hurricane Sandy. 

Recognizing the importance of an operational reserve force and 

the imperative to equip the National Guard and Reserve Components with modernized equipment, in recent years, the committee 

authorized funding for additional equipment for the Reserve Components to address chronic shortfalls in Army National Guard 

(ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG) equipment inventories. 

Since 2007, Congress has provided approximately $9.2 billion in 

the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account to address 

this issue, in addition to other targeted funding increases. As a result of these funding increases and sustained investment in the 

ARNG and ANG, both components are currently at historic highs 

in terms of equipment-on-hand, with the ARNG at 87 percent and 

the ANG at 91 percent. 

However, the committee notes that some of the equipment counted as on-hand is substitute or less-capable versions of the required 

equipment. The committee acknowledges that the National Guard 

faces mounting challenges regarding how to replace worn out 

equipment, legacy equipment that is becoming obsolete or irrelevant, and equipment that is aging through normal wear-and-tear. 

In addition, long-term gaps in funding remain. The ‘‘National 

Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for Fiscal Year 2014’’ identified an almost $29.7 billion shortfall for the ARNG for fully modernized equipment, approximately 26.6 percent of the total requirement. The report also found a $8.8 billion shortfall for the ANG for 

fully modernized equipment, which is 14.5 percent of the total requirement. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these 

shortfalls may not be addressed based on current Army and Air 

Force procurement and fielding plans. For example, the committee 

understands that plans for fielding major weapons systems for the 

ANG, including the F–35 aircraft, remain far in the future. For the 

ARNG, fielding of the UH–60M and CH–47F helicopters are 

planned to stretch out over several decades. 

The committee recommends that the Army and the Air Force reexamine their funding and fielding plans for all National Guard 

equipment procurement and that they re-balance those plans to 

provide the ARNG and the ANG with new equipment concurrent 

with fielding to Active Duty units. The committee believes that 

using the National Guard as an operational force, with planned rotations and mobilizations, makes it imperative that National Guard 

units be provided the necessary resources to man, equip, sustain, 

and train. 

The committee recommends $2.7 billion, the full amount requested, for National Guard equipment modernization. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund 

The budget request contained $98.8 million for the Joint Urgent 

Operational Needs (JUON) Fund. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services 

have established a number of organizations and programs to respond to requests from units in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), units 

supporting other combatant commands, and from combatant commanders to rapidly develop and field solutions to a variety of capabilities, including development and transition of new technologies 

to the warfighter; support for Joint Experimentation Range Complexes; counter-improvised explosive detection and destroy; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensors and systems. 

The committee notes each of these programs requests amounts for 

unspecified purposes for hundreds of projects in anticipation of requests from OEF units, other units in other combatant commands, 

and combatant commanders. The committee believes that this request lacks proper justification and is duplicative with other requests for rapid acquisition capabilities to address urgent operational needs. 

The committee appreciates that the Department of Defense must 

find ways to rapidly fund urgent needs to address near-term and 

high-risk scenarios. As such, Congress provided the Department 

with Rapid Acquisition Authority in section 806(c) of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314), as amended by section 811 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375) and section 803 of the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111– 

383) which provides the Secretary of Defense $200.0 million in authority, per fiscal year, to waive any statute hindering quick response to immediate warfighter capability requirements in response to combat fatalities. The committee understands the Department has rarely used this authority. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $98.8 million, 

for the JUON Fund. 

Multiyear procurement authority for ground-based interceptors 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision concerning authority for the Director, Missile Defense Agency to enter 

into 1 or more multiyear contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2014, 

for the procurement of 14 ground-based interceptors and authority 

for advanced procurement associated with these ground-based 

interceptors. 

The committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office has 

estimated that this provision would result in savings of 10 percent 

for the Department of Defense on the price of a ground-based interceptor, and that buying these interceptors under the current Missile Defense Agency plan of 14 interceptors under 7 annual contracts of 2 per-year would cost about $200.0 million more than a 

single multiyear contract. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 101—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize appropriations for Procurement at 

the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Stryker 

Vehicle Program 

This section would limit the obligation of procurement funds of 

the Stryker program to not more than 75 percent of the fiscal year 

2014 requested amount until the Secretary of the Army submits to 

the congressional defense committees a report on the Stryker vehicle spare parts inventory. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2D Aircraft 

Program 

This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to procure 

up to 32 E–2D aircraft utilizing multiyear procurement authority 

for fiscal years 2014–18. 

Section 122—Cost Limitation for CVN–78 Aircraft Carriers 

This section would amend the statutory cost cap for the aircraft 

carrier designated as CVN–78 that was imposed by subsection 

(a)(1) of section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). The cost cap 

for CVN–78 is currently $11.755 billion, having been adjusted by 

the Secretary of the Navy in 2010 using the authority granted by 

subsection (b) of section 122 of Public Law 109–364. This section 

would raise the cost cap to the Program Manager’s most likely Estimate at Completion, as reported in the 2011 Selected Acquisition 

Report, to $12.9 billion. This section would also update the cost cap 

associated with CVN–79 and later Ford-class aircraft carriers. 

The committee notes the receipt of a report to Congress required 

by section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) that provides cost-saving details 

that the Navy intends to incorporate into the acquisition strategy 

to provide better cost stability in CVN–78 and eventual incorporation into CVN–79 procurement process. 

The committee remains concerned about the continued escalation 

in costs associated with Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier and 

the negative consequences associated with this continued escalation 

on the entirety of the ship construction accounts. This escalation, 

when taken in the context of the 30-year shipbuilding plan that includes significant costs associated with the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement, is unsustainable. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Multiple 

Variants of the C–130J Aircraft Program 

This section would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to procure multiple variants of the C–130J baseline aircraft utilizing 

multiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2014–18. 

Section 132—Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of 

Avionics Modernization Program for C–130 Aircraft 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from 

terminating the legacy C–130H Avionics Modernization Program. 

Section 133—Retirement of KC–135R Aircraft 

This section would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to remove KC–135E aerial refueling aircraft from flyable storage, which 

would permit the Secretary to utilize parts and components of retired KC–135E aircraft to enter the supply chain for maintaining 

and sustaining KC–135R aerial refueling aircraft. This section 

would also require the Secretary to maintain any retired KC–135R 

aircraft in a flyable condition that would permit recall to active flying service in the Department of the Air Force. This section would 

also permit the Secretary of the Air Force, on a ‘‘one-for-one’’ basis, 

to remove KC–135R aircraft from the flyable storage requirement 

for each new KC–46A aircraft delivered to the Department of the 

Air Force. 

Section 134—Competition for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

Providers 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a plan to ensure the fair evaluation of competing contractors in awarding a contract to a certified evolved expendable launch vehicle provider. This plan would include descriptions of how the following areas would be addressed in the evaluation: the proposed cost, schedule, and performance; mission assurance activities; the manner in which the contractor will operate 

under the Federal Acquisition Regulation; the effect of other contracts in which the contractor is entered into with the Federal Government, such as the evolved expendable launch vehicle launch capability and the space station commercial resupply services contracts; and any other areas determined appropriate by the Secretary. 

This section would also require that the Secretary submit a report to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that includes the aforementioned plan or provide 

a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees on the plan. 

After the Secretary provides the report or briefing to Congress, the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of 

the plan. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

SUBTITLE E—DEFENSE-WIDE, JOINT, AND MULTISERVICE MATTERS

Section 141—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Ground-based 

Interceptors 

The section would provide the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

with authority to enter into 1 or more multiyear contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2014, for the procurement of 14 ground-based 

interceptors. This section would also provide authority for advanced procurement associated with these ground-based interceptors. This section would also require that such contracts include a 

requirement that they be subject to the availability of appropriation for these purposes. 

Section 142—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical 

Wheeled Vehicles 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter 

into a 5-year pilot program for the multiyear procurement of tactical wheeled vehicles. This section would also require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees within 

180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, their intent 

to award such a contract, and if not, justification for not pursuing 

the pilot program. If the program is implemented, this section 

would also direct the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the 

Department’s justification materials in support of the President’s 

annual budget request, detailed information on the status, 

progress, and challenges associated with implementation of the 

pilot program. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force have 

validated requirements for tactical wheeled vehicles. The committee also notes that the Department of Defense has procured certain tactical wheeled vehicles, including the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, the Medium Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Replacement, 

and the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles, through multiyear procurement contracts and achieved significant cost savings. 

Section 143—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of 

RQ–4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

This section would limit the use of funds to retire Global Hawk 

Block 30 unmanned aircraft systems and would require the Secretary of the Air Force to take all actions necessary to maintain the 

operational capability of the RQ–4 Block 30 Global Hawk through 

December 31, 2016. 

Section 144—Personal Protection Equipment Procurement 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that within each military service procurement account, a separate 

procurement budget line item is designated for personal protection 

equipment (PPE) investment and funding transparency. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

Section 145—Repeal of Certain F–35 Reporting Requirements 

This section would amend section 122 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383) by striking subsection (b), and re-designating subsection 

(c) as subsection (b). 

Section 146—Study on Procurement of Personal Protection 

Equipment 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter 

into a contract with a federally funded research and development 

center (FFRDC) to conduct a study to identify and assess alternative and effective means for stimulating competition and innovation in the personal protection equipment industrial base, to include body armor. This section would also require that within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the FFRDC shall 

submit to the Secretary of Defense a report detailing the findings 

and recommendations from the study. In addition, the Secretary 

shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 

the findings and recommendations of the FFRDC study, along with 

the complete study. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $67.5 billion 

for research, development, test, and evaluation. This represents a 

$2.8 billion decrease over the amount authorized for fiscal year 

2013. 

The committee recommends $68.0 billion, an increase of $559.2 

million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation program are identified in 

division D of this Act. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request contained $7.9 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee recommends $7.9 

billion, a decrease of $47.0 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are identified in division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Active protection system research and development 

The committee notes that as a result of the removal of a requirement for an active protection system (APS) on the Army’s Ground 

Combat Vehicle that the budget request included no funding for 

APS research and development. The committee is concerned that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

this lack of investment may soon create a critical capability gap for 

Army combat vehicles due to the rapid proliferation of advanced 

anti-tank guided missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. The committee notes that there are numerous types of APS 

available, including some that have already been fielded on operational vehicles in other countries. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to establish and fund a program to conduct APS 

research and development starting in the fiscal year 2015 budget 

request. 

Army advanced multi-purpose tank round program 

The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 63639A for 

tank and medium caliber ammunition research and development. 

Of this amount, no funding was requested for the Advanced MultiPurpose (AMP) 120mm round program. 

The committee notes that in response to an urgent need, the Marine Corps has initiated procurement of a new multi-purpose, highexplosive (MPHE) 120mm round for M1A1 Abrams tanks. The committee understands that this MPHE round has a data link allowing 

the crew to select different fuse settings, including point detonation, delay, and airburst, which combines the effects of several current rounds into one. The committee believes that this round could 

potentially also fulfill some of the Army’s requirements for the Advanced Multi-Purpose 120mm round program, which went through 

initial testing in 2006 and may begin further development in fiscal 

year 2015. The committee encourages the Army to assess the current capability of the Marine Corps’ MPHE round to potentially 

meet AMP requirements in order to potentially save funding and 

avoid starting a redundant program. The committee recommends $30.6 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63639A for tank and medium caliber ammunition 

development. 

Army air and missile defense 

The committee is concerned that the Army’s air and missile defense units may not have the capacity and capabilities to address 

threats in current and future anti-access, area denial environments. The committee believes that the Army should be prepared 

to provide missile and air defenses for both static locations and maneuvering forces inside a region facing a sophisticated A2/AD 

threat. The committee believes that mobility and creative employment concepts are vital to the future success of Army air and missile defenses. The committee also believes that the Army should 

seek to exercise its air and missile defense capabilities with allies 

in Asia Pacific region on a regular basis in order to enhance our 

capabilities and encourage our allies to develop more comprehensive air and missile defense systems. 

Army cargo unmanned aerial system 

The committee notes that the Marine Corps is conducting a successful demonstration using an unmanned aerial system (UAS) to 

move cargo loads of up to 4,500 pounds in remote areas of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The system in question has been deployed for 15 months to-date. The use of this cargo UAS has reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

duced the need to use manned aircraft or vehicles to provide supplies to remote operating locations, thus providing substantial force 

protection benefits. 

The committee is concerned that the Army, despite having very 

similar logistical challenges, does not have a cargo UAS program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by February 

15, 2014, assessing the potential utility of an Army cargo UAS. 

Specifically, the report should address: 

(1) How cargo UAS capabilities could be incorporated into 

the Army’s logistics operations from point-of-supply through 

delivery to point-of-need; 

(2) An estimate of the cost to procure, operate, and sustain 

cargo UAS in comparison to using manned rotorcraft for the 

same missions; and 

(3) Any additional operational or logistical impacts to the 

Army of fielding a cargo UAS. 

Army directed energy testing 

The committee is aware of the U.S. Army’s current test effort 

through the Solid State Laser Testbed (SSLT) program, to examine 

the utility of directed energy technology as a supplement to current 

capabilities for force protection of rocket, artillery, and mortar 

threats. The committee stresses the importance of directed energy 

research and encourages the Army’s continuation of those efforts. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act on SSLT program efforts. The briefing should include the 

following: 

(1) Overview and results of the test campaign; 

(2) The current status of plans to incorporate directed energy 

as a supplement to, or replacement for, the current counterrocket, artillery, and mortar program of the Army; 

(3) The projected mission utility based on current test results 

including the number of directed energy systems required to 

replace existing systems; 

(4) Potential advantages and disadvantages in regards to 

magazine depth and associated costs; and 

(5) Any logistical or operational challenges that remain to be 

addressed prior to deployment of a directed energy system, including satellite and aircraft interference as well as the maintenance of sophisticated laser technology in austere environments. 

Army modernization strategy for tactical communications waveforms 

The committee supports the Army’s efforts to provide additional 

tactical network communications capability to the individual soldier. The committee believes that building a high-capacity, secure 

tactical Internet system will be useful in a range of military operations and will also enhance the warfighter’s ability to communicate, survive, and fight. The committee notes that the Joint Tactical Radio System and the Warfighter Information Network-TacVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

tical programs are both critical parts to building the tactical Internet system and continues to support both programs. 

The committee also notes that thus far, the Army has chosen to 

develop and use waveforms unique to the military for transmitting 

data, including the High-capacity Network Waveform (HNW), the 

Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW), and the Soldier Radio 

Waveform (SRW). While it recognizes the needs for this technology, 

the committee also encourages the Army to expand its research 

and development efforts to better leverage commercial wireless 

technology waveforms, such as second generation, third generation, 

and fourth generation long-term evolution cellular phone waveforms. The committee believes that these efforts could result in 

substantial savings for the Army by taking advantage of the vast 

amount of private sector research and development that already exists, both in terms of hardware and software technology. Therefore, 

the committee encourages the Army to develop commercial waveforms for tactical communications that are compliant with the 3rd 

Generation Partnership Project and other applicable industry 

standards to the extent it is practical given military and security 

requirements. 

Combat vehicle fuel efficiency engine development 

The committee applauds the recent efforts of the Department of 

the Army to improve the fuel efficiency of the M1 Abrams tank. 

These efforts offer improved cost savings for the Department as 

well as increased operating capabilities. The committee encourages 

the Army to consider modern diesel technology for future applications into combat vehicles which would also take into account total 

life cycle costs. 

Continued development of vehicle underbody protection systems 

The committee recognizes the continued threat improvised explosive devices (IEDs) pose to ground combat and tactical vehicles. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue 

to study underbody vulnerabilities to combat and tactical vehicles 

posed by IEDs, in particular the high mobility, multi-purpose 

wheeled vehicle. The committee encourages the Secretary of the 

Army to continue to test and develop solutions that would improve 

survivability of vehicle underbodies, to include protective systems 

for fuel tanks and fuel bladders. The committee believes that there 

should be an emphasis on low-cost solutions that reduce the possibility of a post-blast fire while minimizing engineering changes to 

the vehicle. The committee also recognizes the recent advances in 

light composite materials with self-healing capabilities and encourages the Secretary of the Army to evaluate their use in new production vehicle programs and current vehicle recapitalization programs. 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment 

The committee notes that section 313 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) identified concern regarding soldier and civilian personnel exposure to 

environmental hazards, including burn pits, dust and sand, hazardous materials and waste. The committee notes that service 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

members who are deployed lack a flexible and wearable system to 

protect them from inhaled hazards, and therefore have to often resort to using shirts or other cloth to cover their faces in dusty or 

smoky environments. While the committee is aware of current 

Army filter-based protective equipment, such as gas masks, there 

are also potential fabric-based solutions to these hazards that are 

wearable variants of the material already used by the Army. The 

committee understands that these fabric-based solutions could be 

used to mitigate a significant amount of soldier exposure to the potentially hazardous effects of inhaling sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants, such as diesel exhaust and lead. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, evaluating the potential utility of fabric-based solutions to address soldier exposure to inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, 

and pollutants. 

Improved turbine engine program 

The budget request contained $81.0 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology. 

The committee continues to support the operational and performance goals of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) which 

includes a 50-percent increase in engine power and a 25-percent 

fuel savings. The committee understands that ITEP is designed to 

provide longer life, improved maintainability, and reduced costs to 

meet the operational requirements for the Army’s current and 

next-generation vertical lift aircraft. 

The committee recognizes and commends the Army for establishing a firm requirement for the ITEP engine and for successful 

completion of the Material Development Decision in 2012. The 

Army should continue to fund competitive prototyping at a minimum through milestone B. The committee believes that further 

competing to a preliminary flight rating test (PFRT) milestone, or 

preferably through a flight demonstration of each competing engine, will control costs, reduce programmatic risk and modeling/ 

simulation shortfalls. Further, the committee believes maintaining 

competition through PFRT or beyond will allow the Army to make 

a more informed selection for an engine that will be in the operational force for decades. Selecting the appropriate point at which 

to down select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step to ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best value 

in investment and performance. Therefore the committee encourages the Army to take both competitive engines at a minimum 

through PFRT, and preferably through flight demonstration, to 

control development and program cost, mitigate technical risk, validate performance and ensure the warfighter receives the best possible solution. 

The committee recommends $81.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology. 

Innovative approaches in wound care research 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 

identified a key research requirement for improved techniques for 

wound care, particularly for combat-related trauma. The committee 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

notes that there is preliminary data that suggests that plasma 

technologies have the potential for promoting wound healing by deactivating pathogens in the wound, stopping bleeding without damage to healthy tissue, and other effects that lead to rapid healing 

and tissue regeneration. The committee recognizes that further experimentation is essential to demonstrate the potential benefit of 

this technology, as well as to satisfy regulatory requirements of the 

Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, the committee encourages the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center 

to evaluate short-pulsed electric discharge plasma technology for 

potential use in military wound care settings. 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program 

The budget request contained $15.1 million in PE 65450A for 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) research and development. 

The committee continues to support the JAGM program based on 

the need for a replacement to the Hellfire missile program that 

provides an all-weather, long-range moving target capability. In addition, the continuation of the JAGM program would help sustain 

the tactical missile industrial base. Missile technology remains an 

area of asymmetric advantage for the United States that the committee believes must be retained. 

The committee notes that the Army restructured the JAGM program to use an incremental approach starting in fiscal year 2012. 

Specifically, the Army decided to pursue only a ‘‘dual mode’’ seeker 

with limited capability as part of Increment 1 of the new acquisition strategy, with milestone B planned in fiscal year 2015. As part 

of this milestone B, the committee understands that the Army may 

decide to retain only one contractor during the engineering and 

manufacturing development (EMD) phase for JAGM Increment 1. 

The committee is concerned that such an approach could prematurely narrow the Army’s technology options and increase the 

risk that the JAGM program would never fully meet the requirements validated in 2012 by the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council. As a result, the committee encourages the Army to retain 

two contractors during Increment 1 EMD. The committee believes 

that employing an approach that retains competition during Increment 1 EMD would help lower costs and ensure the best possible 

weapon system performance. The committee directs the Secretary 

of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by February 15, 2014, that details the funding required to maintain two contractors during JAGM Increment 1 

EMD. 

The committee recommends $15.1 million, the full amount requested, in PE 65450A for JAGM research and development. 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System 

The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 12419A for the 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System (JLENS). 

The committee notes that in January 2012, the Army decided to 

not procure any JLENS orbits. However, the committee understands that the Army has used elements of the two orbits built 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

during system development for additional testing and capability 

demonstration purposes. The committee notes that in September 

2012, the Army and Navy executed a joint live-fire event to demonstrate Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air capability. In 

a December 2012 demonstration, JLENS showed its potential capability to track and detect ballistic missiles and large caliber rockets 

during their ascent phase. These successful demonstrations illustrate that JLENS could provide U.S. forces a significant operational advantage in areas like the Strait of Hormuz, the Republic 

of Korea, and elsewhere. Given these demonstration events, and 

the significant threat posed by cruise missiles, small boats, and 

ballistic missiles, the committee expects the Army to use the funding authorized in fiscal year 2014 to proceed with plans to conduct 

additional system demonstration efforts. The committee also notes, 

however, that the Army has now dropped plans for an initial operational test in fiscal year 2014. Absent realistic test events, the 

committee is not convinced that JLENS warrants any further development. The committee recommends $68.5 million, a decrease of $30.0 

million, in PE 12419A for the JLENS. With the funds provided, the 

committee expects the Army to prioritize additional demonstration 

events planned for fiscal year 2014. 

M4 Carbine powered rail system 

The committee has a long record of supporting Army research efforts aimed at reducing soldier equipment weight. The committee 

notes that the Army conducted a $2.7 million small business innovation research (SBIR) program starting in 2012 that sought to develop a soldier-carried electrical power solution integrated into the 

M4 carbine. 

The purpose of this competitively awarded SBIR program was to 

provide more soldier power at less weight. The committee understands that the system has now been developed and tested, and 

that it has the potential to reduce weight carried by soldiers in the 

form of batteries and provide an integrated data transfer capability 

for M4 carbine accessories. However, the committee notes with concern that the Army has not yet decided to proceed to the next step 

with this program. 

As the Army continues it’s evaluation, the committee encourages 

the Army to proceed with an expanded user evaluation of this system to ensure that it has sufficient information to determine 

whether or not it warrants further development. The committee expects that should the Army decide to continue development of this 

system that any long term procurement decision will be based on 

full and open competition. 

Man-portable electronic warfare 

The committee is aware that current and future adversaries will 

continue to use radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IED) 

and standard radio tactics to coordinate attacks on our troops and 

personnel. In many cases, forward-deployed small units and military intelligence units do not have small, compact, lightweight electronic warfare (EW) systems capable of responding to these threats. 

The committee believes that what is needed is a next generation, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

compact, tactical EW system that provides more adequate soldier 

protection from wireless threats, target finding, and combat situational awareness is a man-portable unit. 

The committee is also aware that the Department has significant 

investments in new EW capabilities, including Army investments 

to develop a small soldier-worn package for counter-IED, threat 

avoidance, and intelligence gathering capabilities. The committee 

recognizes that such a system for dismounted tactical combat operations will have great utility to all of the military services and 

agencies, including the special forces and military intelligence communities. The committee encourages the Department to continue 

development of such EW systems and to pursue deployment as rapidly as is practicable. 

Modeling and simulation for advanced materials 

The committee recognizes the importance of utilizing virtual reality and modeling and simulation tools to provide cutting-edge, 

cost-effective training and technology development for the Nation’s 

warfighters. Leveraging these technologies is an especially relevant 

adjunct to live training given the future of declining defense budgets. The committee is pleased with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s implementation of virtual reality centers as a coordinated 

effort to broaden use of virtual training methods. These centers include the use of a variety of training tools that give the warfighter 

and developers alike, a realistic training experience that contributes to improved readiness and system effectiveness. These centers 

will also allow for technology development through modeling and 

simulations prior to real product development. 

The committee believes that centers like the Center for Cold 

Spray Research and Development, which simulates material and 

process development for technologies such as munitions enhancements, would benefit from increased utilization of virtual reality 

and modeling and simulations tools. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to continue its development and application of 

modeling and simulation concepts, tools and investments in order 

to maintain robust, cost-effective training capabilities. 

Modular protective systems for wheeled vehicles 

The committee understands that restoring equipment readiness 

is a key element of the Army and the Marine Corps equipment 

reset process. In current combat operations, vehicle and aircraft 

usage rates are several times greater than peacetime rates and the 

harsh environment also takes a toll on equipment, especially the 

Army and the Marine Corps’s ground combat tactical vehicle fleets. 

The committee recognizes the critical need to repair, recapitalize, 

and replace damaged or worn out combat and tactical vehicles after 

12 years of high operational tempo in Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee also 

notes there is a critical requirement to continue to modernize the 

combat and tactical vehicle fleets. The committee supports ongoing 

modernization programs such as the Joint Light Tactical vehicle 

program, and the Ground Combat Vehicle program as being essential for long-term modernization of these fleets. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

The committee understands the Army and the Marine Corps are 

developing long-term acquisition strategies for their respective combat and tactical vehicle fleets. The committee expects these strategies to include a long-term armoring strategy component that 

would adopt the lessons learned from OEF and OIF regarding the 

need for improved survivability for all vehicles. As the Army and 

the Marine Corps begin to recapitalize their vehicle fleets, the committee encourages both services to consider the cost and operational benefits of using modular, scalable protection kits as part 

of any long-term modernization plan and armoring strategy. 

Multi-mission electronic warfare 

Enemy communications, jammers, improvised explosive device 

triggers, and radar systems are constantly changing and becoming 

more and more difficult to counter. The proliferation of unmanned 

vehicles has also expanded the scope of electronic warfare (EW) 

threats facing our country today. The committee believes that in 

order to address these evolving threats, the next generation EW 

system must be designed to perform multiple types of EW missions 

such as detection and attack of modern equipment, coordination 

with tactical communications, intelligence gathering, differentiation 

of ground from air targets, and direction finding (DF). 

The committee is aware that the Army Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate is developing such an advanced technology. This technology will provide our warfighers with multi-mission integrated EW for high speed DF, advanced jamming, and signals intelligence all in one package. The committee recommends 

that the Secretary of Defense fully support this research and development effort and where possible, accelerate its deployment. 

Nano-scale electronics and materials 

The committee is aware of the potential benefits of electronics 

and other nanomaterials engineered at the nano-scale, including 

reduced size, weight, power consumption and other electrical properties. The committee is also aware that the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) supports work in this area to ensure warfighter benefits from the most advanced nano-enabled technologies, such as 

microchip-based energetics with controlled combustion reactions, 

carbon and organic conductor-based printable electronics, solar 

cells and high-energy density capacitors, nano-engineered integrated sensors for chemical, biological, and nuclear threat detection, and nanomaterial-based heat transfer and thermal management systems. The committee encourages the Army to continue investment in further developing these technologies incubated at 

ARL. 

Night vision systems engineering development 

The budget request contained $43.4 million in PE 64710A for 

night vision systems engineering development. 

The committee notes that over the past 12 years the Army has 

invested significant levels of funding in thermal sights and other 

advanced night vision devices for small arms weapons. The committee understands that additional upgrades to existing night vision devices may be possible through development and modification 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

of clip-on retrofits, which could enhance optical device performance 

without the need to procure entirely new devices. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Army to consider funding efforts to 

evaluate and develop such retrofits as part of its overall night vision systems research, development, test, and evaluation efforts. 

The committee expects that any future development effort would be 

pursued through full and open competition. The committee recommends $43.4 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64710A, for night vision systems engineering development. 

Regenerative and rehabilitative engineering 

The committee is aware that the human toll of 12 years of war 

has resulted in casualties that have maimed, disfigured and debilitated thousands of service members. The committee is also aware 

that the Department of Defense has funded numerous medical research activities to improve the tactical combat casualty care of 

service members, as well as supporting the longer-term health 

needs of the military. Emerging areas of regenerative engineering 

and rehabilitative medicine are transforming military medical care 

and are quickly transitioning into the public health care sector. 

The committee applauds efforts, such as the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) as a means to innovate in 

these emerging areas. AFIRM was established as a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary network including military institutions 

working closely with medical and research universities to develop 

advanced treatment options for severely wounded servicemen and 

women, such as face and limb transplants and burn treatment. The 

committee encourages the Department to continue to adequately 

fund AFIRM, and to continue researching, piloting and 

transitioning new techniques for regenerative and rehabilitative 

health care that will support both military members and the civilian population at-large. 

Stryker survivability systems integration program 

The budget request contained $50.0 million in PE 63653A for 

Stryker vehicle research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E). 

The committee supports the Army’s plans for ongoing RDT&E for 

the Stryker vehicle. The committee notes that even with the procurement of a third brigade set of upgraded ‘‘double V’’ Stryker vehicles that the Army will have six brigade sets of less well-protected ‘‘flat bottom’’ Stryker vehicles. As a result, the committee 

supports innovative efforts to increase the protection level of these 

vehicles. In particular, the committee continues to support the ongoing program executive officer (PEO) ground systems Stryker vehicle survivability systems integration study program. The committee notes that this program is intended to deliver several integration studies reviewing the potential for adding occupant centric 

survivability technologies to the Stryker vehicle. The committee understands that these kit-based solutions could be installed during 

depot reset or in the field, providing maximum flexibility to the 

Army. The committee encourages PEO ground systems and the 

program manager Stryker to use Stryker RDT&E and modificaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

tions funds to develop and install technologies from this effort that 

enhance Stryker occupant safety. 

The committee recommends $50.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63653A for Stryker vehicle RDT&E. 

Tactical vehicle armor development program 

The committee understands the tactical vehicle armor development (TVAD) program consists of the development and maturation 

of a lightweight, affordable ceramic/composite opaque armor solution for tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) ballistic threats, to include 

improvised explosive devices. The committee recognizes that although lightweight solutions for these threats exist, these solutions 

have been cost prohibitive for the TWV fleet because of high material prices and/or inefficient production manufacturing processes. 

The committee understands the goal of the TVAD program is to design a lightweight, affordable solution that utilizes low cost materials in a manner that is easy to transition the end product from 

prototype to full rate production at an affordable cost. The committee supports this effort, however the committee is concerned 

that the Army is inadequately funding this critical initiative. The 

committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to fully fund this 

program across the Future Years Defense Program. 

Thermal injury protection in combat and tactical vehicles 

The committee understands that the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) 

has established an occupant centric survivability program, with a 

goal of examining technologies that can significantly protect 

against vehicle occupant casualties. The committee supports this 

effort. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Director, TARDEC to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees that outlined the status of the 

Army’s evaluation of occupant centric survivability systems for 

combat and tactical vehicles. The committee has reviewed the report and has concerns regarding the development and application 

of systems that could be used to prevent thermal injury. The committee notes that technologies like fuel containment, fire 

retardants, fire suppression, fire prevention, and personal fire protection may improve occupant safety as well as vehicle survivability. These technologies are currently being applied in a limited 

scope. While the committee commends this effort, it believes that 

additional analysis over current thermal injury survivability requirements is still required. 

The committee directs the Director, U.S. Army Tank Automotive 

Research, Development and Engineering Center to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services within 60 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act that outlines the advisability and feasibility 

of establishing objective and threshold survivability operational requirements for thermal injury prevention in ground combat and 

tactical vehicles. The committee expects the briefing to include, but 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

not be limited to: fuel containment; fire retardants; fire prevention; 

fire suppression; and personal protection. 

Third generation forward-looking infrared sensors 

The committee notes that second generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors currently deployed across the Army are a 

critical capability that provides U.S. forces significant advantages 

in combat. However, the committee understands that countermeasures continue to evolve that could degrade and potentially 

overmatch second generation FLIR capabilities. In addition, second 

generation FLIR technology is now 20-years old and is at risk of 

becoming obsolete. The committee believes the Army must continue 

to invest in third generation FLIR development and fielding, and 

that doing so requires the sustainability of the U.S. FLIR industrial base to meet the Army’s next generation FLIR requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, that outlines the state of FLIR technology and requirements for ground systems including, but not limited to, the 

Ground Combat Vehicle program. The report should also include 

the Army’s specific annual investment strategy to sustain the U.S. 

FLIR industrial base and to develop and produce third generation 

FLIR sensors. 

Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotic capability 

The committee understands that the Army has identified an 

operational need for an Ultra Lightweight Reconnaissance Robotics 

(ULRR) capability for forward deployed units currently operating in 

overseas contingency operations. The committee supports and encourages the rapid fielding of this capability to forward deployed 

forces and also directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2013 

on the advisability and feasibility of incorporating this capability as 

part of an enduring requirement for all active and reserve component units. 

Use of simulation technology in medical training 

The committee appreciates the Department of Defense’s work to 

reduce the use of live animals in combat trauma training courses 

when appropriate as detailed in the report to Congress on the 

‘‘Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based Methods for Certain Medical Training’’. The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense’s significant investment over the past decade in 

the development of simulation technology and shares its commitment to improve and modernize the training of military medical 

personnel without degradation to combat trauma care. A 2009 Department report projected that validated simulators for most ‘‘high 

volume/high value’’ medical procedures could be developed by 2014. 

The most recent report provides an updated and estimated timeline 

to 2017 and beyond. As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue a transition to human-based methods and to 

further refine the timeline for the replacement of the use of live 

animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate, and 

where modern validated simulators are able to provide equally efVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

fective training that achieves established combat casualty survival 

rates without degradation to combat trauma care. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request contained $15.9 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee recommends 

$16.0 billion, an increase of $58.1 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are identified in 

division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acoustic intelligence collection capability 

The committee believes that the ability to obtain acoustic intelligence on foreign submarines is a critical national security need. 

Specifically, the committee believes that it should be a priority to 

develop technology that is capable of burying undersea cables beneath the seabed, and that the development of this technology to 

the fleet could result in significant cost savings to the Navy. The 

committee encourages the Office of Naval Research to consider 

funding initiatives that could lead to development of a low-cost 

Array Burial Vehicle capable of installing acoustic intelligence systems, and which could be equipped with a real-time control system 

which provides shipboard operators information necessary to safely, 

reliably, and efficiently install complex multi-branch undersea 

cable systems. 

Augmentation of ultra high frequency communications satellite systems using near space technologies 

The committee is concerned that the Navy’s constellation of 

ultra-high frequency (UHF) communication satellites and associated user terminals may not meet the tactical communications 

needs of the Department in the near future. This concern is based 

on the committee’s belief that the current constellation of UHF satellites, the Ultra-High Frequency Follow-On program, is aging, 

fragile, and may be increasingly subject to sudden failures. 

The committee notes that the Mobile User Objective System 

(MUOS) satellite system, which is intended to provide increased capability in this area, has been delayed. However, the committee is 

aware of alternative technologies that could potentially be used by 

the Navy, in concert with the MUOS program, to close potential 

gaps in tactical UHF communications. 

Specifically, the committee notes the potential capabilities of 

high-altitude, near space systems, such as balloons, to bolster and 

complement existing UHF networks. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the committee, no later than October 1, 2013, on a review of existing highaltitude, near space technologies that could provide additional UHF 

capacity and outline the approximate cost, schedule, and feasibility 

of acquiring this additional capacity. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

Carrier-based unmanned air vehicle system testing and development 

The budget request contained $21.0 million in PE 64402N for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS), and $146.7 million in PE 

64404N for the Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance 

and Strike (UCLASS) system. 

The committee has noted in the past that the Secretary of the 

Navy has not fully leveraged technology development activities in 

the UCAS program that would reduce UCLASS program risk. The 

committee is aware that the Secretary of the Navy has again reduced the planned scope of technology development activities in fiscal year 2014 for the UCAS program by deleting the requirement 

for the X–47B aircraft to demonstrate unmanned autonomous aerial refueling from an airborne tanker, thereby increasing the development risk in the UCLASS program. The committee disagrees 

with the Secretary’s approach to the UCAS program and disagrees 

with increasing the concurrency and developmental risk being 

sewn into the acquisition strategy of the UCLASS program. Therefore, the committee recommends $41.0 million, an increase 

of $20.0 million, in PE 64402N for the UCAS program. Elsewhere 

in this title, the committee includes a provision that would require 

the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned autonomous 

aerial refueling with the X–47B UCAS aircraft, and another provision that would prohibit the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from approving a milestone A 

technology development contract award for the UCLASS program 

until 30 days after the Under Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the software and system engineering designs for the control system and connectivity segment and 

the aircraft carrier segment of the UCLASS system can achieve, at 

a low level of integration risk, successful compatibility and operability with the air vehicle segment planned for selection at milestone A contract award. 

Cognitive wireless networks for naval applications 

The committee recognizes that the increasing complexity of computing and telecommunications devices is providing emerging opportunities to improve and streamline Department of Defense processes. The committee notes that new methods for leveraging cognitive wireless networking systems will empower the ability of the 

Department to carry out diverse applications in new ways, as well 

as opening up the possibilities for entirely new applications. The 

committee encourages the Department to invest in research supporting the development and maturation of cognitive networking 

applications, such as environmental infrastructure and human 

health monitoring, ad-hoc networks using commercial mobile 

phones, smart camera networks, mobile cloud computing, and 

smart utility networks. 

One area where the committee believes that improvements in 

cognitive wireless networking might be helpful is in naval ship machinery systems. The committee is aware that ships of the near future will have increased complexity in design and operation, as 

well as interaction and inter-dependencies with other systems. At 

the same time, demands for shipboard resources are expected to exceed installed capacity, requiring complex optimization of allocation 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

to shipboard loads. The committee believes that the development 

and implementation of a new generation of automatic control and 

communications on ships, including wireless networks, will allow 

for increased capacity with reduced manning. 

Marine Corps unmanned airborne electronic attack systems 

The committee notes that the Marine Corps plans to transition 

from using EA–6B Prowler aircraft as its primary airborne electronic warfare platform to a combination of F–35B Lightening II 

aircraft with built-in electronic warfare capability and other aircraft carrying electronic warfare pods. While the committee supports this plan, it also encourages the Marine Corps to develop 

electronic warfare capability for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). 

The committee believes a network of electronic warfare systems 

that combines manned and unmanned platforms would provide increased performance and flexibility for operational commanders. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps to provide a classified report to the congressional defense 

committees by February 15, 2014, that outlines the potential advantages and disadvantages of the use of UAS for electronic warfare, and any current plans the Marine Corps has to develop such 

systems. The report should also address, but not be limited to, estimated acquisition and operating costs, crew safety, and mission effectiveness of potential unmanned systems compared to available 

manned airborne electronic warfare systems. 

Maritime Laser Weapon System 

The committee applauds the Navy’s efforts in directed energy research and encourages the continuation of those efforts. The committee is also encouraged by the recent decision to deploy the Laser 

Weapon System (LaWS) for further testing and evaluation on the 

USS Ponce, in a stressing maritime environment. The committee 

believes such operational testing is necessary to work out the technical challenges inherent in directed energy systems, in addition to 

identifying potential integration and policy challenges that might 

prove to be impediments to transitioning these types of systems to 

the fleet. Additionally, the committee recognizes that the Navy is 

developing other advanced technologies which will present similar 

integration challenges, in particular with regards to power generation, storage, and delivery. The committee encourages the Navy to 

begin developing a broadly applicable strategy for addressing these 

power challenges in order to facilitate technology integration onto 

naval vessels in the future. Furthermore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the 

testing efforts related to the LaWS deployment. The briefing should 

include: 

(1) An overview of the test campaign plans and success criteria; 

(2) Details of weapon system use and performance; 

(3) A comparison of system performance with conventional 

weapons systems; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

(4) A discussion of the associated power requirements with 

a comparison of the anticipated power requirements for other 

advanced weapons systems; and 

(5) Unforeseen challenges associated with system maintenance and longevity in a maritime environment. 

Multi-Stage Supersonic Target development program 

The budget request contains $53.0 million in PE 64258N for aer- ial target system development. Of this amount, $33.1 million was 

requested for the Multi-Stage Supersonic Target (MSST) development program. 

The MSST emulates a threat adversary three-stage anti-ship 

cruise missile that has a subsonic bus vehicle which will separate 

during its terminal phase of flight from a supersonic sprint stage 

vehicle that will continue its flight to impact. The fielded MSST 

system will provide threat representation and will identify deficiencies in shipboard air defense systems. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to notify the congressional defense committees if the MSST program’s estimated Initial 

Operating Capability (IOC) is delayed more than 90 days, or if the 

costs associated with the program exceeds 10 percent of programmed funding. On February 8, 2012, the Secretary of the Navy 

notified the congressional defense committees that the MSST program would exceed the original acquisition program baseline cost 

by more than 10 percent, and in June 2012, the MSST prototype 

experienced a flight test failure which required the Secretary to put 

development efforts on hold. On April 18, 2013, the Secretary subsequently notified the congressional defense committees that a new 

IOC date of May 2016, instead of December 2014, has been established. 

The committee recognizes the challenges associated with the development of a new threat target system given the assessed complexity and capabilities of the actual threat missile. But the committee also remains concerned that the Navy still does not have a 

threat representative target fielded in order to assess 

vulnerabilities and susceptibilities of naval air defense systems, as 

well as assess the effectiveness of potential countermeasures that 

could be developed to defend against an MSST threat. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary to maintain a 

robust and fully resourced MSST development strategy and encourages the Secretary to provide the committee frequent updates as 

the MSST program progresses toward its May 2016, IOC milestone. 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development 

The budget request contained $136.0 million in PE 64786N for 

offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development. 

In 2009, the U.S. Pacific Fleet validated an Urgent Operational 

Needs Statement for an over-the-horizon surface warfare missile 

that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and strike 

well-defended, moving maritime targets without reliance on external inputs. This need is even more relevant today and is critical 

to meeting national security objectives and rebalance to the AsiaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

Pacific region. The committee supports the Secretary of the Navy’s 

pursuit for the rapid development and deployment of a long-range, 

anti-ship missile that is capable of penetrating sophisticated enemy 

air-defense systems from long range. It should be capable of operating autonomously in a denied signal environment, without relying on input of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance or 

global positioning system signals. 

However, the committee notes recent inconsistencies with the 

Department of Defense’s acquisition strategy for this type of airlaunched/surface-launched missile capability. Furthermore, the current effort does not appear to be consistent with the budget documentation materials provided with the submission of the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget to Congress, and the committee understands that the Department of Defense has revised the acquisition strategy since the President’s budget submission. The committee recommends $136.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64786N for offensive anti-surface warfare weapon 

development, and calls into question the Secretary’s ability to execute $86.0 million of those funds in fiscal year 2014 for product-development activities prior to achieving a milestone A for the program. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit to 

the defense committees by September 30, 2013, the most recent 

OASuW Analysis of Alternatives completed by the Department of 

Defense. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 

to the defense committees by September 30, 2013, a report that: (1) 

outlines the Secretary’s near-, mid-, and long-term capability and 

acquisition roadmaps for maintaining air-launched and surfacelaunched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon capabilities within 

the Department of Defense; (2) describes capability gaps and shortfalls of the Navy regarding current and future OASuW capabilities; 

(3) any supporting analysis that have informed the Secretary’s 

roadmap; (4) any on-going technology experimentation, engineering, product development, or modification efforts within the Department of Defense that would enhance the Secretary’s ability to 

develop and field future OASuW capabilities, and an assessment of 

the maturity and associated risks of those technologies and efforts; 

and, (5) updated budget estimates and life-cycle funding estimates 

of the Department of Defense required to develop, engineer, manufacture, test, field and sustain new or modified air-launched and 

surface-launched OASuW missile capabilities in the planned roadmaps. The report may contain a classified annex. 

Precision Extended Range Munition Program 

The budget request contained $139.6 million in PE 26623M for 

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms systems. Of this 

amount, the budget request contained $11.9 million for the development of the precision extended range munition (PERM) program. 

The committee notes that the Marine Corps is seeking to spend 

$84.5 million between fiscal years 2013–18 to develop and field the 

PERM, which is a global positioning system (GPS) guided 120mm 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

mortar round with a threshold range of between 12–16 kilometers. 

The committee also notes that the Army has already fielded a very 

similar GPS-guided 120mm mortar round, the XM–395 as part of 

its Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative. In addition, the committee is aware that the Army’s XM–395 has already demonstrated 

a circular error probable of less than 10 meters, which is twice the 

threshold accuracy requirement for the PERM program. Since the 

Army has already fielded this round as an urgent materiel release, 

and many other more accurate joint fires are available to engage 

targets in the range of the PERM, the committee believes that the 

Marine Corps’ PERM program is redundant, and that modifying or 

fielding the Army’s existing XM–395 instead would ensure that 

Marines have precision mortar capability as soon as possible. The committee recommends $6.9 million, a decrease of $5.0 million, in PE 26623M for research and development of the PERM program. 

Prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits 

The committee notes that in 2011, the Marine Corps conducted 

an operational demonstration and joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD) with U.S. Southern Command to evaluate 

prepositioned expeditionary assistance kits (PEAK). The Marine 

Corps report on this evaluation stated the objective of the PEAK 

JCTD was to demonstrate and transition an array of capabilities 

for field distributed essential services including potable water, 

power, communications and situational awareness. The kits made 

maximum use of commercial, off-the-shelf technology renewable 

source power generation. The report concluded that the demonstration was a success and showed the potential of the PEAK kits to 

provide essential field services in an austere environment when operated by U.S. military personnel working with host nation forces. 

Based on this successful demonstration, the committee encourages 

the Marine Corps to consider initiation of a competitive development program for a PEAK kit that could allow expeditionary forces 

to provide effective and efficient operation beyond 72 hours after a 

disaster event. 

Service Life Extension of Navy Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research vessels 

The budget request contained $45.7 million in PE 62435N for the 

Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research program. 

For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR) vessels. 

Three of these vessels require a mid-life overhaul, partial funding 

for which was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6). The committee notes that funding provided to date does not fully support 

all of the items that the Navy has determined are necessary to 

fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to 40–45 years. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $63.7 million, an increase of $18.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research, to procure the entirety of a mid-life 

overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion of this authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based selection proceVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

dures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and 

2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures. 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

The budget request contained $852.9 million in PE 63561N for 

the Advanced Submarines System Development program. 

To maintain undersea dominance in maritime regions of significant economic and military importance to the United States, the 

Navy requires disruptive technologies that can be rapidly developed, demonstrated, evaluated, and fielded to counter expanding 

undersea capabilities by peer and near-peer maritime nations and 

to extend the Navy’s reach and persistence. The committee is concerned that under the current acquisition plan, the Navy will not 

have the new technologies it needs to meet these requirements 

until after 2020. By accelerating the integration of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles and other autonomous undersea technologies and 

payloads into Undersea Warfare, it will expand the technology base 

and more rapidly provide warfighting options that are not currently achievable. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $874.9, an increase of 

$22.0 million, in PE 63561N for Advanced Submarine Systems Development in order to support innovative development, demonstration, evaluation, and fielding of promising undersea technologies 

for the delivery of new and needed capability to the undersea domain. 

The committee notes that the inclusion of this authorization of 

appropriations is predicated on merit-based selection procedures in 

accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of 

title 10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request contained $25.7 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee recommends 

$25.7 billion, an increase of $76.0 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program are 

identified in division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Adaptive engine technology development 

The committee is aware that the Air Force Research Lab has a 

significant demonstration project underway to mature technologies 

that combine the capabilities for high-speed thrust from fighter engines with the increased fuel efficiency of a long-distance, subsonic 

engine, known as the Adaptive Engine Technology Development 

(AETD) program. Such efforts are necessary to provide needed capabilities for future air vehicles, as well as to maintain science and 

technology programs that will sustain the military aircraft engine 

industrial base until development of the next generation of aircraft 

begins. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

Furthermore, the committee is aware that in testimony before 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2012, Air Force officials stated that AETD is purely a technology maturation program 

and is not a new ‘‘alternate engine’’ program for the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter. While the committee is aware that the performance 

specifications for the AETD engine are structured around propulsion requirements for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, the AETD program is not limited to any particular form factor that would directly transition into an existing aircraft program. 

While the committee believes it is logical to incorporate technology derived from AETD for incorporation into the F–35, the 

committee does not expect AETD to result in a design for an entirely new engine for the F–35. The committee encourages the Air 

Force to continue to focus AETD on technology maturation and new 

approaches for significant fuel savings that will support future generations of aircraft engines. 

Aircraft engine component laser peening 

The budget request contained $139.4 million in PE 27268F for 

the aircraft engine component improvement program. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee noted that laser peening technology had the potential to 

save significant funds through the reduction of fatigue failure, 

stress corrosion cracking, and component shape corrections in a 

wide range of military equipment, including aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force should consider use of aircraft 

engine component improvement program funds to examine the potential benefits of laser peening for F–135 engine components in 

order to see if reliability could be improved and if engine life-cycle 

costs could be reduced. 

The committee recommends $139.4 million, the full amount requested, in PE 27268F for the aircraft engine component improvement program. 

F–35 aircraft program 

The budget request contained $1.9 billion in PEs 64800F, 

64800N, and 64800M for development of the F–35 aircraft. The 

budget request also contained $5.5 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Air Force and Aircraft Procurement, Navy for procurement of 19 F– 

35As, 6 F–35Bs, and 4 F–35Cs. 

The F–35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition program 

within the Department of Defense, with a current planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air 

Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter requirements. The committee continues to support the requirement for fifth generation 

fighter aircraft due to projected increases in the effectiveness and 

quantities of threat anti-aircraft ground systems and adversary aircraft and their associated air-to-air weapons. The committee notes 

that without advanced fifth generation aircraft that the United 

States may be significantly limited in its ability to project power 

in the future. 

The F–35 program is approximately 34 percent through its flight 

test program which is planned to be completed in the first quarter 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

of fiscal year 2018. The committee notes that the F–35 program executive officer believes the F–35 program is now on a realistic baseline with slow, but steady progress being made. The committee also 

notes that the F–35 program executive officer has identified the 

software development for the final development software block, 

known as block 3F, as an area with some risk remaining. At a 

hearing held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

on April 17, 2013, the witness from Government Accountability Office also identified block 3F software as an area of risk because of 

its complexity. The committee shares this concern. Accordingly, 

elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that 

would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics to establish an independent team consisting of subject matter experts to review the development of F– 

35 software and to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees by March 3, 2014. 

Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control 

System 

The budget request contained $383.5 million in PE 63423F for 

the Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX) for the 

Global Positioning System (GPS). 

GPS provides positioning, velocity, and timing to military and civilian users worldwide. OCX will replace the current Operational 

Control System, maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing satellite constellation and enabling new modernized capabilities onboard the newer satellites. In addition, OCX will provide 

command and control of new capabilities, such as increased antijamming resistance, associated with the new GPS III family of satellites. 

The committee recommends $383.5 million, the full amount of 

the request, in PE 63423F for the Next Generation Operational 

Control System program. 

Hypersonic test facilities 

The committee recognizes the importance that hypersonic technologies will play in meeting the defense needs of the future. As 

with any new technology, developing and maintaining the appropriate facility to conduct full-scale testing is a necessary precondition to effective technology development efforts. Thus, the 

committee supports a hypersonic program that develops the necessary workforce and testing facilities to support the research and 

ultimate deployment of a variety of hypersonic capabilities. 

The committee reiterates the concerns it raised about the state 

of hypersonic testing facilities in the committee report (H. Rept. 

112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013, as well as by the conferees in the conference report (H. Rept. 112–705) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The committee also awaits the 

results of the study on the ability of national test and evaluation 

capabilities to support maturation hypersonic technologies for future defense systems required by section 1071 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

Until such time as that report is delivered, the committee expects 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

the Department of Defense to leverage existing capabilities within 

the Federal Government and not build new capabilities until a 

clear need has been established. 

In-space solar electric propulsion 

The committee believes that there may be enhanced utility for 

in-space solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology for national security space applications, especially as launch costs increase and 

weight requirements for satellites become more stringent. The committee believes that this technology may lead to reduced launch 

costs, enhanced payload capability, longer mission duration, and 

also provide risk mitigation redundancy. In particular, this technology proved valuable in mitigating some of the difficulties in getting the first Advanced Extremely High-Frequency payload to safely and successfully reach its intended orbit without reducing mission life for the payload, after unexpected launch problems caused 

technical challenges and nearly a year’s delay. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Director of the National Reconnaissance 

Office and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, to brief the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology, by December 15, 

2013, on current and planned efforts to use SEP technology for national security space missions. In addition, the briefing should address the investments across the U.S. Government in further development of SEP technology as a possible means to save costs and 

extend satellite mission duration. 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System 

The committee notes the importance of the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (JMS) program in providing integrated, net-centric space situational awareness and command and 

control capabilities. The committee commends the Air Force on the 

significant advances it has made in fully deploying Increment 1 of 

JMS. Increment 1 provides: a service-oriented architecture with enhanced integration and display of space order of battle; improved 

high interest event tracking; dynamically configurable user-defined 

operating picture; and several web-based, space situational awareness tools to aid space operators in performing mission analysis. 

The committee recognizes the efforts of the Air Force to leverage 

existing or easily-modified Government and commercial applications as noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013. However, the committee is concerned that the current schedule does not fully take advantage of the potential for incremental 

upgrades to on-ramp the appropriate existing capabilities in the 

most expeditious manner. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to certify that the acquisition strategy for 

the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System program fully 

incorporates existing, mature technology products, based on 

warfighter requirements, in order to replace the legacy system in 

the most expeditious manner, utilizing efficient testing and validaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

tion methods. The Secretary should submit the certification to the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

The committee supports the Air Force’s efforts to provide increased and advanced space situational awareness capabilities to 

the Joint Space Operations Center to address current and future 

threats to our national space assets. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

The committee notes that the joint surveillance target attack 

radar system (JSTARS) aircraft and sensors are rapidly aging and 

in need of multiple, costly upgrades in order to maintain operational JSTARS capability in the future. The committee believes 

that the Department of the Air Force understands the challenges 

of maintaining the JSTARS aircraft and sensors, and notes that it 

has conducted an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to evaluate potential replacement platforms for the aging E–8C JSTARS aircraft 

which has concluded that a modern business jet using a fourth generation sensor system would be the preferred JSTARS replacement 

alternative. The committee understands that the business jet solution would provide substantial future cost savings, improve capabilities with more advanced sensors, and is readily available in the 

near term. Unfortunately, the budget request for fiscal year 2014 

did not include any funds for replacing the JSTARS aircraft or sensors, and the committee is concerned that the critical JSTARS mission may not be accomplished if the Department of the Air Force 

does not replace the JSTARS aircraft in the near term. 

Since the committee believes that the battle management command and control and ground moving target indicator missions performed by the Department of the Air Force JSTARS aircraft are 

critical to meet requirements of the National Military Strategy, the 

committee encourages the Department to begin a program to replace the JSTARS aircraft as soon as possible, but not later than 

in its budget request for fiscal year 2015. 

Liquid rocket engine technology 

The committee is pleased to learn of the combined U.S. Air Force 

and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) investment in rocket engine technologies being demonstrated under 

the Space Launch System Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction program. The existing Air Force Research Laboratory Hydrocarbon Boost technology program provides 

the underpinnings of this partnership between the Air Force and 

NASA on next generation advanced rocket booster technology. 

Moreover, this Air Force-NASA partnership is a model for maximizing limited taxpayer dollars in an austere fiscal environment. 

The committee commends the Air Force and NASA and encourages the Air Force and NASA to sustain investment in this synergistic approach to develop and demonstrate rocket propulsion technology. Additionally, the committee recommends the Air Force seek 

future opportunities to engage in cooperative efforts with NASA for 

the development of rocket propulsion systems. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

Metals Affordability Initiative 

The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 63112F for ad- vanced materials for weapons systems. Of this amount, $2.7 million 

was requested for the Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI). 

The committee notes that the MAI is a public-private partnership that includes the entire domestic specialty aerospace metals 

industrial manufacturing base. Air Force participation with MAI 

has resulted in significant improvement in the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace applications, including aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based superalloys and titanium. Because of the widespread uses and needs for the Department of Defense, the committee encourages the Air Force to engage with the other military 

departments and agencies to ensure they are able to leverage MAI 

for their specific needs. In addition, the committee encourages the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to examine the MAI partnership model to determine if it might be relevant for the newly established Industrial 

Base Sustainment Fund. 

The committee recommends $49.6 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, in PE 63112F for the MAI program. 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the 

Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. 

The committee is disappointed with the Department’s de facto 

proposal to terminate ORS, and is concerned that there is no enduring plan to address urgent military operational requirements 

for space support and reconstitution. The committee fully supports 

the ORS program to meet warfighter needs. 

This is the second straight year that the Department has proposed to terminate the ORS program and to transfer the remaining 

efforts to other existing space programs. The proposed termination 

is not in accordance with section 2273a of title 10, United States 

Code, which provides that ‘‘the Secretary of Defense shall ensure 

that, within budget program elements for space programs of the 

Department of Defense, that there is a separate, dedicated program 

element for operationally responsive space.’’ The committee notes 

the Department’s previous efforts to repeal the statutory requirement for ORS have been denied. 

Further, the committee recognizes there are urgent warfighter 

space needs that the ORS program may help address. For instance, 

in 2012, U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) required operationally critical and expedited service for satellite communications 

bandwidth to cover a wide geographic coverage. At the time, the 

Department assessed that the only option to meet USAFRICOM’s 

needs was to obtain a lease through a Chinese company with significant ownership interest from the Chinese government. After a 

year elapsed, the lease was renewed because the Department failed 

to take other measures, such as engaging the ORS office to address 

USAFRICOM’s urgent requirements. 

The committee notes that it has not received the detailed strategic plan, directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013, regarding how the Air Force will implement the mission of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

the ORS program as laid out in section 2273a of title 10, United 

States Code. Current law states the mission of ORS is to: (1) contribute to the development of low-cost, rapid reaction payloads, 

space busses, space lift, and launch control capabilities, in order to 

fulfill joint military operational requirements for on-demand space 

support and reconstitution; and (2) coordinate and execute operationally responsive space efforts across the Department of Defense 

with respect to planning, acquisition, and operations. The plan 

should address the required funding for implementing this mission 

and how it will preserve this program’s alternative approach to 

space acquisition. 

Therefore, the committee rejects the Department’s de facto proposal to terminate the ORS program. 

Overhead Persistent Infrared processing and exploitation 

The budget request contained $352.5 million in PE 64441F for 

the Space-Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) program. Of this 

amount, $22.5 million was requested for data exploitation. 

The committee recognizes the tremendous value and significant 

investments in overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) systems. On 

March 19, 2013, the U.S. Air Force launched the second SBIRS satellite into geosynchronous orbit. This satellite joins other SBIRS 

assets currently in orbit, including another geosynchronous satellite and two hosted payloads in a highly elliptical orbit. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community have opportunities for additional exploitation 

of OPIR to support areas such as missile warning, missile defense, 

technical intelligence, and battlespace awareness. During the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request hearing for national security space activities, the Commander of Air Force Space Command was asked 

about SBIRS exploitation and responded that, ‘‘We have not even 

scratched the surface, I think, of the potential that’s there. We 

have another sensor that we haven’t fully exploited yet as part of 

that satellite. We’re doing a good job on the scanning sensor. The 

staring sensor, which has much better fidelity, we really haven’t 

fully wrung out yet, because we’ve been so focused on getting the 

scanning sensor calibrated and certified.’’ 

As an example, the committee believes that further data exploitation has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of the United 

States ballistic missile defense systems, particularly with the additional sensor data from the recent launch of the second SBIRS geosynchronous satellite. 

The committee remains concerned about the current schedule for 

full performance of SBIRS. Despite the first SBIRS geosynchronous 

satellite being launched on May 7, 2011, the system won’t be fully 

utilized until fiscal year 2018. Full performance, which is driven by 

the ground segment schedule, includes final software tuning, algorithm integration, real-time data fusion, and automated tasking 

and cueing. The committee urges the Department to make further 

efforts to accelerate the schedule of the full performance of the 

SBIRS system. 

The committee recommends $42.5 million, an increase of $20.0 

million, in PE 64441F for further data exploitation of the SpaceBased Infrared Systems. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

Secure wireless networking applications 

The committee recognizes that the Department has a number of 

requirements across all of the military services for new secure, 

short-range, wireless networking technologies, which would have 

wide-ranging, multi-service applications. For example, forward deployed forces could reduce size, weight, power and cabling requirements for necessary communications equipment, as well as for onboard aircraft and vehicles. The committee is aware that the Air 

Force is pursuing this kind of technology through its Secure/Covert 

Wireless Network Program, and believes such technology could reduce operations and maintenance costs for the Government each 

year. The committee encourages the Air Force to look at opportunities to transition this kind of technology throughout the force as 

quickly as it becomes available, and to share lessons from this program with other services and agencies of the Department of Defense. 

Sense and avoid research for MQ–1 and MQ–9 remotely piloted aircraft 

The budget request contained $128.3 million in PE 25219F for 

research, development, test and evaluation of MQ–9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). Of this amount, no funds were requested for research and development of sense and avoid capability. 

The committee notes that the Air Force intends to eventually 

base some amount of the overall fleet of MQ–1 and MQ–9 RPAs in 

the United States in the future, and that many of these aircraft 

will be operated by Air National Guard units with Title 32 responsibilities. In addition, the committee notes that operations of any 

such aircraft will be significantly limited by domestic Federal Aviation Administration rules. Specifically, the committee understands 

that absent any sense and avoid capability that MQ–1 and MQ–9 

aircraft could be largely restricted to restricted military airspace, 

which would greatly limit their potential use in support of domestic 

authorities in the event of a natural disaster or other domestic 

emergency. As a result, the committee encourages the Air Force to 

examine options for a sense and avoid capability for MQ–1 and 

MQ–9 RPAs, and to include a sense and avoid research and development effort in future year budget requests. The committee recommends $128.3 million in PE 25219F, the 

full amount requested, for research, development, test and evaluation of MQ–9 RPAs. 

Space Fence 

The budget request contained $377.7 million in PE 64425F for 

Space Fence activities. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the U.S. Air Force 

Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Space Fence program. The existing Air Force Space Surveillance System is a very high frequency-band system developed in the 1960s to detect space objects 

in low earth orbit. This system is reaching its end-of-life and will 

be replaced with the Space Fence program. 

The committee is aware that the Space Fence will consist of up 

to two ground-based radars, which will provide timely detection of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

small space objects, primarily in low earth orbit. It will expand 

uncued detection and tracking capacity over the current system by 

an order of magnitude. The first Space Fence radar site is planned 

to be put on Kwajalein Island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, with initial operational capability planned for fiscal year 

2017. 

The committee recommends $377.7 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64425F for Space Fence activities in order to support a full operational capability by 2020. 

Trusted autonomy for Unmanned Aerial Systems 

The committee notes that increasing congested airspace will require current and future unmanned aerial systems (UAS) of all 

sizes the ability to operate safely and effectively in close proximity 

to other unmanned, as well as manned aircraft. As national security operations increasingly require expanded use of small, affordable UAS, the committee is concerned that the military will continue to be constrained from training in the National Airspace System due to the lack of a validated, effective Airborne Sense and 

Avoid (ABSAA) capability. The committee is aware that the services have demonstrated some recent advances in technology in 

which flight testing has demonstrated a highly reliable ABSAA capability. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

continue pursuing such technology efforts, such as those carried 

out by the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, in 

order to allow for significantly expanded ABSAA operational testing. 

Unmanned Aerial Systems Development 

The committee continues to encourage investment for unmanned 

aerial system (UAS) acquisition and research and development. 

The committee notes that the U.S. military will continue to use 

UAS for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions, as 

well as weapons delivery platforms. The committee also understands that current UAS platforms are primarily used in permissive environments, however future operations may require UAS 

platforms to operate in non-permissive environments. The committee is aware these systems have improved situational awareness and reduced many of the emotional hazards inherent in air 

and ground combat, thus decreasing the likelihood of causing civilian noncombatant casualties. 

The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a field 

hearing on April 23, 2013, that reviewed UAS modernization and 

technology investment. As a result of the hearing, the committee 

notes that the migration of UAS aircraft and sensor technology to 

the civilian sector could provide for greater competition, innovations in technology for both civilian and military missions, and 

could eventually decrease costs for both the government and private sectors. The committee also notes with concern that the budget request is procuring 234 fewer UAS than fiscal year 2013. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to pursue development of technologies which would support advances in 

UAS development to include developing UAS for use in non-permissive environments, and encourage the Secretary of the Air Force to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

work collaboratively with the Federal Aviation Administration and 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration to support the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. 

Wide area surveillance strategy 

The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 35206 for development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained no 

funding for development of Gorgon Stare. 

Gorgon Stare is the Department of the Air Force’s only operational persistent day and night wide-area motion imagery (WAMI) 

capability. The committee understands the Blue Devil experimental 

WAMI and multi-discipline system has been terminated. The committee notes that Gorgon Stare was initially fielded as a podded 

quick reaction WAMI capability in response to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 106–08, to provide near 

real-time surveillance of city-sized areas. The committee further 

notes that the podded system approach allows for integration onto 

multiple aircraft types and the open systems architecture allows for 

insertion of multiple collection sensors. Accordingly, the committee 

believes that Gorgon Stare is the logical program to recapitalize the 

technologies, capabilities, and lessons learned from Blue Devil, and 

that the Air Force should evolve Gorgon Stare into an operational 

multi-discipline WAMI and near-vertical direction finding signals 

intelligence system leveraging Blue Devil ground processing, exploitation, and dissemination, as well as Gorgon Stare resources 

and lessons learned to achieve a persistent multi-discipline intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability. 

The committee also notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2013 included a projection of $112.4 million for further development of Gorgon Stare in fiscal year 2014. The termination of the 

Blue Devil system and no funds for Gorgon Stare in fiscal year 

2014 raises a committee concern that the Department of the Air 

Force does not have a well-considered and funded plan to develop 

and field a fused multi-disciplined intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to support Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate by February 14, 2014, 

on the strategy for developing a multi-discipline intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability with integrated wide area 

surveillance and near vertical direction finding signals intelligence 

capabilities. 

The committee recommends $37.8 million, the amount of the 

budget request, in PE 35206 for airborne reconnaissance systems. 

Wideband Global Satellite communications 

The budget request contained $38.4 million in PE 33600F for the 

Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) communications system. 

The committee notes the importance of the military satellite communications architecture, such as the operational WGS system. 

WGS provides flexible, high-capacity communications for the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

partment of Defense as well as other national and international 

partners. These critical communications may be susceptible to electromagnetic jamming from foreign adversaries. The committee 

notes that there may be low-risk upgrades that can address these 

emerging threats and encourages the Air Force to fully evaluate 

the best method(s) to protect this critical capability. 

The committee recommends $38.4 million, the full amount of the 

request, in PE 33600F for the Wideband Global Satellite communications system. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request contained $17.7 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends $18.1 billion, an increase of $472.1 million to the budget 

request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide program 

are identified in division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced sensor application program 

The committee is aware that the Department faces a number of 

irregular threats that are not well suited for the array of sensors 

developed and optimized for observing more conventional adversary 

threats. For example, narcotics trafficking and other smuggling in 

the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) area of responsibility poses a significant challenge for that combatant command, 

with global spillover effects. Recently, the Commander, U.S. Southern Command testified that through the efforts of USSOUTHCOM 

and regional partners, 152 metric tons of cocaine have been seized, 

representing over three billion dollars of potential revenue that 

could have supported transnational criminal organization, cartel violence in Mexico, and the destabilization of our Central American 

neighbors. The committee recognizes that such smuggling activities, fueled by the development of semi-submersible vehicles and 

safe havens in foreign sovereign territory unfriendly to the United 

States, can imperil the security of our homeland, as well as support 

global terrorism. The ability to counter these irregular threats, 

which require dedicated sensors, platforms and processing capability designed to counter those threats, is compounded by the effects of budget sequestration and fiscal austerity, which have reduced the deployment of aircraft to South America that would have 

been utilized to support counternarcotics missions in the region 

and train partner security forces. The committee believes that 

newly developed manned and unmanned air and surface platforms 

might be capable of employing innovative new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor systems focused on these target 

sets. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine smaller, more affordable platforms that could host or launch 

such systems to improve detection, tracking, targeting and engageVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

ment of irregular threats as part of the Advanced Sensor Application Program. 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System 

The budget request contained $937.5 million in PE 63892C for 

the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). 

The Aegis BMDS is the world’s most proven naval missile defense system and the sea-based element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System. Aegis BMD plays an active role in protecting 

the United States and U.S. deployed forces from enemy ballistic 

missile attack. The Aegis BMD system has been included in the 

Administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach to European Defense 

and has undergone an extensive and successful testing regime. The 

budget request included funding to meet significant capability and 

test milestones related to the evolution of the Aegis Weapons System and the test and deployment of new missile defense capabilities, including Launch on Remote technology. 

The committee recommends $937.5 million, the full amount of 

the request, in PE 63892C for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. 

Request for multi-year procurement authority for Standard 

Missile–3 Block IB beginning in FY15 

The committee notes the successful FTM–19 flight test on May 

16, 2013, which again demonstrated the robust design and performance of the Standard Missile–3 Block IB missile. With over $4.0 

billion programmed for this missile across the FYDP, the committee strongly encourages the Department to request multi-year 

procurement authority for SM–3 Block IB beginning in fiscal year 

2015. 

The committee notes there could be savings in a multi-year procurement, such a contractual arrangement for SM–3 Block IB could 

yield savings equivalent to an entire additional year of production 

at current planned rates. The Department is directed to report to 

the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2013, with 

a recommendation on whether SM–3 Block IB could use multi-year 

or advanced procurement authority beginning in fiscal year 2015. 

If such authorities are requested, an estimate of what cost savings 

would accrue shall be required. 

Service Life Extension Program for Standard Missile–3 Block 

IA missile interceptor 

The committee is aware that the United States has completed 

procurement of additional Standard Missile–3 block IA interceptors 

and is planning to begin procurement of the block IB interceptor, 

which has a more capable seeker than the IA interceptor. 

The committee is also aware that the United States has acquired 

a substantial inventory of block IA interceptors, many of which will 

soon begin to reach the end-of-design-life. The committee is aware 

that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is currently studying 

whether and how to conduct a service life extension program 

(SLEP) of the block IA interceptor and such a program could extend the lifetime of this substantial inventory of block IA missiles 

by approximately fifty percent. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

The committee believes such a SLEP should therefore be carefully studied and, if the results are promising, such a program 

should be promptly carried out. The committee believes that by carrying out this SLEP, MDA could come closer to meeting the requirements of the combatant commanders for missile interceptor 

inventory. 

Standard Missile–3 Block IB ballistic missile interceptor 

The committee is aware that the Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) 

block IB program will be transitioning from development to production in the next calendar year, after several delays. The committee 

is eager that the combatant commanders receive the block IB missile, which will be more capable than the IA missile that is presently the mainstay of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system 

fleet. Combatant commanders continue to state their demand for 

additional assets in theater to support ballistic missile defense mission requirements. 

According to the Missile Defense Agency, it will procure 52 of 

these improved missile interceptors in fiscal year 2014, and 72 missiles per year each year through the fiscal year 2014 Future Years 

Defense Program. The committee supports this procurement. 

The committee is aware of the challenges moving to procurement 

and the challenges of significantly increasing delivery quantities. 

The committee expects to be informed of any challenges meeting 

the increased production rate. The committee also expects to be informed of the progress of the FTM–19, 21, and 22 tests, which are 

required to get the IB missile certified for full rate production. The 

committee is eager to see full rate production when these maritime 

flight test events are successfully completed. 

Airborne weapons layer 

The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency and the 

U.S. Air Force have been conducting a cost benefit analysis to assess the feasibility of the airborne weapons layer concept, which 

would use modified missile interceptors or air-to-air missiles for 

certain missile defense missions early in a threat ballistic missile’s 

flight profile. 

The committee is also aware that, in the committee reports (S. 

Rept. 112–196 and S. Rept. 112–077), the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate directed the Missile Defense Agency and 

the Air Force to conduct this study, and its results are now well 

overdue. The committee urges the Missile Defense Agency and the 

Air Force to quickly complete this study and brief the congressional 

defense committees on the results. 

The committee believes that an effective and affordable boost 

phase missile defense program would contribute to the goal of deploying an effective layered ballistic missile defense system. The 

committee notes the technical and cost challenges associated with 

boost phase missile defense, including those noted by the National 

Academy of Sciences in its study last year; the committee references the absence of a boost phase missile defense program of 

record elsewhere in this report. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance Model 2 Radars 

The budget request contained $62.0 million in PE 63884C for 

Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) AN/TPY–2 Radars. The 

budget request would fund the acquisition of initial spares for the 

current radar units. 

The committee is aware that the AN/TPY–2 radar is among the 

most powerful sensors in the ballistic missile defense system sensor 

architecture. The radar is capable of being employed in a forwardbased mode or as part of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

(THAAD) system. AN/TPY–2 radars are deployed in the Republic 

of Turkey, the State of Israel, Japan, and elsewhere to support the 

warfighter and are providing significant sensor coverage that contributes to regional and homeland missile defense. 

The committee is also aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget request reduced the procurement of the AN/TPY–2 radar from 17 to 

11 units. However, in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 and the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6), funds were provided to 

procure a 12th AN/TPY–2 radar. The committee encourages the 

Missile Defense Agency to continue to examine the requirement 

from combatant commanders and the proper quantity of AN/TPY– 

2 radars that should be deployed in a forward-based mode and for 

THAAD battery deployments. 

The committee recommends $62.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63884C for BMDS AN/TPY–2 Radars. 

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 

Missile defense directed energy application development 

The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; of this amount, $43.5 million 

is for Weapons Technology, Laser Development. 

The committee is aware that the budget request would support 

next-generation high-energy laser development, as well as would 

enable new kinetic interceptor technology. According to budget justification materials, the budget request would also enable the conduct of experiments using high-altitude, low-mach platforms, including the Phantom Eye unmanned aerial vehicle, to validate directed energy modeling. Further, the request would support laboratory concept development of Diode-Pumped Alkali Laser technology 

and other technologies. 

The committee supports this work and its potential for significant breakthroughs in missile defense sensor and ballistic missile 

kill technology. The committee is concerned that the focus of the 

Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) work may have tilted too far from 

defeat and destruction of ballistic missiles, and recommends that 

the Missile Defense Agency not lose sight of these development options. The committee notes the recent test successes by the U.S. 

Army High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands 

Missile Range, New Mexico, and the previous test successes of the 

Airborne Laser, while being aware of the technical and cost challenges of that system. 

The committee further encourages the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency to provide more detail on the division between directed enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

ergy sensor work and directed energy ballistic missile defeat and 

destruction work as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget submission. 

Additionally, the Director is encouraged to evaluate moving directed energy work out of the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 

office and into MDA program offices geared towards delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. 

The committee recommends $43.5 million, the amount of the request, in PE 63175C for Weapons Technology, Laser Development. 

Solid Divert and Attitude Control System 

The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for 

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology. Of this amount, $24.0 million 

was requested for the continued development, post SM–3 IIB termination, of an enhanced Solid Divert and Attitude Control System 

(SDACS). 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee expressed its concerns about the possibility of relying on a 

single provider of SDACS technology. The committee is pleased 

that, with the termination of the SM–3 IIB, the Missile Defense 

Agency is taking steps to ensure there is an additional opportunity 

for diversity in the industrial base for this critical technology. 

The committee recommends $24.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 63175C for development of Solid Divert and Attitude Control System technology. 

Ballistic missile threat analysis 

The committee understands the global threat environment involving ballistic missiles is increasing, and the recent actions of the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Syrian Arab Republic, 

and the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrate the continued need 

to fund ballistic missile intelligence. The National Air and Space 

Intelligence Center is the primary Department of Defense producer 

of foreign aerospace intelligence and is the Department’s best resource on foreign long-range ballistic missiles. Likewise, the Missile 

and Space Intelligence Center is the primary intelligence component for the Department on the threat of short-range ballistic missiles to U.S. forces its allies, including the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization. 

The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, 

in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, that identifies the ballistic missile threats 

to the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces, as well as 

the gaps in our understanding of those threats. The committee further directs the Director to include an explanation for how the Defense Intelligence Agency intends to close the gaps identified in the 

report. 

Common Kill Vehicle for missile defense 

The budget request contained $309.2 million in PE 63175C for 

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology. Of this amount, $70.0 million 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

was requested for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology (CKVT) 

program. The committee is aware that approximately $20.0 million of the 

funds appropriated for the Standard Missile 3 block IIB program 

in fiscal year 2013 are to be redirected to the CKVT program by 

the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 

The committee understands that MDA’s intention for the CKVT 

program is to: enable the consolidation of the development of kill 

vehicles; develop a modular, open kill vehicle architecture; transition a more capable kill vehicle to the Ground-based Interceptor 

and the Standard Missile 3; and evolve to a multiple kill vehicle 

payload. The committee supports these developmental goals. 

The committee is also aware that, pursuant to section 225 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239), the Missile Defense Agency is developing a plan for 

a next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. Section 225 also requires the Director, Missile Defense Agency to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the plan. 

The committee finds that the budget justification material regarding the CKVT program was insufficient, lacked necessary details, and should be further revised to include a date for initial operating capability, as well as a plan to transition to a development 

program based on full and open competition in time to support current and future interceptor procurement. The committee directs the 

Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional 

defense committees on such information by July 31, 2013, as well 

as for it to be included in the report required by section 225 of Public Law 112–239. 

In addition, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency to determine an alternate program element (PE) in the fiscal year 2015 budget submission to fund the Common Kill Vehicle 

Technology and Capability Development program. It should balance the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system equities in a potential Common Kill Vehicle Technology and Capability Development program, as well as those possessed by the Aegis ballistic 

missile defense program. In addition, the committee recommends a 

new PE for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $70.0 million, 

in PE 63175C for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology program. 

Further, the committee recommends $70.0 million, an increase of 

$70.0 million, in a new PE for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology 

and Capability Development program. 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike 

The budget request contained $65.4 million in PE 64165D8Z for 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike Capability (CPGS) development. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request is $45.0 million less than 

last year’s budget request and nearly $135.0 million less than the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2013 in the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6). 

The committee notes that in his statement before the committee 

on March 5, 2013, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM), testified that, ‘‘[t]oday, the only prompt global strike 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

capability to engage potentially time-sensitive, fleeting targets continues to be ballistic missile systems armed with nuclear weapons. 

We continue to require a deployed conventional prompt strike capability to provide the President a range of flexible military options 

to address a small number of highest-value targets, including in an 

anti-access and area denial environment.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the budget request does not provide sufficient resources to develop and field a capability for which 

the combatant commander has testified there exists a requirement. 

The committee is aware that given sequestration, potential fiscal 

year 2013 reprogramming actions, and other matters, the department has yet to be able to fully determine budget impacts to many 

of its programs. The committee encourages the Department to provide a more detailed plan for the fiscal year 2014 request for PE 

64165D8Z, including a plan for acquiring CPGS capability with a 

specific date of initial operating capability and the date at which 

there is a likely to be a Material Development Decision. 

The committee notes that many of the technologies under consideration by the Department of Defense are dependent on acquisition 

decisions involving other programs that may not occur until the 

middle of the next decade or that depend on breakthroughs in low 

technology readiness level programs. The committee is aware, however, that there are near-term threats for which CPGS capabilities 

could be especially useful, especially with the proliferation of mobile ballistic missile capability, including involving regional actors, 

if it can be developed and deployed in an effective and affordable 

manner. The committee encourages the Department to consider 

what near-term CPGS capability should be considered to meet 

these near-term challenges and it expects to see that consideration 

reflected in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee is 

interested to see the results of the upcoming second test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which was successfully tested in 2012. The committee recommends $65.4 million in PE 64165D8Z for 

the Prompt Global Strike Capability Development. 

Defense Science Board recommendations on Deterrent Response Capabilities 

The committee is aware that the Defense Science Board (DSB) 

completed its report ‘‘Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced 

Cyber Threat’’ in January 2013. As part of that review, the committee noted that the DSB made several observations relevant to 

U.S. deterrent response capabilities in the face of severe and/or catastrophic cyber attacks on the United States. 

First, the committee is aware that the DSB concluded that the 

severity of certain types of cyber threats added further reason for 

a non-nuclear conventional strike capability. The committee continues to support expeditious development of conventional prompt 

global strike capabilities, as well as the supporting doctrinal and 

concept development to guide potential employment, and states its 

views on conventional prompt global strike in another section of 

this report. 

In addition, the DSB observed that, ‘‘[p]resumably one would 

characterize a catastrophic Tier V–VI adversary cyber attack on 

the United States as ‘extreme circumstances’ in the public lanVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

guage of the 2010 NPR, so that is not precluded in the stated policy, but it is not explicitly mentioned.’’ The committee encourages 

the Department to consider cyber in the Nation’s deterrence doctrine, including better articulation of what circumstances might fall 

within the ‘‘extreme circumstances’’ language of the 2010 Nuclear 

Posture Review. 

Based on the findings of the DSB, the committee is concerned 

that the United States should make further progress in developing 

response options and capabilities to support a full-spectrum cyber 

deterrence strategy, including the potential leverage of both conventional and nuclear capabilities. Additionally, the committee 

awaits the response from the Department on their views of the 

DSB’s findings and recommendations, as promised during the 

March 13, 2013, hearing with the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command. The 

committee encourages the Department to consider all of these concerns as they draft their response. 

Defense research in remote sensing 

The committee supports domestic university research in remote 

sensing including remote sensing systems, cutting edge remote 

sensing data analysis methodologies, and techniques that use remotely sensed data for a wide variety of applications relevant to 

the Defense community. Consistent with the National Academies 

report, ‘‘Priorities for GEOINT Research at the National 

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’’, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider funding remote sensing research 

in areas such as sensor systems, phenomenology, analytical techniques, image processing, collection strategies or tasking, imagery 

science, polarimetry, and hyperspectral science. 

Detection and threat identification technologies 

The committee is aware that the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency continues to have a strong partnership with each of the 

services as well as with U.S. Special Operations Command to develop and field technologies that reduce, counter and eliminate the 

threat of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield 

explosive materials (CBRNE). The committee remains concerned 

about credible threats posed by state and non-state actors in their 

attempts to acquire and weaponize CBRNE materials for use 

against the United States and its allies. Therefore, the committee 

encourages the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to continue the 

development, demonstration and deployment of innovative and 

emerging detection and threat identification technologies to ensure 

prompt transition of validated capabilities to address national security requirements. 

The committee directs the Director, Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 31, 

2013, on their efforts to advance and make operational a lightweight, person-portable CBRNE detection and analysis device. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

Distributed Common Ground System enterprise 

The committee is aware that the Distributed Common Ground 

System (DCGS) is a family of systems fielded across the military 

departments and other partners to provide an integrated architecture for all intelligence systems. DCGS is the current program of 

record for intelligence analytic, processing and dissemination capabilities for tactical and operational users. The committee is also 

aware that the ‘‘DCGS Enterprise,’’ as the family of systems is 

known, has been under development and deployment for a number 

of years, and the cost, schedule and requirements continue to grow 

without keeping pace with the demands of the users or the current 

state of the art in technology. 

To better understand those challenges, the committee requested 

the Comptroller General of the United States to review the DCGS 

Enterprise. The review found that ‘‘unlike a traditional weapon 

system acquisition, the DCGS Enterprise by its very nature has no 

clear end point and relies on a complex governance structure under 

a ‘community of the willing’ approach. This governance structure 

has had some success . . . however, not all of the services have 

kept pace in developing their systems and implementing improved 

interoperability standards that are available.’’ 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to submit a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives within 1-year after the date of the enactment of 

this Act on the information sharing framework and implementation 

plan for the DCGS Enterprise. The report should include: 

(1) The framework, including clearly defined criteria and 

metrics, to assess progress and outcomes pertaining to the 

level and quality of information sharing taking place across the 

DCGS Enterprise and its effect on intelligence operations; 

(2) The applicability of this framework to non-DCGS Enterprise systems; 

(3) An implementation plan that defines the way forward for 

getting to the desired end state for the DCGS Enterprise and 

articulates how the military services will be held accountable 

for doing their part in acquiring the systems necessary to 

achieve the end state. The plan should include the overall requirements, technologies, acquisition strategies, time frames, 

and investments needed by each of the military services to 

complete development and fielding of DCGS capabilities. 

Electro Magnetic Rail Gun for Missile Defense 

The committee notes that the U.S. Navy has been conducting 

long-term research into electromagnetic railgun technology to support naval surface fire support missions. The committee is aware 

that pursuant to section 243 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), the Secretary of the 

Navy provided an unclassified and classified report on the development, future deployment, and operational challenges of this technology. The committee is also aware that the Assistant Secretary 

of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition wrote in 

response to this reporting requirement that, ‘‘[p]reliminary analysis 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

shows that a tactical railgun . . . has the potential to provide lethal effectiveness . . . for antiship ballistic missile defense.’’ The 

committee acknowledges significant challenges ahead in developing, integrating, and deploying such technology, as with many 

technology development programs. 

Additionally, the committee is aware that the Department has 

established a new effort within the Strategic Capabilities Office in 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to leverage the Navy’s program to explore the development a land-based railgun. As noted in 

the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) for the National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013, the committee is interested 

in the potential utility in accelerating some electromagnetic railgun 

efforts for land-based area defense. 

The committee finds these developments encouraging, and urges 

the Director, Missile Defense Agency to examine these activities in 

order to determine their potential application, if they can provide 

additional capability, to broader ballistic missile defense missions 

of the Missile Defense Agency. 

Enhancing participation at minority-serving universities and institutions 

The budget request contained $30.9 million in PE 61228D8Z for 

supporting the development of research and scientific capabilities, 

including scientific professionals, for Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. 

The committee is encouraged to see that the Department of Defense (DOD) is firmly committed to vigorous efforts to enhance the 

capability of our nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI), as defined 

under title III and title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(Public Law 89–329), to perform leading edge research supporting 

national security requirements. 

The committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) issued guidance on December 2, 2011, calling for the re-invigoration of the relationship 

between the Department and the HBCU/MIs. As part of that guidance, the ASD(R&E) called on the components of the Department 

to: 

(1) Maintain statistics on success rates for HBCU/MIs under 

competitive funding opportunities; 

(2) Increase awareness of these institutions for participation 

in all DOD-sponsored activities; 

(3) Encourage use of Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreements or other personnel-detail mechanisms with HBCU/MIs 

to more effectively connect with their talent base; and 

(4) Ensure HBCU/MI facility are recruited to serve on scholarship, fellowship, and research review panels. 

The committee encourages the Department to socialize this guidance across the enterprise, and to collect the necessary supporting 

data to ensure adherence to this policy. 

The committee is also aware that there has been confusion over 

the current authorities related to the HBCU/MI program of the Department of Defense. The committee reiterates the current authority is intended to provide the basis for a program that recognizes 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

the unique status and attributes of ‘‘covered institutions,’’ as defined in section 2362(e), title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that some organizations within the Department 

have incorrectly interpreted the new statutory basis for the program in section 2362(e), title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the Department’s approach to the HBCU/MI 

program should not include aspects of the program as it existed 

under any prior authority, including the use of any form of funding 

goal or required percentage of overall funding. In addition, the Department should not include HBCU/MIs when determining goals or 

accomplishments under the requirements of the Small Business 

Act (Public Law 95–507), as amended, regardless of any legacy coverage in regulations or local policies. The committee believes 

HBCUs/MIs should be treated as institutions of higher education 

and as a special subset of such institutions, not considered as small 

or small disadvantaged businesses. 

The committee applauds the Department’s decision to move the 

HBCU/MI budget line into a basic research account. Such a move 

provides greater flexibility for the Department to carry out STEM 

activities across the continuum. The committee encourages the Department to evaluate and consider supporting established activities 

that foster the best and brightest underrepresented high school 

students into pursuing STEM fields that would support national 

security requirements. The committee recommends $35.9 million, an increase of $5.0 

million, in PE 61228D8Z for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. 

Foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military systems 

The committee recognizes the importance of directed energy technology as a means to maintain an asymmetric operational and cost 

advantage over our adversaries. The committee, however, is aware 

that the United States is not the only nation which is pursuing this 

technology and is therefore concerned regarding the ability of the 

United States to maintain an advantage over potential adversaries 

should they employ similar technologies against U.S. forces. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives within 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, on foreign directed energy threats and 

U.S. vulnerabilities to those threats. The briefing should consist of 

two sections. The first section should provide details regarding potential threats, current and projected, to U.S. military systems due 

to foreign directed energy weapons including high-energy lasers 

and high-power microwave systems. The Secretary of Defense 

should consult with the Director of National Intelligence regarding 

the information content of this section. The second section should 

discuss vulnerabilities of U.S. systems posed by foreign directed energy efforts, and the Department’s initiatives to mitigate these 

vulnerabilities. The briefing should include a description of science 

and technology development efforts for directed energy countermeasures, as well a description of any technologies which are currently in use. The briefing should also address both tactical and 

strategic assets as well as efforts to protect U.S. personnel against 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

directed energy attacks. The briefing should also identify any 

known technology gaps in directed energy countermeasures and 

any plans to address those gaps. 

Future missile defense sensor architectures 

The committee is aware of the decision by the Department of Defense to terminate the Precision Tracking Space System, which it 

addresses in another section of this report. The committee also discusses the terrestrial AN/TPY–2 radar system in another section of 

this report. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) to accompany the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee also discussed the operational status of the Sea-based Xband radar as well as the employment of the Ground Based Radar 

Prototype (GBR–P) presently deployed at Kwajalein Atoll. The committee has been focused on the centrality of a robust missile defense sensor architecture in its oversight of budget requests for 

missile defense in previous fiscal years. 

The committee is therefore pleased that the Missile Defense 

Agency and U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), in consultation with U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), are engaged 

in a study to examine the near- and far-term direction of U.S. missile defense sensor architectures, including the role for terrestrial 

radar sensors, airborne sensors, and persistent overhead sensors. 

The committee believes consideration should be given for balancing 

the employment of scarce available resources, noting the availability of the SBX radar for potential stationary employment off the 

west coast and the GBR-P on the east coast. The committee welcomes the leadership of the Director, Missile Defense Agency, the 

Commanders of USSTRATCOM and USNORTHCOM in undertaking this study, especially as gaps have become clear against the 

North Korean and future Iranian ballistic missile threats. The committee expects to receive a briefing on the outcome of this study 

and to understand the implications for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 

2015 and beyond. The committee expects to be supportive of closing 

the previously mentioned sensor gaps. 

Ground-based midcourse defense system 

The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63882C for the 

ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system. 

The budget request would provide for Capability Enhancement 

(CE) 2 Enhanced Kill Vehicle (EKV) Return to Intercept activities; 

interceptor reliability enhancements; sustainment of the weapons 

system; return to Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deliveries, which 

were suspended after the intercept test failure of Flight Test GMD 

(FTG) 06 and 06–a; and, Missile Field (MF) 1 refurbishment. The 

committee states its views and concerns about the plan for MF–1 

refurbishment elsewhere in this report. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee also recommends an increase of $107.0 million to support advance procurement of longlead items (specifically, 14 booster motor sets) in fiscal year 2014. 

The committee supports the decision by the Director, Missile Defense Agency to procure additional GBIs after a successful intercept 

flight. The committee is aware that Controlled Test Vehicle (CTV) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

test 01—CTV–01—was successfully completed on January 26, 2013. 

The committee supports the CE–2 intercept test, FTG–06b, as a 

critical step after the two flight test failures in 2010, and notes 

that this test is currently scheduled for December 2013. The committee encourages the Director to take all appropriate steps to prevent a further slip in this test. 

The committee commends the investigation of the 2010 test failures and the rigorous return to flight plan. The committee awaits 

FTG–07 planned to occur in May 2013, which will be the first 

intercept test of the CE–1 EKV since 2008. The committee notes 

the Director, Missile Defense Agency is planning to undertake a 

pace of at least one intercept test per year of the GMD system, and 

supports this planned increased rate of testing. The committee 

agrees with this goal and believes this is the minimum level of 

testing required for the GMD system to ensure full confidence, including by the Commander, U.S. Northern Command in the homeland missile defense capability. 

The committee is also aware that in the March 15, 2013, announcement on the U.S. missile defense strategy, the Secretary of 

Defense stated the Department would procure 14 new GBIs at a 

rate of 2 per year starting in fiscal year 2016. The committee notes 

that this appears to be a low-rate procurement plan and unnecessarily expensive given a known quantity of missiles to be procured. 

The committee believes there is efficiency through long-lead procurement and other efficiencies of scale, especially in the event of 

a successful test of the CE–II interceptor in late calendar year 

2013. The committee supports the Director’s planned efforts to examine how to increase efficiencies of scale and reduce costs, and includes a provision elsewhere in this Act that would enable the Director to more cost-effectively procure these GBIs. 

The committee encourages plans by the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command to consult 

and examine the appropriate mix of two- and three-stage GBIs for 

the additional procurements as it understands there are different 

and complementary capabilities of these two GBI configurations. 

The committee recommends $1.0 billion, the amount of the request, in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse defense system. 

East Coast missile defense site 

The budget request contained no funds for the design, engineering, or construction of an East Coast missile defense site, including 

for the conduct of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as required by section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

The committee believes such a site is critical to the defense of the 

United States. The committee is concerned that funding for the EIS 

process to implement section 227 is not included in the budget request, and notes that the Missile Defense Agency intends to treat 

it as an unfunded requirement. The committee also notes that section 227 does not require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

down-select to only a single site by the end of this year. 

The committee recommends $140.4 million in PE 63882C, for site 

activities related to the development and deployment of an East 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

Coast missile defense site, as follows: $10.2 million for site activities; $25.0 million for site planning and design related to site concept and master plan development for design work; and $35.0 million for ground system development. The committee notes that remaining funds should be spent by the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency to accelerate site activities. 

Fort Greely Missile Field 1 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63882C to initiate the refurbishment, upgrade, and for other improvements to 

Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska. 

The committee is pleased with the budget request, as it adheres 

to the recommendation made in the committee report (H. Rept. 

112–479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013. The committee is aware this refurbishment is required to fully implement the March 15, 2013, announcement by 

the Secretary of Defense to emplace an additional 14 Ground-based 

interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely. 

The committee encourages the Director, Missile Defense Agency, 

when planning and undertaking the refurbishment of the missile 

field, to ensure that no action is taken that would prevent or complicate any additional emplacements of GBIs at Fort Greely in the 

future given the unique emplacement of interceptors at that field 

at the present time. The committee expects that if the Director determines that additional resources are required in fiscal years 

2014–15, to refurbish the missile field that he will communicate 

the same to the congressional defense committees. The committee recommends $82.0 million, the full amount of the 

request, in PE 63882C for refurbishment, upgrade, and other improvements to Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely. 

Two-stage Interceptor for Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

In the Administration’s 2009 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, 

the continued development of the two-stage GBI was considered a 

hedge against the advancing threat. The committee notes that a 

two-stage variant of the Ground-based interceptor provides significant additional homeland defense performance and robustness 

against emerging threat capabilities by improving the battle-space 

capability through shorter engagement times. The committee also 

understands the value of deploying a mixture of two-stage and 

three-stage GBIs to the existing GBI missile fields for enhanced 

homeland defense. 

The committee is concerned that the planned two-stage intercept 

flight test in 2014, FTG–08, will test a two-stage missile that cannot be operationally deployed. The committee directs the Missile 

Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the committee prior to 

FTG–08 detailing the improvements necessary, cost and feasibility, 

to test a two-stage missile that can be operationally deployed. 

High-powered microwave applications 

The committee is aware the Department of Defense has been examining applications for use of high-powered microwave (HPM) 

systems to counter electronics and non-kinetically affect adversaries on the future battle ground. For example, the Air Force has 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

been demonstrating a Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave 

Advanced Missile Project through the Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstration, successfully completing that effort in fall of 2012. 

The committee is also aware that the Navy has explored applications for using high-powered microwave systems to combat the 

electronics in improvised explosive devices in order to pre-detonate 

those systems. 

The committee encourages the Department to continue investing 

in the development of both the capabilities for attack tools using 

HPM, as well as the operational concepts for how those systems 

might be employed. The committee recommends that the Department examine more closely such issues as: possible effects of HPM 

weapons on targets such as integrated air defense systems, sensors, 

battle management networks, and other high-value, electronicsbased military systems; assess the funding needs to transition existing developmental HPM technologies to a cruise missile-based 

weapon, as well as development of new approaches and delivery 

mechanisms; and, estimates of the time required for development 

and deployment of near-term and longer-term capabilities. 

Highly integrated photonics 

The committee recognizes the importance of highly integrated 

photonics (HIP) technology for Department of Defense applications. 

For example, modern military aircraft can have miles of heavily 

shielded copper wire cables that connect a multitude of components, resulting in both increased weight and limited bandwidth 

capability. The committee believes that HIP technology has the potential to provide for next-generation network architectures and 

processing capabilities, while dramatically reducing life cycle costs. 

The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command, has an initiative underway to further demonstrate HIP technology that facilitates building or upgrading military aircraft and 

other aerospace platforms with a fiber-optic networking infrastructure that will offer many capabilities well beyond those of currently 

used copper- and multi-mode-fiber-based technologies. The committee encourages the Department to continue pursuing sustained 

development of HIP across the future years defense plan. 

Human-computer interaction 

The committee understands that the application of emerging 

neuroscience techniques, such as the use of non-invasive brain 

measurement called functional near-infrared spectroscopy, are 

leading to a better understanding of human-computer interaction. 

The committee is aware that the use of such techniques to passively study the brain, coupled with new neuroergonomic and 

human factors research, have the potential to lead to better methods for training cyber operators that would reduce the human errors, improved input devices for machine control, and potential applications for using brain measurement as a means for future biometric identification. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense to continue investing in basic research to further explore 

and expand the understanding of functional near-infrared spectroscopy techniques, and their applications for defense needs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

Improving military medical innovation 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its innovative medical research and development program, which supports a combination of private sector, academic and in-house initiatives. The committee believes that this foundation could be further 

improved by examining means to augment this base program with 

a self-sustaining, equity sharing mechanism to enable continued 

health care advancements despite decreasing federal budgets. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House 

of Representatives within 180 days after the enactment of this Act 

on the feasibility of establishing a federally supported, self-sustaining investment entity to support military medical innovation. 

Individual equipment for female servicemembers 

The committee notes that in January 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced a new policy regarding the eligibility of female 

servicemembers to serve in certain combat positions in which they 

were previously prohibited. The committee is concerned that despite the reality of female servicemembers serving in combat for 

many years, the military services have been slow to field individual 

equipment that is properly sized, weighted, and designed for use by 

female servicemembers. The committee believes that it is important that the Department of Defense ensure that female 

servicemembers have the equipment and clothing tailored to the 

physical requirements of women in order to operate effectively and 

not be hampered by equipment that is ill-fitting, uncomfortable, 

and potentially harmful during operations in the field. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee noted that it is aware of the concerns expressed by female 

members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation 

New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom that the current interceptor body armor system’s design may not be as ergonomically 

effective for female soldiers. As a result, the committee directed the 

Secretary of the Army to conduct an assessment as to whether 

there is an operational need to tailor the interceptor body armor 

systems fielded to female servicemembers specifically for the physical requirements of women. The committee expects to receive this 

assessment in July 2013. The committee understands the Army 

has begun fielding improved outer tactical vests specifically designed for female servicemembers, and that the Army has created 

and tested 13 female-specific coat sizes and 13 female-specific trouser sizes through the Army Combat Uniform-Alternate program 

that it will begin fielding in May 2013. The committee commends 

the Army for taking these actions and expects similar actions by 

the other military services. 

Similar to the report referenced above, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by February 15, 2014, that details the Department’s programs to develop and field individual equipment that is 

properly sized, weighted, and designed to accommodate its use by 

women across all of the military services. In particular, the report 

should include, but not be limited to, plans to provide a greater 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

range of clothing sizes for women servicemembers, the potential 

utility of rucksack frames and other carrying equipment designed 

specifically for women, as well as the advisability and feasibility of 

providing all female servicemembers with female urinary diversion 

devices as part of their standard issued set of personal equipment. 

Inner-aural communications hearing protection capability development 

The committee is concerned that hearing loss continues to remain one of the most prevalent long-term injuries for military personnel. As such, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013, the committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees on the current efforts of the Department of Defense in developing technology to reduce military 

service-related hearing loss. The committee understands this briefing is still being developed and looks forward to receiving it in July 

2013. 

The committee believes that the military services should consider 

additional investment in such technology. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service 

chiefs, to develop a comprehensive policy for hearing protection and 

hearing enhancement across the military services in order to: (1) 

ensure all members of the military services are equipped with communications equipment that does not interfere with or prohibit the 

use of hearing protection; (2) reduce impediments to operational 

readiness that derive from hearing loss; and (3) reduce the number 

of service-connected disabilities resulting from inadequate hearing 

protection. 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense 

The budget request contained $220.3 million in PE 28866C for 

the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system. 

The committee has supported the Iron Dome system since its inception. The committee is aware of the tremendous success of the 

Iron Dome system in defeating threat rockets fire at the State of 

Israel from the Gaza Strip in late 2012. The committee is aware 

that the Iron Dome system intercepted over 85 percent of the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against defended areas in Israel, 

and is pleased with its success. 

The committee associates itself with the remarks of former-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in December 2012 regarding the 

system: ‘‘Iron Dome performed, I think it’s fair to say, remarkably 

well during the recent escalation . . . Iron Dome does not start 

wars; it helps prevent wars.’’ 

The committee recommends $220.3 million, the full amount requested, in PE 28866C for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system. The committee believes the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, should use up to 50 percent of this amount for 

production of Iron Dome components by U.S. industry in the 

United States to meet Israel’s defense requirements consistent with 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

each Nation’s laws, regulations, and procedures. The committee believes co-production of parts and components can and should be 

done in a manner that will maximize interceptor and battery deliveries for Israeli defense needs. 

Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Systems 

The budget request contained $95.7 million in PE 63913C for 

Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs. Of this amount, 

$52.6 million was requested for the Israeli Upper Tier program 

known as Arrow 3; $10.6 million was requested for the Israeli 

Arrow Program; and, $32.5 million was requested for the Shortrange Ballistic Missile Defense Program, also known as the David’s 

Sling Weapons System. 

The committee is aware that the United States has no closer ally 

in the Middle East than the State of Israel. The committee is also 

aware that the threat of ballistic missile attack on Israel is rising. 

The committee believes this threat must be met with the unequivocal support of the United States. The committee recommends $268.7 million, an increase of $173.0 

million, in PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative missile defense programs, the same level recommended in fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends this increase be provided as follows: $117.2 

million for the David’s Sling; $22.1 million for the Arrow 3 program; and $33.7 million for the Israeli Arrow program. The committee recommends funding and policies regarding the Iron Dome 

system elsewhere in this report. 

Medical research information sharing 

The committee supports the breadth of medical research being 

conducted within the Department of Defense and the promising results of such research. However, the committee is concerned that 

compartmentalization of data, whether by military service or injury 

mechanism, may unnecessarily limit the efficacy of limited research dollars. History has shown that many medical breakthroughs, such as penicillin, are often the product of research in 

fields indirectly related to medicine. The committee believes that 

the emerging field of big data analytics could provide useful tools 

to support the development of new capabilities through greater exposure of data and research results. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide a briefing within 180 days after 

the date of enactment of the Act on how best to promote information sharing across the medical research community through the 

use of big data analytics, while preserving anonymity and privacy 

protection, and allowing patients, subjects, and researchers to optin or opt-out of specific research studies. The briefing should also 

address whether establishing a single Department-wide clearing 

house for medical research data would be an effective means for accomplishing this goal. 

Microscale liquid plasmas 

The committee recognizes the importance of systems to allow for 

the operation of defense electronics in harsh environmental conditions, which must be impervious to radiation or damaging electromagnetic pulses. The committee is encouraged with the advanceVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

ments the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

has made in this area working with non-thermal microscale liquid 

plasmas (MLP) in demonstrating the ability of these electronics 

and signal processing devices to withstand damaging electromagnetic pulses and operate in extreme pressure and radiation environments. The committee recognizes that MLP may have application in other areas, such as the development of novel plasma actuators for aerodynamic control to improve performance of high-speed 

fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. The committee encourages 

DARPA to continue this research to provide applications that can 

be used on various platforms to protect our military hardware 

against extreme pressure and radiation. 

Missile defense cooperation with Japan 

The committee is aware that the United States has more than 

20 international missile defense partners, plus the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization. Of these, few have undertaken a more cooperative missile defense program with the United States than the 

Government of Japan. 

This cooperation includes hosting missile defense radars, deploying Aegis ballistic missile defense sensor and shooter ships, and 

sharing the multi-billion dollar development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM–3) IIA missile, which is planned to be deployed by 2018. 

Upon completion of this cooperative program, the SM–3 IIA will be 

the most sophisticated missile interceptor deployed on any country’s ships, with the capability to engage many intermediate-range 

ballistic missile types. 

The committee was pleased when the Secretary of Defense announced on March 15, 2013, that, ‘‘[w]ith the support of the Japanese Government, we are planning to deploy an additional radar in 

Japan.’’ The committee is aware that this radar placement was in 

consideration for over a year. 

The committee considers it a testament to the strength of the 

U.S.-Japan alliance that the Government of Japan has agreed to 

host this second radar on its territory. The committee expects that 

with the addition of the second Army Navy/Transportable Radar 

Surveillance-model 2 (AN/TPY–2) radar unit, the Missile Defense 

Agency and the Department of Defense will have an opportunity to 

examine how best to bore sight these two radars to ensure maximum support for the regional and homeland missile defense missions. The committee is encouraged by this virtually unparalleled 

cooperation and support from Japan. The committee would welcome more such U.S.-Japanese missile defense cooperation in the 

future. 

Additionally, the committee encourages Japan to consider the 

proposal articulated by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to seek 

a ‘‘collaborative, trilateral ballistic missile defense architecture.’’ 

The committee believes such an architecture could redound to the 

benefit of the three allied states to provide additional defensive capabilities against shared regional threats, including the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

Mitochondrial research 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has an 

interest in research related to mitochondrial disease and 

mitochondrial function. For example, the U.S. Army Research Office’s life sciences program includes support for efforts that focus on 

mitochondrial regulation and biogenesis, and biomolecular power 

generation. Similarly, as the committee has previously noted, there 

is a growing body of evidence indicating that traumatic brain injury-related impairments may be the result of damage to human 

cell mitochondria and that an enhanced understanding of the functioning of post-injury mitochondria may help drive the development 

of therapeutic interventions that could delay or prevent additional 

impairment. The committee continues to encourage the Department to support mitochondrial research through its medical research activities in the various services. 

Modeling and simulation concurrency 

The committee is aware that modeling and simulation tools can 

provide powerful planning and training capabilities to expose our 

forces to the complexities and uncertainties of combat before ever 

leaving home station. The use of simulation training has yielded a 

military that is better trained, more capable, and more confident 

as compared to units that do not have access to modern simulation 

training devices. The committee believes that simulation training 

can be a cost effective means by which units can improve combat 

readiness, tactical decision-making skills and ultimately save lives. 

Furthermore, the committee believes that a key to the effectiveness of simulation training is ensuring that training devices maintain concurrency with the capabilities and features of their counterpart operational systems and platforms. The committee is aware 

that maintaining concurrency using traditional funding approaches 

remains challenging in the current fiscal environment and is likely 

to become more so in the future. To ensure the greatest efficiency 

and effectiveness in our military today, the committee encourages 

the Department of Defense to consider using its existing flexibility 

to utilize ‘‘training as service’’ contracting as one approach to support operational readiness and maintain system concurrency. The 

committee believes that the Department could meet the training 

challenges of the future in a fiscally austere environment by 

leveraging simulation training that is a combination of both Government owned and operated simulators, coupled with simulation 

training services provided by a academia and industry. 

Modeling and simulation grand challenges 

The committee recognizes the value of modeling and simulation 

(M&S) to a wide range of activities within the Department of Defense. The committee believes that the Department could do more 

to harness the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of industry, 

academia, and the organic research and engineering resources of 

the Department to facilitate progress in the state of the art for 

M&S. The committee recognizes that the issuance of grand challenges have been effective in other areas, such as the Grand, 

Urban and Balloon Challenges of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency. The committee encourages the Department to deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

velop and promulgate a set of M&S Grand Challenges for the research community that would: 

(1) Support increased inter-agency coordination; 

(2) Improve efficiency and interoperability of specific M&S 

tools, as well as to replace, improve, or provide efficiencies to 

existing activities of the Department; 

(3) Eeinvigorate use of simulation-based acquisition as an 

enterprise-wide strategy, including by using modeling and simulation for performing analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs; 

(4) Lower the operations and support costs of the Department; and 

(5) Support risk mitigation activities. 

National Defense Education Program 

The budget request contained $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z for 

the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) for the purposes 

of attracting, engaging, and developing current and future generations of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

talent to benefit the Department of Defense. Of this amount, $48.7 

million was requested for the Science, Mathematics, and Research 

for Transformation (SMART) program, $35.6 million was requested 

for the National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF) program, but no funds were requested for pre-kindergarten-to-12th grade (PK–12) STEM educational programs. 

The committee cannot stress enough that the recruitment, retention and development of an experienced, technical workforce is a 

critical national security requirement for the Department of Defense and that these efforts must start at the earliest stages of the 

STEM pipeline. The committee also stresses that growth in STEM 

fields is important for the general economic health and competitiveness of the nation, but due to the special security requirements of 

Department of Defense employees, this need is especially acute. 

The committee understands that as the demand for a diverse, 

highly skilled scientific and technical military and civilian defense 

workforce grows, the Department will need to continue to invest in 

strengthening local defense communities by enhancing student engagement in STEM initiatives that support the Department’s research areas. The committee understands that NDEP K–12: 

(1) Builds student interest in STEM fields and disciplines 

and in careers specific to the Department; 

(2) Develops defense-relevant science, engineering and mathematics skills; and 

(3) Provides a future talent pool to fulfill the Department’s 

demand for highly skilled STEM professionals by increasing 

access to authentic STEM experiences. 

The committee recommends $89.3 million, an increase of $5.0 

million, in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program. Of these funds, the committee recommends $48.7 million, the 

requested amount for the SMART; $25.6 million for NSSEFF, a decrease of $10.0 million; and $15.0 million for PK–12 programs, an 

increase of $15.0 million. Of the funds request for PK–12, the committee recommends the Department use some of the funds to carry 

out STEM activities that will support school districts with high 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

concentrations of military dependent families. Such activities 

should include a focus on increasing teacher effectiveness as well 

as student achievement. 

Next generation Aegis missile—Standard Missile 3 block IIB 

The committee is aware that on March 15, 2013, the Secretary 

of Defense announced that the Administration would propose to restructure the Standard Missile (SM) 3 block IIB program in the 

budget request for fiscal year 2014. The Missile Defense Agency 

has made it clear that this decision was driven by congressional reductions in technology development in fiscal years 2012–13, as well 

as technical challenges related to the projected capability of the 

missile and related to sea-basing the prospective missile interceptor. 

The committee is also aware that the Government and its industry partners both made significant investments in the development 

of the SM–3 IIB missile. The committee believes that it would be 

imprudent and short-sighted to walk away from these investments 

and to leave no program of record for the continued improvement 

of the SM–3 system. The committee encourages the Missile Defense 

Agency to use these investments as much as possible to improve 

and inform the development of the Aegis ballistic missile defense 

system SM–3 IIA interceptor, planned to be fielded in fiscal year 

2018, as well as a follow-on system. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2013, on 

the potential for a concept development program for leveraging the 

investments made in the SM–3 IIB program by the United States 

and industry to continue to improve the SM–3 IIA missile through 

an evolved or iterative variant, for example an SM–3 IIA+. 

Non-Lethal directed energy applications 

The committee reiterates its support for the expeditious development and fielding of non-lethal technologies and capabilities, which 

can not only limit civilian casualties in irregular warfare and contingency operations but have applicability across the full range of 

military operations. In particular, active denial technologies offer 

numerous opportunities for defusing crisis situations in volatile environments. The committee supports the findings of the Accountability Review Board, which concluded that ‘‘the lack of non-lethal 

crowd control options . . . precluded a more vigorous defense’’ of 

the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and which recommended 

that the State Department ‘‘rapidly and routinely’’ identify and procure ‘‘additional options for non-lethal deterrents in high-risk, highthreats posts.’’ 

However, the committee notes that the lack of a clearly defined 

policy regarding the deployment of directed energy technologies has 

been a contributing factor to the decision not to deploy systems 

such as the Active Denial System. Interim guidance issued by the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding the operational 

employment of directed energy weapons acknowledges the benefits 

of directed energy technology and supports its continued development, but stops short of authorizing the use of new directed energy 

weapons without undergoing a comprehensive review and approval 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

process intended to ensure an acceptable risk of collateral damage 

and inadvertent casualties to personnel. The committee recognizes 

the importance of a thorough examination of these issues, however 

it is concerned that the acceptance criteria imposed in this process 

still appears to be ambiguous and ill-defined, and therefore may 

stifle the development of, and support for, promising technologies. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives within 90 days of the enactment 

of this Act which identifies the policy, technology, and acquisition 

issues that have impeded the development, fielding, and employment of active denial systems in operational theaters where U.S. 

forces are currently engaged; and clarifies the specific policy requirements that must be met before directed energy weapons may 

be employed in both counter-materiel and counter-personnel applications. 

Non-profit research institutions 

The committee is aware that non-profit research institutions are 

critical components of the research ecosystem, and offer tremendous capabilities to the research and development portfolios of the 

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The committee 

is aware the Department is examining ways to better utilize their 

unique capabilities and expertise, especially in the area of 

transitioning innovation to commercialization. Additionally, the 

committee understands that the Department is evaluating how to 

better utilize the special authorities within the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations in order to better leverage the capabilities of 

the non-profit research community. The committee believes this is 

especially important in a time of fiscal austerity and uncertainty, 

and encourages the continued discussion between the Department 

and the non-profit research community. 

Open architecture systems 

The committee notes that under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD/ 

ATL) in 2009, the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Task Force 

chartered the UAS Common Segment (UCS) Working Group, which 

has developed a common, open and scalable reference architecture 

for control of unmanned aircraft systems. Despite this effort and 

past encouragement from Congress, the services have continued, in 

some cases, to procure proprietary and closed architecture unmanned systems and ground control segments resulting in higher 

costs, fragmented and disjointed operations, and reduced operational effectiveness. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

and coordinating with the services to require all future UAS groups 

two through five ground control stations be compliant with the 

most recent Office of the Secretary of Defense UCS reference architecture. 

The committee also notes that both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and USD/ATL have identified an open systems 

approach as a potential enabler for increasing competition and reducing costs on major weapons system acquisition programs. GAO 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

recently reported that an open systems approach is characterized 

as having a modular design with open standards for key interfaces. 

While the Department would reap the most benefits from adopting 

an open systems approach at the start of development, the committee further notes that both the GAO and USD/ATL believe that 

in certain circumstances, where appropriate, it may be more cost 

effective and efficient to convert proprietary systems to open systems even after they have been fielded. The committee believes 

that the Department of Defense has the potential to benefit from 

the use of an open systems approach for weapons systems acquisition programs. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 

2014, that: 

(1) Assesses the costs and benefits of using an open systems 

approach for manned and unmanned aircraft acquisition programs; 

(2) Identifies the specific plan the Department of Defense 

will use for implementing an open systems approach for new 

manned and unmanned aircraft acquisition programs; 

(3) Assesses the costs and benefits of converting existing proprietary manned and unmanned systems to open systems; and 

(4) Recommends any implementing legislation for congressional consideration. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General to study the 

use of best practices for using open systems in product development. The study should identify better ways of incorporating an 

open systems approach from the start of new acquisition programs, 

analyze challenges that the Department of Defense may have in 

implementing these practices in its weapons acquisition programs, 

and provide potential solutions to these challenges, including potential policy changes. The Comptroller General should provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on the findings 

by February 3, 2014. 

Potential missile defense cooperation with the Republic of 

Korea 

The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

and the Republic of Korea are conducting phased studies of ballistic missile defense architecture options for that country. The 

committee is encouraged by this effort as it represents an additional example of cooperation in missile defense development between the United States and its allies. 

As the phased studies come to a conclusion, the committee encourages the Government of South Korea to consider purchasing 

U.S. missile defense technology that could provide proven solutions 

to the ballistic missile challenges that it is confronting and allow 

interoperability between South Korea and the United States. Additionally, the committee encourages South Korea to think about the 

proposal of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to seek a ‘‘collaborative, trilateral ballistic missile defense architecture.’’ The committee believes such an architecture could redound to the benefit 

of the three allied states to provide additional defensive capabilities 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

against shared regional threats, including the Democratic People’s 

Republic of Korea. 

Precision Tracking Space System 

The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

has proposed terminating the Precision Tracking Space System 

(PTSS) in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee 

agrees with the Department’s judgment that the termination is the 

appropriate action in view of the rising cost and acquisition uncertainties of this system, both prominent explanations for the committee’s actions in the committee reports (H. Rept. 112–78 and H. 

Rept. 112–479) as well as in section 224 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

The committee views the termination of PTSS as an opportunity 

for the Department of Defense. The committee is aware that PTSS 

follows on the heels of the Space Tracking and Surveillance System 

(STSS) as a missile defense space sensor architecture that hasn’t 

been operationally deployed. The committee believes that a persistent overhead sensor system is a must for the ballistic missile 

defense system. 

The committee notes the priority of improving discrimination, 

and is encouraged by the MDA plan for an Integrated Space Layer 

Study and the joint MDA-Strategic Command ‘‘vision study’’ initiated by the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, on which the 

committee provides further views elsewhere in this report. The 

committee expects to be briefed this summer upon the conclusion 

of the post-PTSS scoping study as well as to be kept informed of 

the progress and interim findings and conclusions of the Integrated 

Space Layer Study. 

The committee expects the Director to ensure that the taxpayer 

investments made in the PTSS system will not be lost or wasted 

and that the cutting edge sensor work being done on this system 

will be leveraged into a follow-on program that could be recommended by the aforementioned space sensor study. Elsewhere in 

this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require an 

analysis of alternatives on the Integrated Space Layer Study in 

order to ensure that future MDA plans do not follow PTSS and 

STSS into failure. 

Quantum information science 

The committee is aware that research into quantum scale effects 

offer great potential for the storage, processing and communication 

of information, including for a wide range of applications that include weak-signal sensing and imaging to quantum computing and 

cryptography. The committee recognizes that quantum information 

science offers potentially disruptive new technologies for national 

security needs, but that recent advances in quantum communications have resulted in some early commercial products. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee directed a review of quantum computing research within the 

Department of Defense. This report indicated that in fiscal year 

2010, the Department had an investment between $50.0 and 55.0 

million per year, which represented 30–40 percent of the Federal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

investment in this area. Most of these projects were funded as single university investigator projects, but also included some Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives. 

The committee encourages the Department to sustain its investment in quantum information science research, especially in such 

areas as the development of novel quantum devices superconducting circuit technology for the purpose of quantum measurement and improving understanding of issues that are fundamental 

to quantum sensing and quantum computing. The committee believes that such efforts are needed to maintain the Nation’s technological leadership internationally. 

Report on boost phase missile defense options 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes that it is aware 

that there is presently no boost phase missile defense program of 

record in the Ballistic Missile Defense System architecture planned 

by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The committee is aware that 

the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Airborne Laser were terminated in fiscal year 2009, though there were notable successes, as 

well as challenges, by both developmental programs. The committee notes that such an absence means the United States is currently not pursuing one of the three central layers of missile defense architecture. 

The committee is also aware of the findings of the National Academy of Sciences in its report, ‘‘Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. BoostPhase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,’’ which 

concludes, by relying on its own ‘‘notional data,’’ that boost-phase 

defense ‘‘could be technically possible in some instances but operationally and economically impractical for almost all missions.’’ The 

committee is aware of the significant advantages, and the difficulties of intercepting a threat ballistic missile in the boost phase, including those articulated by the National Academy of Sciences report. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency to provide a report to the the congressional defense committees by October 15, 2013, that assess the findings of the National 

Academy of Sciences study and the options that the Director believes the Missile Defense Agency should consider in an analysis of 

alternatives or other study that could inform a boost phase missile 

defense program as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2015. 

Report on HALT/HASS Testing of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems 

and Components 

The committee continues to be concerned by issues of reliability 

in the design and development of critical ballistic missile defense 

(BMD) system components and subcomponents as well as the potential for counterfeit parts to enter into the missile defense supply 

chain. 

Effective utilization of modern methods and equipment for highly 

accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress screening 

(HALT/HASS) during early design stages has been demonstrated to 

yield significant improvements in reliability and more effective 

product designs, as well as cost savings. Through modern HALT/ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

BASS testing, key components and subcomponents are subjected to 

overstresses, revealing latent design flaws (including those based 

on the use of faulty or counterfeit parts) that can go undetected 

with legacy testing approaches. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency, to conduct an assessment of the value, feasibility, and cost 

of greater utilization of modern HALT /HASS testing equipment 

and processes to shorten design and development timelines, reduce 

system and component testing and lifecycle costs, and enhance reliability of critical missile defense systems and components. In addition, the assessment should consider whether and to what extent 

greater utilization of modern HALT/HASS testing equipment and 

processes could help address the growing problem of detecting and 

preventing the introduction of counterfeit parts into critical missile 

defense systems, components, and subcomponents. Additionally, 

based on the findings of this assessment, the Director should provide the committees his recommendations regarding use of HALT/ 

HAS. The committee directs that the results of this assessment be 

briefed to the congressional defense committees by not later than 

January 15, 2014. 

Ribonucleic acid technology research 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense faces 

a significant challenge with infectious diseases, which hospitalize 

more service members each year than are wounded in combat. The 

committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) has initiated a program to address treatment for 

infectious diseases based on techniques utilizing ribonucleic acid 

(RNA). That program focuses on encoding an element of an antigen 

or antibody on an RNA molecule to initiate the desired immune response. The committee encourages the Department to continue this 

and similar research, and to look at opportunities to expand this 

research into new areas such as equipment that enable RNA target 

characterization, software development for in silico screening of 

molecule libraries against RNA targets, and assay development for 

in vitro high throughput screening and validation. 

Soft biometrics for non-cooperative identification of personnel 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has developed and acquired biometric capabilities that rely primarily on fingerprint and iris recognition, but are increasingly including additional modalities such as facial recognition or identification of latent deoxyribonucleic acid material. The current generation of biometric identification devices is also primarily focused on cooperative sampling of target populations, which require samples to be 

taken by service members deployed in potentially dangerous environments. The committee understands that there are also additional ‘‘soft’’ biometrics, such as gait, keystroke, or analysis of body 

markings, which could also be useful in identifying specific individuals, and could be done from greater stand-off distances. The committee notes that some research has been conducted by the Air 

Force Research Laboratory, as well as other civilian research agencies to better characterize the utility and operational challenges of 

such modalities, but that the current biometrics architecture does 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

not yet integrate any of these capabilities. The committee encourages the Department to examine all biometric modalities as it develops its future biometrics architecture. 

Special operations technology development 

The Special Operations Technology Development program enables U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to conduct 

studies and develop laboratory prototypes for applied research and 

advanced technology development, as well as leverage other organizations’ technology projects. Similarly, the Special Operations Advanced Technology Development program delivers emerging technologies into the hands of Special Operations Forces, through the 

rapid prototyping and advanced demonstrations of these new technologies in realistic operational environments. The committee believes that these programs are vital tools that develop and rapidly 

deliver special operations specific technology to support special operations forces (SOF) in emerging as well as existing requirements. 

The committee believes that these programs would benefit from a 

formalized collaboration between USSOCOM and trusted academia, 

which in turn would serve as a catalyst to advance the introduction 

of new technologies that would contribute to SOF mission areas. 

Standardization of directed energy weapon systems characterization 

The committee is aware of several research, development, test, 

and evaluation (RDT&E) programs which pursue the development 

and eventual deployment of directed energy weapon systems. The 

committee understands the importance of the services and defense 

agencies’ ability to leverage RDT&E investments whenever possible 

to maximize the mutual benefit of these investments. Therefore, 

the committee encourages the services and defense agencies to continue to work synergistically in the development of these systems 

whenever possible. However, the committee is concerned about the 

inconsistency of definition of system performance among the different programs which make comparison of technologies and identification of leveraging opportunities between programs difficult. System descriptors such as ‘‘beam quality’’ for laser systems have multiple definitions within the directed energy community at large, 

and are not directly comparable between different systems. Some 

descriptors may only be applicable to a limited subset of missions 

and therefore inhibit the extrapolation of system performance to 

other missions. The ability to perform such comparisons is vital in 

the assessment of the different laser technologies applicability for 

missions of national interest. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a common set of parameters to describe directed energy 

weapon system performance with standardized definitions to be 

employed on all Department of Defense directed energy programs. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives within 12 months after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, which provides the rationale behind directed energy weapon system performance definitions. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

Synthetic protein development 

The committee is aware that the U.S. Army’s Walter Reed Institute of Research (WRAIR) has established a collaborative research 

and development agreement (CRADA) to examine a new biochemical process that would prevent bacteria from responding to 

their environment and becoming harmful. This new process relies 

upon use of a protein molecule as a roadblock or ‘switch’ to disrupt 

the behaviors bacteria use to become virulent. The committee believes that this new discovery could have widespread implications 

to help reduce combat wound casualties caused by infection. The 

antimicrobial process has an added advantage over traditional antibiotics currently in use in that the switch mechanism makes it extremely difficult for bacteria to do an ‘‘end run’’ around the process 

as can happen with some traditional antibiotic-resistant microbes. 

The committee applauds WRAIR’s efforts with this potentially lifesaving research and expects the Secretary of Defense and the Department’s medical research enterprise to fully support this important new therapeutic approach. 

Technology harvesting of the Medium Extended Air Defense System 

The committee is aware that one of the frequent justifications for 

completion of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 

Proof of Concept (PoC) was the harvesting of specific technologies 

for the modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system. 

For example, in a letter to the congressional defense committees 

from then-Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, on November 30, 

2012, the Secretary stated, ‘‘[t]he U.S. Army is already considering 

ways to link the knowledge gained from the tri-national MEADS 

PoC program to its future air and missile development plans.’’ With 

the final funding of the MEADS PoC, the committee is anxious to 

learn what technologies will be harvested for Patriot modernization, at what date in the modernization program, and at what cost 

to take advantage of the significant U.S. taxpayer investment in 

PoC. 

The committee was disappointed to learn that the Army would 

not include this information in the report required by section 226 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239). The committee understands the Army is interested in evaluating potential technology harvesting as part of 

the assessment of the results of the upcoming FT–2 test, but it believes such evaluation is central to the intent of the requirement 

under section 226. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 

of the Army to provide an evaluation to the congressional defense 

committees within 180 days after the completion of FT–2, or February 15, 2014, whichever comes later, of MEADS technology harvesting opportunities based on the report directed by section 226 

of Public Law 112–239. This report should also include: 1) A review 

of current Army and joint requirements to which MEADS technology might be applied; 2) The Army’s timeline for completion of 

an Analysis of Alternatives to these technologies; and 3) An overview of the Army’s planned competitive milestones in the acquisition strategy. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

Tele-medicine applications for ophthalmic injury 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is developing capabilities that would provide telemedicine and remote 

physiological monitoring for casualty care of deployed forces. The 

committee recognizes that such telemedicine capabilities can provide useful reach-back support for complex injuries, especially for 

sensitive organs where combat medics and surgeons may not have 

in-depth specialty training, such as ophthalmic injuries. The committee encourages the Department to experiment with and examine ways to utilize emerging telemedicine capabilities to allow for 

consultation with outside experts or specialty institutions to provide soldiers on the battlefield with access to high quality, tertiary 

ophthalmic care for complex and difficult eye injuries. The committee believes that partnering with subject matter experts could 

provide direct, real-time consultation between geographically-dispersed military and civilian ophthalmologists for urgent, complex 

ophthalmic diagnostic and surgical problems, as well as allow conferencing for complicated but less urgent patient management decisions. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has deployed the first operational Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

(THAAD) system battery to Guam for its defense from the North 

Korean threat. The committee is gratified to see this capability 

operationally deployed providing missile defense protection to U.S. 

warfighters and U.S. territory. 

The committee is also aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget request reduced the procurement of THAAD batteries from nine to 

six. The committee is not aware of any diminution of warfighter requirement for this capability. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency and the Missile Defense Executive Board to 

continually reexamine the availability of resources and the 

warfighter requirement for the THAAD system and to ensure future budget requests in future fiscal years seek to increase the 

number of THAAD batteries that will be procured by the United 

States. The committee also encourages the Missile Defense Agency, 

subject to the availability of resources, to ensure that THAAD interceptor procurement is matched and paced to the procurement 

and availability of THAAD batteries. The committee noted both of 

these concerns in 2012 as part of the committee report (H. Rept. 

112–479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its robust missile defense cooperation with the United Arab Emirates. 

The committee is aware that ongoing and prospective foreign military sales with the United Arab Emirates, including the THAAD 

system, will greatly expand the U.S.-allied interoperable missile defense architecture to deal with regional threats. At the same time, 

the sales will produce significant cost-savings to the United States 

for its THAAD program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

Three dimensional integrated circuits 

The committee is aware that the pressure to place more 

functionality on increasingly smaller integrated circuits is a challenge the Department of Defense is faced with as it tried to place 

more processing power on smaller platforms, such as unmanned 

systems and signal new sensors. The committee is also aware that 

the development of three dimensional integrated circuits (3D ICs), 

which allow for functionality to be stacked onto circuits and provide 

both horizontal and vertical functionality, holds promise for defense 

applications. The committee is concerned that recent microelectronics strategies from the Department have not addressed the role 

3D ICs might fill, nor the gaps that might exist in commercially 

developed 3D ICs and where Department of Defense investment 

may be needed.The committee encourages the Department to comprehensively evaluate the place 3D ICs might fit in the Department’s overall microelectronics strategy to understand how they 

might best be used to the benefit of defense systems. 

U.S. Special Operations Command undersea systems strategy 

The undersea systems strategy of the U.S. Special Operations 

Command (USSOCOM) has been a subject of focus by the committee over the past several national defense authorization acts. 

The committee believes that the research and development phase 

has reached a point of stability, which validates the progress of 

USSOCOM and their communication with Congress in a joint endeavor to provide warfighters with unmatched clandestine maneuverability in denied maritime areas. 

Increased authorization from the congressional defense committees for fiscal year 2013 afforded additional resources for dry combat submersible development of a near-term prototype that will 

give USSOCOM new capability. The dry variant will afford increased range and alleviate the human factors that are unavoidable 

while operating wet submersibles in cold environments on a longdistance commute to an objective. It is the intent of this committee 

to continue supporting and tracking with great interest the 

progress of a dry variant capable of deploying from multiple platforms to include a submarine. 

Additionally, section 156 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) mandated reporting 

requirements for the Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program 

and continued coordination between USSOCOM and the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. The committee looks forward to receiving these mandated reports and reaffirms the need for continued communication with the 

congressional defense committees to ensure programmatic success 

across the undersea systems enterprise and program. 

Vertical Lift Consortium 

The committee understands that the Vertical Lift Consortium 

(VLC) is an open and competitive forum that leverages all sectors 

of the vertical lift aircraft community to encourage teaming of innovative small business and non-traditional contractors with major 

defense firms and academia. In the committee report (H. Rept. 

112–479) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to the congressional defense committees providing the status 

of the Department’s engagement with the VLC on related technology requirements and development strategies for next-generation vertical lift aircraft. 

The committee notes that the required report was delivered to 

the congressional defense committees on May 13, 2013. The committee agrees with the Department’s assessment that the VLC is 

an integral part of the future vertical lift initiative and supports 

VLC members continued opportunities to compete and participate 

in prototype technology projects for next generation vertical lift aircraft. The committee recognizes incremental improvements or upgrades to current Department rotorcraft will not fully meet future 

Joint service operational requirements. The committee supports the 

development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the Department to expand the prototyping program to include vertical lift 

aircraft. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $186.3 million for operational test 

and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $186.3 million, no change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified in division D of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of the Army Distributed Common Ground System 

The committee shares numerous concerns related to the performance and program management of the Distributed Common Ground 

System-Army (DCGS–A) program. The committee has endeavored 

to better understand those concerns and find ways to integrate lessons learned to improve the DCGS–A program as it moves forward. 

The committee awaits the report required by section 923 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239), as well as a review by the General Accountability Office. 

Elsewhere in this bill, the committee directs further actions to improve visibility into the DCGS enterprise, and updates in key areas 

of performance. 

The committee strives to continue improving its understanding 

and assessment of key attributes of DCGS–A, and therefore directs 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to review the DCGS–A program and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 27, 2013. That report shall 

include the following: 

(1) An assessment of the ability of the system to synchronize 

data across separate locations around the world in disconnected, interrupted or low-bandwidth data environments, including use of cloud edge nodes, and to manage and enrich 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

data collaboratively across the enterprise into a fused common 

operational picture; 

(2) An analysis of how the Tactical Entity Databases (TED) 

are synchronized; 

(3) An assessment of the system to meet the data interoperability standards set by the intelligence community. 

Furthermore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis office, to provide a briefing by October 18, 2013 providing an additional assessment of the DOT&E report. This report shall include an assessment of the results of the 

DOT&E report, including comments on any recommendations 

made; and an analysis of how the lessons learned from the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan were incorporated into DCGS–A, including the ability of the system to respond to joint urgent operational needs. 

Test and evaluation capabilities for electromagnetic pulse 

vulnerabilities 

The committee is aware that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), 

both man-made and naturally occurring, as well as high-powered 

microwave (HPM) systems poses a significant challenge to the assurance of critical Department of Defense missions and assets. The 

committee recognizes that adequate test and evaluation facilities 

and capabilities are needed to maintain the standards for individual systems, as well as the networking of systems and infrastructure of the Department. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has not adequately invested in the underlying infrastructure needed to support 

these test and evaluation capabilities, as well as the modeling and 

simulation tools required to support combatant commanders, war 

games, military exercises and other assessments. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Director, Test Resource Management Center 

to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the 

House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the test and evaluation capabilities to support identification and mitigation of EMP and HPM vulnerabilities 

to the Department. The briefing should include identification of the 

existing capabilities and their sustainment levels, as well as identification of any gaps in those capabilities. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4201 

of division D of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ground 

Combat Vehicle Engineering and Manufacturing Phase 

This section would prohibit the Army from obligating post-Milestone B funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program until 

the Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee supports the Army’s need to modernize its ground 

forces equipment. The GCV is one of the Army’s top priorities and 

will eventually replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The committee expects the Army to execute an acquisition strategy that 

meets the needs of the warfighter and minimizes the risk to the 

Government. The Army’s recent acquisition strategy is to down select to one contractor at the beginning of the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase instead of funding two 

contractors until the end of the EMD. The committee notes that officials from the Government Accountability Office have testified before the committee on numerous occasions that weapon system programs that enter EMD too early without enough ‘‘knowledge’’ can 

pose a significant risk to the Government. ‘‘Knowledge’’ is defined 

as the combination of technology maturity, a thorough understand 

of requirements, and realistic cost estimates. The committee expects the Army to ensure that it has enough ‘‘knowledge’’ before it 

down selects to one contractor in order to minimize the cost, schedule, and performance risk to the Government and the taxpayer. 

Section 212—Limitation on Milestone A Activities for Unmanned 

Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System Program 

This section would prohibit the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from approving a Milestone 

A technology development contract award for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program until 30 days after the Under Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the software and system engineering designs for the control system and connectivity segment 

and the aircraft carrier segment of the UCLASS system can 

achieve, at a low level of integration risk, successful compatibility 

and operability with the air vehicle segment planned for selection 

at Milestone A contract award. 

Section 213—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Air Force 

Logistics Transformation 

This section would restrict the obligation and expenditure of Air 

Force procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation 

funds for logistics information technology programs until 30 days 

after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to 

the congressional defense committees a report on the modernization and update of Air Force logistics information technology systems following the cancellation of the expeditionary combat support 

system. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

Section 214—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defensive 

Cyberspace Operations of the Air Force 

This section would limit the funds the Air Force may obligate or 

expend for Defensive Cyberspace Operations in Program Element 

0202088F to not more than 90 percent until a period of 30 days 

after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits a 

report to the congressional defense committees detailing the Air 

Force’s plan for sustainment of the Application Software Assurance 

Center of Excellence across the Future Years Defense Program. 

Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Precision 

Extended Range Munition Program 

This section would limit obligation of 50 percent of fiscal year 

2014 funds for the precision extended range munition (PERM) program. This section would include a waiver for the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics pending written certification to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 216—Limitation on the Availability of Funds for the 

Program Manager for Biometrics of the Department of Defense 

This section would restrict the obligation or expenditure of funds 

for fiscal year 2014 for research, development, test, and evaluation 

by the Department of Defense program manager for biometrics for 

future biometric architectures or systems to not more than 75 percent for a period of 30 days after the date on which the Secretary 

of Defense submits a report to the congressional defense committees assessing the future program structure for biometrics oversight and execution and architectural requirements for biometrics 

enabling capability. 

Section 217—Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration 

Testing Requirement 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned, autonomous aerial refueling testing and evaluation with the X–47B aircraft. 

Section 218—Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirement 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a follow-on air-launched cruise missile to the AGM–86 that 

achieves initial operating capability for both conventional and nuclear missions by not later than 2030 and is certified for internal 

carriage and employment for both conventional and nuclear missions on the next-generation long-range strike bomber by not later 

than 2034. 

Section 219—Review of Software Development for F–35 Aircraft 

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish an independent 

team consisting of subject matter experts to review the development of software for the F–35 aircraft program, and to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

The committee continues to support the F–35 development and 

procurement program, and believes a software development review 

by the Department will ensure that the F–35 program remains on 

schedule to provide a fifth generation capability in support of our 

national security strategy. 

Section 220—Evaluation and Assessment of the Distributed 

Common Ground Station 

This section would require that beginning in fiscal year 2015, future budget submissions include separate project codes for each capability component within each program element for each service 

version of the distributed common ground station. Furthermore, 

this section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct an analysis of commercial link analysis tools that could be used to meet the requirements of each of the service versions of the Distributed Common 

Ground Station program; and if one or more commercial link analysis tools are found to meet the requirements of the program, the 

responsible service secretary shall initiate a request for proposals. 

Section 221—Requirement to Complete Individual Carbine Testing 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to complete 

all required tests, user evaluations, and business case assessments 

for the individual carbine program and report those results to the 

congressional defense committees upon completion. 

Section 222—Establishment of Funding Line and Fielding Plan for 

Navy Laser Weapon System 

This section would ensure that future defense budgets submitted 

to Congress for fiscal years 2018–28 include a funding line and 

fielding plan for a Navy laser weapon system. In the event that the 

state of the technology does not warrant a program of record, the 

Secretary of the Navy can waive the requirements of this section 

by providing written justification for that decision. 

Section 223—Sense of Congress on Importance of Aligning Common 

Missile Compartment of Ohio-Class Replacement Program with 

the United Kingdom’s Vanguard Successor Program 

This section would make a series of findings and express the 

sense of Congress regarding the importance of aligning the common 

missile compartment of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine 

program with the Vanguard-class successor program of the United 

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

The Polaris Sales Agreement of 1963 has been a cornerstone of 

the U.S. alliance with the United Kingdom for 50 years and has 

brought significant benefits to both parties. Under a 1982 extension 

of the agreement, the United Kingdom purchases the Trident missile system from the United States for use in its submarines. Both 

Nations will field the Trident II/D5 strategic weapon system in 

their respective next generation of submarines. These new submarines will share a common missile compartment that is currently being developing through a cost-shared program conducted 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

by the Navy. In fiscal year 2013, the Navy delayed the Ohio-class 

replacement program by 2 years due to fiscal constraints, but decided to keep the common missile program on the original schedule 

to meet its obligation to provide the compartment to the United 

Kingdom in time for insertion into the Vanguard-class successor. 

The committee applauds this decision and encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy to continue to 

prioritize the common missile compartment such that it stays 

aligned with the Vanguard-successor program. The committee believes that keeping this common missile compartment program 

aligned with the Vanguard-successor program is critical to ensuring the United States fulfills its longstanding obligation to a crucial 

ally. 

Section 224—Sense of Congress on Counter-electronics High Power 

Microwave Missile Project 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the results 

of the counter-electronics high power microwave missile project 

should be considered as part of any analysis of alternatives for development of a high power microwave weapon, but could also be 

used as a near-term capability for combatant commanders should 

a requirement emerge. 

SUBTITLE C—MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Section 231—Prohibition on Use of Funds For MEADS Program 

This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to 

be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 

year 2014 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). 

This section would also provide that the Secretary of Defense 

may not carry out technology harvesting from the MEADS system 

until 120 days after the Secretary of the Army provides the congressional defense committees a report on matters related to Army 

requirements for MEADS technologies, and other matters. 

Section 232—Additional Missile Defense Site in the United States 

for Optimized Protection of the Homeland 

This section would require the Missile Defense Agency to construct and make operational in fiscal year 2018 an additional 

homeland missile defense site capable of protecting the homeland 

to deal more effectively with the long-range ballistic missile threat 

from the Middle East. This section would be carried out while continuing to meet the requirement to prepare environmental impact 

statements and a contingency plan under section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239) for the missile defense sites in that section. This section 

would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to Congress on such missile defense site, including an estimate 

of the funding to be required for construction and deployment. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

Section 233—Limitation on Removal of Missile Defense Equipment 

from East Asia 

This section would state that it is the policy of the United States 

that the missile defenses of the United States defend the United 

States, its allies, and deployed forces against a multitude of 

threats, including multiple regional actors. This section would also 

limit the use of funds to remove U.S. missile defense capabilities 

from East Asia until 180 days after the date that the President has 

certified that nuclear weapons and ballistic missile threats to U.S. 

allies have been verifiably eliminated, and, the President has consulted such allies. This section would provide that the President 

may waive such certification if he determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States and he provides an unclassified explanation, in writing, detailing the basis for his determination. This section would exclude Aegis ballistic missile defense 

equipped cruisers and destroyers from this requirement. 

Section 234—Improvements to Acquisition Accountability Reports 

on Ballistic Missile Defense System 

This section would amend section 225 of title 10, United States 

Code, to include a requirement that the Director, Missile Defense 

Agency include in the annual Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report certain operation and support costs, and statements as to the quality estimate level of each cost estimate as well 

as the steps the Director will take to ensure these estimates reach 

the ‘‘high-quality estimate’’ level established by the Comptroller 

General of the United States. 

Section 235—Analysis of Alternatives for Successor to Precision 

Tracking Space System 

The section would strike section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) and replace it with an updated analysis of alternatives requirement to reflect the termination of the Precision Tracking Space System in the 

President’s request for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee notes that this section would require the Director 

of the Missile Defense Agency to consider the opinions of private 

industry in carrying out the analysis of alternatives. The committee considers this requirement to necessitate only listening to 

the input of industry members that have long-standing and proven 

experience in the often difficult world of space acquisitions. 

Section 236—Plan To Improve Organic Kill Assessment Capability 

of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System 

This section would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, in consultation 

with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to jointly develop 

options to achieve an organic kill assessment capability for the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system by December 31, 

2019, and a plan to deploy such capability in at least some of the 

upcoming acquisition of new Ground-based Interceptor missiles. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

This section would also require the Director and the Commander, 

U.S. Northern Command, in consultation with the Commander, 

U.S. Strategic Command, to jointly develop a plan for an interim 

capability for improved hit assessment for the GMD system that 

can be integrated into near-term Enhanced Kill Vehicle upgrades 

and refurbishments. 

This section would require these plans be submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2014. 

Section 237—Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short-Range 

Rocket Defense Program 

This section would authorize the obligation of $15.0 million for 

enhancing the capability for producing the Iron Dome short-range 

rocket defense system in the United States, including for infrastructure, tooling, transferring data, special test equipment, and related components. 

Section 238—NATO and the Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile 

Defense in Europe 

This section would require, not later than 60 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, that the President shall consult with the 

North Atlantic Council and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on the funding of the Phased, 

Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe to establish a plan 

for NATO to provide at least 50 percent of the costs of operations 

and maintenance, and infrastructure, of Phase I of that system. 

This section would further require the President to use the 

NATO Military Common-Funded Resources process to seek at least 

50 percent funding support of the costs for Phases II and III of that 

missile defense system. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, if he determines it useful, to seek establishment 

by NATO of a common pool of Aegis Standard Missile 3 missile 

interceptors. 

Section 239—Sense of Congress on Procurement of Capability 

Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle 

This section would state the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should not procure a Capability Enhancement II 

exoatmospheric kill vehicle for deployment until after the date on 

which a successful operational flight test has occurred, unless such 

procurement is for test assets or to maintain a warm line for the 

industrial base. 

Section 240—Sense of Congress on 30th Anniversary of the 

Strategic Defense Initiative 

This section would express the Sense of the Congress on the 30th 

Anniversary of the Strategic Defense Initiative. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 251—Annual Comptroller General Report on the 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle Acquisition Program 

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct an annual review of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle acquisition program and provide the results of the review to 

the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, and annually thereafter through 2018. 

Section 252—Report on Strategy To Improve Body Armor 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

comprehensive research and development (R&D) strategy for 

achieving significant weight reductions for both hard and soft body 

armor components to the congressional defense committees within 

180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 125 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) required a federally 

funded research and development center (FFRDC) to generate a 

technical report on ways to lighten current body armor systems. 

The report and FFRDC analysis found that the only way to achieve 

significant reductions, 20 percent and higher, without sacrificing 

safety and survivability would be through robust, sustained R&D 

funding over a number of years that focuses on developing new materials, as well as pursuing a modular, tailorable approach to body 

armor systems. 

The committee expects the Secretary’s strategy to include but not 

be limited to: (1) costs, schedules, and performance requirements 

for all solutions currently under development for body armor 

weight reduction, R&D funding profiles for these solutions; (2) solutions and materials currently under evaluation by the Department, 

the feasibility and technology readiness levels of these materials 

and solutions, resourcing strategy for future initiatives; (3) how the 

Department is considering a ‘‘systems of system’’ approach to include modular and tailorable solutions for weight reduction efforts; 

and (4) all courses of action being considered to coordinate weight 

reduction initiatives for body armor among the military services. 

Section 253—Report on Main Battle Tank Fuel Efficiency Initiative 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees on an investment 

strategy to accelerate fuel efficiency improvements to the engine 

and transmission of the M1 Abrams tank. 

Section 254—Report on Powered Rail System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act that comprehensively reviews 

and compares powered rail systems for the M4 Carbine program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 261—Establishment of Cryptographic Modernization 

Review and Advisory Board 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a senior-level body, to be known as the Cryptographic Modernization Review and Advisory Board, to assess and advise the cryptographic modernization activities of the Department of Defense. 

Section 262—Clarification of Eligibility of a State to Participate in 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

This section would modify the eligibility requirements for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research to 

include states that are also eligible under section 113 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 

1862g). 

Section 263—Extension and Expansion of Mechanisms to Provide 

Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of 

Technologies for Military Missions 

This section would modify section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (10 U.S.C. 

2358 note) by allowing funds for infrastructure revitalization 

projects to be available until expended. Use of such authority must 

be reported to the congressional defense committees with the total 

cost of the project before it commenced. Total cost of individual 

projects may not exceed $4,000,000. Funds under this authority 

may be accumulated only after the date of enactment of this Act 

and may be accumulated for not more than five years. This section 

would extend section 219 authority to September 2020. 

Section 264—Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced 

Technology Achievements 

This section would extend the authority of the Department of Defense to award prizes for advanced technology achievements until 

September 30, 2018. 

Section 265—Five-Year Extension of Pilot Program to Include 

Technology Protection Features During Research and Development of Certain Defense Systems 

The section would extend the pilot program established by section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), as amended by section 252 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81), from October 1, 2015, to October 1, 2020. 

Section 266—Briefing on Power and Energy Research Conducted at 

University Affiliated Research Centers 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to brief the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on power and energy research conducted at university affiliated research centers. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OVERVIEW 

At a time when Air Force combat-coded squadrons are grounded; 

when Navy carrier strike group presence in the Middle East has 

been reduced; when Army collective training rotations above the 

company level have been cancelled; when depot-level and field-level 

maintenance have been deferred and reduced in all the military 

services; and when base operating services and facilities 

sustainment have been reduced, all due to the impacts of sequestration, the bill would authorize $174.6 billion for operation and 

maintenance, including additional funding for operational tempo, 

flying hour programs, facilities sustainment, corrosion prevention, 

control, and mitigation, depot maintenance, and joint and coalition 

exercises. Additionally, the bill would authorize $67.1 billion in operation and maintenance funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, with $4.2 billion in additional funding for depot-level maintenance, fuel costs, and equipment spares and reset. 

During the past 12 years, the Army—Active, Guard, and Reserve—has deployed more than 1.1 million soldiers to combat with 

more than 4,500 soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice. Another 

32,000 soldiers have been wounded, 9,000 of whom require longterm care. In that time, soldiers have earned more than 14,000 

awards for valor to include seven Medals of Honor and 22 Distinguished Service Crosses. After more than a decade of protracted 

counterinsurgency operations and cyclic combat operations in the 

Middle East, the Army must find a way to return to full-spectrum 

operations, reset and reconstitute the force, responsibly draw down 

operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and fully develop its role under the new Defense Strategic Guidance despite 

tighter budgets and the compounding challenges of sequestration, 

and with a smaller force structure. 

The Navy faced a $4.5 billion shortfall in its fiscal year 2013 operation and maintenance accounts which was further exacerbated 

by unanticipated bills resulting from rising fuel prices. In February, the Navy deferred deployment of the nuclear aircraft carrier 

the USS Truman to the Persian Gulf and reduced its carrier presence to 1.0. In March, the Navy cancelled five ship deployments 

and next-to-deploy forces are also being affected in that two carrier 

air wings have reduced monthly training to the ‘‘tactical hard 

deck,’’ the minimum level of training required to maintain basic air 

proficiency and the ability to safely operate the aircraft. As ship 

and aircraft maintenance availabilities are reduced or outright cancelled, the Navy will be challenged to reconstitute requirements in 

the very near future due to lack of capacity at its shipyards. Ultimately, this results in significantly shorter service life for the assets, particularly when coupled with the impacts of the sustained 

surge in recent years which has taxed both equipment and personnel at rates significantly higher than anticipated. The tenuous 

progress the Navy has made over the past two years to reverse degraded surface fleet material readiness threatens to be undone by 

sequestration. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

Despite slight improvements in Marine Corps readiness levels 

following the drawdown of forces in the Republic of Iraq and the 

ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan, the Marine Corps will be 

challenged to meet global commitments, reconstitute its force and 

equipment, and sustain high operational tempo as it downsizes to 

182,000 personnel and faces a nearly $1.0 billion funding cut. The 

challenges will be compounded by the need to support new, important missions such as the forward deployment of a special Marine 

Air Ground Task Force in Spain to support U.S. Africa Command 

and the expansion of critical legacy missions such as the Marine 

Security Guard program slated to grow to protect an increasing 

number of embassies in high-risk areas around the globe. 

Air Force officials told the committee that ‘‘allowing the Air 

Force to slip to a lower state of readiness, [thus] requiring a long 

buildup to regain full combat effectiveness, negates the essential 

strategic advantages of airpower and puts joint forces at risk.’’ Onethird of Air Force fighter and bomber forces are currently standing 

down, and more and more pilots are not ready or trained and qualified to meet operational mission requirements such as those on the 

Korean peninsula where the Air Force and Army work as critical 

partners to assure peace and stability. 

The operation and maintenance funding authorized by this title 

seeks to address many areas of concern for depleted force readiness 

levels and related high levels of assumed risk, and makes several 

requests of the Department of Defense to report on plans to achieve 

full-spectrum readiness. The bill attempts to address the readiness 

shortfalls exacerbated by sequestration and choices driven by what 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described during the Department of Defense’s fiscal year budget rollout as a necessary component of a ‘‘comprehensive deficit reduction plan.’’ 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS

Office of Economic Adjustment 

The budget request includes $371.6 million for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to provide assistance to states and communities that are affected by Department of Defense changes, including the Department’s Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 

actions. Of these amounts, $273.3 million was requested for Guam 

civilian water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. The 

committee remains supportive of the Department of Defense requirements to provide support for civilian infrastructure funding on 

Guam. The infrastructure is needed to support and sustain the current and future military growth on Guam. The budget request includes $246.0 million for upgrades to the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Hagatna Wastewater Treatment 

Plant to full secondary treatment, as well as $19.8 million to address critical wastewater collection system deficiencies and $7.5 

million for technical support and project development. 

The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2013 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 113–6) eliminated authorization for 

transfer of $119.3 million in OEA funding, making the funding for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

fiscal year 2013 not executable. As a result, the Department of Defense was unable to make initial investments in the wastewater 

system, also making the full fiscal year 2014 request not executable. Accordingly, the committee recommends a funding level in fiscal year 2014 of $217.7 million, a reduction of $153.9 million for 

the Office of Economic Adjustment. Funding authorized shall include $119.3 million for civilian improvements on Guam, consisting 

of $55.0 million for phase 1 improvements at the Northern District 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, $51.4 million for water system distribution system repairs and replacements, and $12.9 million for a 

Regional Public Health Laboratory. 

LOGISTICS AND SUSTAINMENT ISSUES

Air Force Fuel Leak Maintenance Efficiencies 

It is the committee’s understanding that aircraft readiness is regularly challenged by fuel leaks and that current procedures for 

identifying and repairing these leaks is both costly and inefficient. 

Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Air Force Research 

Laboratory has undertaken an independent evaluation of alternative, commercially available technologies that yield more accurate, timely, and cost-saving results for identifying, sealing, curing 

and validating leak repairs. The committee is encouraged by the 

Air Force’s pursuit of greater efficiencies in the fuel leak maintenance process and the promise it holds for achieving savings and 

a higher rate of aircraft readiness across the fleet. As such, the 

committee encourages the Air Force to fully implement approved 

commercially available technologies to reduce aircraft downtime 

caused by fuel leaks, and to increase life-cycle savings across the 

full-spectrum fuel leak detection and repair process. 

Anti-corrosion Protective Covers for Military Hardware 

The committee continues to push the Department of Defense to 

confront its hardware corrosion challenge. Corrosion remains the 

largest preventable cost to the U.S. military, a cost which exceeds 

$23.0 billion per year. Corrosion results in decreased readiness, increased manpower requirements, and significantly higher life-cycle 

sustainment costs. In the current budget environment, it is critical 

that the Department of Defense focus on affordable sustainment of 

its hardware. Failing to protect the Department of Defense’s hardware from the preventable problem of corrosion leaves hardware 

susceptible to the damage and degradation associated with exposure to heat, dust, ultraviolet rays, and moisture. The committee 

encourages the military services to follow the lead of the Department of the Navy and set a comprehensive, service-wide strategy 

to mitigate corrosion that includes fielding more waterproof, 

breathable anti-corrosive cover technologies that have been shown 

to significantly reduce corrosion and have demonstrated effectiveness in overseas contingency operations and at units’ home stations. The committee encourages the military services to incorporate commercially available capabilities in developing requirements for low-cost protective covers that provide protection from 

water and particulate intrusion; elimination of microclimates in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

covered objects; mold and mildew protection; ultraviolet ray resistance; flexure and handling ability in extreme climates; and durability. 

Army Logisticians 

The committee recognizes that the projection of power, the deterrence of threats, the response to crises, and the protection of strategic U.S. interests requires a robust set of logistics capabilities. 

The committee believes that the U.S. Army, in order to sustain its 

presence across vast distances, must be supported by a logistics infrastructure commensurate with the missions it undertakes. The 

committee also recognizes that logistics support is critical to currently deployed combat units and those which may be deployed in 

a future contingency. The committee believes that the United 

States cannot be allowed to lose the capacity to both surge and sustain military forces across considerable distances for extended periods of time, which requires a robust set of logistics capabilities. 

Comptroller General Littoral Combat System Sustainment Review 

The committee notes the critical nature of the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS) program and the importance of the initial deployment 

of the USS Freedom to the Republic of Singapore to test and refine 

operational support and sustainment concepts. The LCS class takes 

a unique approach to maintenance which relies heavily on contractor-provided maintenance in contrast to other Navy ship classes, which typically use the Navy’s organic capabilities and U.S. 

shipyards to provide maintenance. The Navy established an LCS 

Council to address major concerns raised by several Navy reports 

on problems with the LCS’s manning, training, and maintenance 

concepts, among other issues. This council has developed a plan of 

action with milestones to bring high-level attention to resolving 

these issues as the LCS class is introduced into the surface combatant fleet. Given the central role of the LCS for the future of the 

surface fleet, the committee has concerns about the Navy’s longterm sustainment plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to analyze and review: 

(1) Plans to collect and analyze data during the USS Freedom’s Singapore deployment, as well as any mid-point or final 

reports of lessons learned from the deployment; 

(2) Projected costs associated with providing preventive and 

depot maintenance including, but not limited to, an analysis of 

the alternatives considered in the use of contractor fly-away 

maintenance teams and U.S. Government and commercial 

shipyards; 

(3) Progress on meeting targets established in the LCS plan 

of action and milestones; 

(4) Lifecycle cost estimates for the variants of the LCS and 

their associated mission modules compared with other Navy 

ship classes; and 

(5) Any other issue that the Comptroller General determines 

appropriate with respect to the sustainment of the LCS platform and its associated mission modules, including modificaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

tions and improvements to reduce long-term sustainment costs 

and improve efficiencies. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide to the congressional defense committees a preliminary briefing by March 3, 2014, on the above factors, with a report or reports to follow by May 30, 2014. 

Continuous Technology Refreshment 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) provided expanded authority to 

the Department of Defense to foster use of technology-enhanced 

maintenance capabilities with Working Capital funds. The accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print 5) specifically discussed Continuous Technology Refreshment (CTR), which 

is a proven post-production sustainment acquisition strategy to acquire technologically improved replacement parts and to significantly reduce long-term ownership costs. The committee notes that 

the Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Command is projected to 

achieve $254.0 million in sustainment cost savings over a 10-year 

period on just a limited a set of legacy helicopter parts. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has been slow 

to implement robust CTR programs, to expand their use beyond 

this one Army command, and to take full advantage of the Working 

Capital authorities provided in law which have become much more 

important due to national budget pressures. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the congressional defense 

committees, not later than April 30, 2014, on the Department’s 

Continuous Technology Refreshment initiatives for improving the 

quality and significantly lowering the cost of replacement parts for 

Department weapon systems. The briefing should address: 

(1) The guidance provided to the military services on the use 

of Working Capital authorities for technology-enabled maintenance capabilities; 

(2) Information on the results achieved to date from developing modern parts to replace obsolete legacy parts using CTR 

with the resulting associated estimated cost savings; and 

(3) The plans of each military department and appropriate 

Defense agencies to develop and implement CTR acquisition 

strategies in fiscal year 2014 for obsolete parts most likely to 

achieve significant cost savings. 

Defense Logistics Agency Roles and Missions Assessment 

The committee is concerned that the 2005 Base Realignment and 

Closure Commission process may have placed the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) in roles and assigned missions outside its core competencies which may be resulting in suboptimal support of its customers. In particular, the committee is concerned about the operational and readiness impacts to customers of DLA’s continued 

challenges in effectively managing the supply chain. The committee 

notes that supply chain management, supply inventories, materiel 

distribution, and asset visibility, in particular, continue to be ‘‘high 

risk’’ areas within the Department of Defense, according the 2013 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

Government Accountability Office’s High Risk Report. While the 

committee notes the significant progress DLA has made in reducing excess inventory and improving its business processes, the committee has been made aware of persistent challenges in the timely 

provision of specialized, low-quantity parts and supply chain management, which the committee believes could be a result of a misalignment of roles and missions. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the roles and missions of the DLA. The assessment may, at the election of the Secretary, be conducted by a 

federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) or an 

independent, non-governmental institute which is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 

from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, and has recognized credentials and expertise in national security and military affairs appropriate for the assessment. The assessment should include, but 

not be limited to, the following: 

(1) An examination of the roles and missions currently assigned to the DLA; 

(2) An assessment of the DLA’s ability (resources, structure, 

workforce, etc.) to adequately accomplish those roles and missions outside of DLA-Energy; 

(3) Identification of any DLA functions, roles, missions, activities, or initiatives that could be more efficiently performed 

by the military departments or other defense agencies; 

(4) A transition plan for any activities recommended for migration; 

(5) An assessment of functions, roles, missions, activities, or 

initiatives that could be most efficiently performed by DLA 

that are currently performed by other military departments or 

defense agencies; and 

(6) Any other recommendations on ways the DLA could further improve its support to customers, management practices, 

demand forecasting, its use of modeling to determine the optimal number and inventory management. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver this assessment in conjunction with the annual budget submission for fiscal year 2015. Further, to enable the committee to provide the necessary oversight, the committee directs the Department to brief the 

congressional defense committees on the strategy within 30 days of 

its delivery to Congress. 

Disposition of Retrograded Equipment from Afghanistan 

As the Department continues the drawdown of U.S. forces from 

Afghanistan, the committee is aware of continued interest by local 

communities, law enforcement agencies, and other eligible domestic 

entities in the reuse of excess defense articles. 

The committee supports close coordination between the Department and the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus 

Property in connecting interested eligible domestic entities with 

surplus military equipment at no cost to the government. However, 

in conducting oversight on the progress of drawdown in Afghanistan, the committee believes that the Department can do more to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

provide real-time information on the availability, location, and condition of surplus materials available to interested eligible entities. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief 

the congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 

2013, on the Department’s plans to make excess defense articles 

from the drawdown in Afghanistan available to eligible domestic 

entities at no cost to the government. This briefing shall specifically include planned improvements to real-time information sharing with interested eligible parties regarding what equipment 

might be available, when, where, and in what condition. 

F–35 Sustainment Plan 

The committee recognizes the importance of the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter Program to our national defense. This advanced 

fighter aircraft will replace a variety of existing aircraft in the Air 

Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. In 2012, the Department 

of Defense reported that sustainment of the F–35 aircraft fleet 

could cost more than $1.0 trillion (in then-year dollars) over the 

planned 30-year service life. However, the Department has said 

that it is actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to reduce 

life-cycle sustainment costs based on concerns about the affordability of the program. Past experience has shown that decisions 

made during the development of a weapon system can influence, 

positively or negatively, the cost of sustaining that system over its 

life cycle. Considering the magnitude of the estimated sustainment 

costs for the F–35, the committee is concerned about whether the 

Department has established comprehensive sustainment plans, developed appropriate cost analyses, and identified potential options 

to control and/or minimize future sustainment costs for the aircraft 

program. Given the fiscal uncertainties facing the Department and 

growing concerns related to the affordability of the F–35’s longterm sustainment costs, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Department’s ongoing F–35 

sustainment planning efforts. This review should include: 

(1) The extent to which the Department has developed comprehensive sustainment plans, including a Life-Cycle 

Sustainment Plan, and regularly updated these plans to reflect 

program changes; 

(2) The extent to which the Department has utilized appropriate analyses of operating and support costs, including a 

business case analysis, to evaluate the full range of 

sustainment options available for the F–35 program; 

(3) The extent to which the Department is pursuing additional opportunities, such as competition for sustainment contracts, to reduce long-term sustainment costs; and 

(4) Any other issues that the Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to the sustainment of the F–35. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a preliminary briefing by March 14, 2014, on the 

above factors, with a report or reports to follow. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

Item Unique Identification and Automated Information and Data 

Capture 

The committee is aware that numerous Government Accountability Office audits have found that significant improvements are 

needed in the tracking, management, and accountability for assets 

deployed across the Department of Defense. The committee believes 

that Item Unique Identification (IUID), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), biometrics, and other automated information and data 

capture (AIDC) technologies have the potential for realizing significant cost savings and improving management of defense equipment 

and supplies throughout their life cycles. Further, the committee 

judges that the use of the implementing technologies can secure 

supply-item data for logistics and engineering analysis; improve 

item intelligence for operational warfighter planning; upgrade access to historical item data across life cycles; lower total life cycle 

cost of items acquired and managed; save taxpayer funding 

through improved productivity, efficiency, maintenance, and 

logistical planning; and combat the growing problem of counterfeit 

parts in the military supply chain. 

The committee understands that in 2003, the Department of Defense initiated the IUID initiative, which requires the marking and 

tracking of assets deployed throughout the Armed Forces or in the 

possession of Department contractors, but implementation has been 

fragmented, incomplete, and not enforced. The committee believes 

the Department of Defense must improve its efforts to capture 

meaningful data and optimize the benefits of Item Unique Identification and other AIDC initiatives to include the investment of 

sufficient resources and continued training and leadership. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate rules and regulations sufficient to enforce compliance with 

section 252.211–7003 (entitled ‘‘Item Identification and Valuation’’) 

of the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 

on Item Unique Identification, which requires unique identification 

for all delivered items meeting the standards set forth in the regulation. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by January 31, 2014, on current compliance rates with section 252.211– 

7003 of the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, measures being taken to improve compliance, and a projected 

date for full compliance. 

Laser Peening Technology 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee noted that ‘‘laser peening technology, a surface enhancement processing treatment for metals, has achieved considerable 

success in commercial aerospace and power-generation applications, reducing costs by enabling improvements in the metal structure and mitigating high-cycle fatigue failures of a system, thus extending the system’s lifetime.’’ In that report the committee also 

encouraged the Department of Defense ‘‘to examine the potential 

cost savings that may be derived from adopting this technology 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

broadly across the military services, particularly for use on engines, 

aircraft structures, land vehicles and weapon systems.’’ However, 

the committee is concerned that some military departments have 

not fully explored the use of such technologies to reduce costs associated with problems of fatigue failure, stress corrosion cracking, 

and component shape corrections. The committee further encourages the Department to explore such technologies for use in aircraft engines to slow the rate of replacement of highly stressed 

components and parts. 

Logistical Support to the Department of Defense 

The committee is concerned with the current downsizing at the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) Eastern Distribution Center (EDC) and its impact on military readiness. As described by the 

General Services Administration (GSA), the EDC ‘‘provides an integrated pipeline that sustains GSA’s armed forces and civilian customers around the world with innovative and tailored logistics 

services that are ever improving in terms of cost, timeliness, and 

relative value.’’ It has been estimated that 75 percent of shipments 

from the Eastern Distribution Center are for Department of Defense purposes. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine the important work at this facility to ensure the 

EDC maintains its ability to sustain the readiness of our Armed 

Forces. 

Long-term Investment Plan for Land, Facilities, and Equipment of 

Former Guam Ship Repair Facility 

In testimony before the committee in April 2013, the Chief of 

Naval Operations highlighted the importance of a ship repair capability on Guam to support increased naval operations in the western Pacific region as key to the national security strategy. The committee understands that maintaining a depot-level ship repair capability on Guam will require significant investment. The committee is concerned that the Navy has been unable to provide a detailed investment plan for upgrading and modernizing the former 

Navy ship repair facility on Guam. The committee notes that a 

failed long-term lease approach would have required private industry to provide capital improvements estimated at nearly $150.0 

million. Therefore, the committee anticipates that a similar level of 

investment would be needed by the Navy to provide the necessary 

depot-level repair capability for the western Pacific region. The 

committee believes that improvements to these facilities will be 

critical to ensuring the long-term viability of a depot-level ship repair capability in the western Pacific. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to submit to the 

congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 2013, 

a long-term investment plan for the land, facilities, and equipment 

of the former Guam ship repair facility. The plan should include: 

(1) A description of how the Secretary of the Navy will 

prioritize the improvements made to land, facilities, and equipment under the plan, including an explanation and estimated 

cost and schedule for each such improvement; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

(2) An identification of the accounts from which funds will be 

used for such improvements. 

Navy Fleet Readiness 

The committee is pleased with the U.S. Navy’s progress in reversing the years of degraded surface fleet readiness trends. The 

Navy has made progress in documenting the existing shortfalls and 

maintenance requirements through its development of Class Maintenance Plans and Technical Foundation Papers to identify specific 

requirements by hull. However, to supplement its organic capability, the committee notes the Navy’s success has been partially 

reliant on external support to address its knowledge gaps and prepare the assets for operations. Engineering Readiness Assessment 

Teams (ERATs), manned in part by retired Navy master chiefs, 

have complemented the organic capacity with their unique expertise to assist ships’ crews in best practices, safe operation of ship 

systems, and identification, documentation, and repair of failed 

equipment and broken systems. With decades of experience, the 

teams’ goal is to improve readiness by providing younger sailors 

with critical institutional knowledge, mentorship, technical help, 

quality control, and environmental program compliance. The committee recognizes the importance of this relationship and the invaluable contribution. However, the committee encourages the 

Navy to institutionalize these lessons learned in its training process. 

In light of constrained fiscal resources, the committee recognizes 

the Navy could potentially lose traction on the success it has 

achieved to date, due to the impact of a sustained surge and lack 

of time and resources to support required maintenance. Therefore, 

the committee encourages the Navy to continue to provide the necessary funding and expertise, through a complement of organic and 

private sector capacity, to sustain the progress in surface ship 

readiness, reduce lifecycle maintenance costs, and improve 

warfighting readiness at lower total ownership cost to reach expected service life. 

Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul 

The committee notes that the Navy has indicated that ‘‘funding 

requirements for propeller repair and overhauls are estimated 

based on historical and current year expenditures’’ and that ‘‘sustaining out-year funding for Ready for Issue (RFI) spare propellers 

at required levels would help maintain inventory and limit risk to 

readiness.’’ The Navy has indicated that lower-than-targeted levels 

of healthy RFI propellers pose ‘‘medium to high risk to attack and 

strategic submarine operational readiness.’’ The committee further 

notes that the Navy continues to request partial funding to support 

this effort in the Overseas Contingency Operations account. The 

committee encourages the Navy to identify the necessary funds to 

ensure an adequate supply of ready propellers when projecting Future Years Defense Program base budget requests. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

READINESS ISSUES

Advanced Situational Awareness Training 

The committee understands that the Army has successfully incorporated a module to train deploying units to detect changes in 

human behavior through Advanced Situational Awareness Training 

(ASAT). The committee commends the Army for its leadership in 

developing and broadening soldier training in this area and is encouraged by the reported benefits of increased situational awareness, improved effectiveness in positive identification of threats, reduced time to gain a decisive advantage, enhanced use of existing 

optical equipment, and reduction of civilian casualties. The committee believes this type of training imparts enduring and important skills at both the individual and unit level, and represents a 

cost-effective method for training soldiers across a broad range of 

military operations. 

Combat Training Centers 

The committee recognizes the important role that national combat training centers play in producing combat-ready forces. The 

committee further recognizes that these centers provide an important resource for other Government agencies, allies, and both conventional and special operations forces. Therefore, the committee 

urges the Department of Defense to closely examine how such centers can serve as a model for future operational readiness and 

training, and work to ensure their long-term viability by providing 

appropriate resources and adequate staffing. 

Comptroller General Encroachment Study 

The committee is concerned about military readiness and preserving the Department of Defense’s ability to train and operate in 

the air, at sea, and on land. U.S. military force readiness is directly 

dependent on many factors, including realistic training for a variety of missions in myriad environments worldwide. An important 

component of military readiness is timely and routine access to 

training ranges that permit realistic training without hindrance 

from activities that can limit access to, encroach upon, or at times 

compromise security of the ranges. The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) previously reported in ‘‘Military Training: Compliance 

With Environmental Laws Affects Some Training Activities, but 

DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions’’ (GAO–08–407) that the requirement to 

comply with environmental laws has affected some training activities and how they are conducted. Specifically, the GAO found some 

instances where training activities were cancelled, postponed, or 

modified in order to address environmental requirements. While 

the GAO also reported at the time that readiness data did not indicate an impact on readiness from these instances, it also reported 

that the Department was developing systems to measure the impact. 

Limitations on access to training ranges and encroachment of national security interests can take many forms: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

(1) Environmental limitations, both land- and sea-based, involve endangered species that may be present through nesting 

or migration at or near training ranges. 

(2) Urban encroachment can consist of commercial or residential construction in the civilian economy in proximity to or 

adjacent to military bases. 

(3) Encroachment from energy-generation projects can occur 

both adjacent to installations and also in the Outer Continental Shelf, potentially affecting the military’s ability to train 

and operate both on installations and at sea. The installation 

of renewable energy-generation facilities, including wind turbines and solar power facilities, can be incompatible with the 

installations’ missions. 

(4) Competition for the electromagnetic spectrum through 

the proliferation of consumer demand for wireless devices, including smart phones and tablet computers, and the associated 

data-intensive applications, is increasingly conflicting with the 

Department’s need to use the electromagnetic spectrum for 

modern military training and assurance of proper functioning 

of some weapon systems. 

(5) National security interests may be threatened when 

range security becomes a concern based on the nature of the 

encroachment. For example, ocean observing systems may be 

used for marine mammal and weather research, climate research, tsunami warning/verification, and seismic/earthquake 

monitoring. The littoral nature of Navy training ranges, and 

the unique types of activity that occur there, make the ranges 

valuable for data gathering in each of those categories. However, the open nature of the high seas also makes it possible 

for data to be gathered that may exploit an operational vulnerability. Similarly, land-based development can lead to security 

concerns due to incompatible development adjacent to or in 

near proximity to ranges and ownership of such development 

that raises security concerns. 

The Department’s actions to prevent or mitigate the impediments 

to realistic training are vital to ensuring adequate range access and 

ensuring U.S. forces remain at a high state of readiness. However, 

the committee wants to ensure that the Department is effectively 

preventing or mitigating these restrictions to ensure that U.S. force 

readiness remains high. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a review of 

the Department’s activities to prevent or mitigate environmental 

limitations and man-made encroachment, and ensure adequate security of training ranges and operations. At a minimum, this study 

should address the following: 

(1) What are the types of restrictions, and how do they affect 

the Department’s ability to train and operate? 

(2) What authorities does the Department have, or need, to 

be able to protect its ability to train and operate? 

(3) To what extent has the Department identified restrictions 

on its air-, land-, and sea-based training ranges, and how has 

the Department prevented or mitigated such restrictions? 

(4) How does the Department collaborate with local governments, private companies, and/or other federal agencies to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

tect its ability to train and operate? And, what areas require 

improvement? 

(5) How effective are the Department’s systems to measure 

the effects of environmental limitations and man-made encroachment and to what extent do opportunities exist to improve these systems? 

(6) What options does the Department have to mitigate impacts of environmental limitations and man-made encroachment, and at what cost? 

(7) How does the Department identify and mitigate any relevant security issues related to training range restrictions? 

(8) Which ranges are at highest risk? And, which ranges 

should be the highest priority to protect from encroachment 

due to unique training environments and/or ability to minimize 

electromagnetic spectrum interference? 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, 

on the findings of the study. 

GAO Review of DOD Readiness and Risks 

With the drawdown of forces first from the Republic of Iraq, and 

now from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan the military has 

faced a new set of challenges as it plans for an uncertain future 

with less resources. In its January 2012 strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense 

and related documents, DOD called for a smaller, lighter, flexible 

joint force able to conduct a full range of activities but no longer 

sized to conduct large and protracted stability operations. It also 

called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia Pacific region along 

with the Middle East and several other changes. In March 2013, 

the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

to work with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct 

a Strategic Choice and Management Review to examine the choices 

that underlie the defense strategy, posture, and investments, including all past assumptions and systems. Shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material impact on the way DOD portrays 

its readiness and the risks it faces. 

To help inform the committee’s oversight and its consideration of 

the Department’s budget request, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review DOD’s readiness and 

the risks the department faces and to report the results of this review to the congressional defense committees. The review should 

specifically address: 

(1) The current and historical readiness status of each of the 

military services including any trends in reported readiness; 

(2) The current and historical readiness status of each of the 

current geographic and functional combatant commands, including any trends in reported readiness; 

(3) The key factors that impact readiness, and how these factors contributed to any reported changes in readiness between 

March 1, 2013, when sequestration went into effect, and the 

December 2013 readiness reports; and 

(4) Changes in strategic and military risk levels between 

2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way the ChairVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and reports strategic 

and military risks. 

In reporting on these four elements, the Comptroller General 

may take a phased approach, reporting on elements (1), (2), and (3) 

by March 15, 2014 and reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD 

delivers the annual Chairman’s Risk Assessment and, if applicable, 

the Secretary of Defense’s Risk Mitigation plan to the congressional 

defense committees. 

Identification of Foreign-Language Competency 

The committee recognizes that foreign-language training is expensive and time-consuming. If there is a need to surge skills in 

a particular language, the place to start is with people who already 

demonstrate proficiency in the needed language. This promotes efficiency and lowers training costs by making use of language knowledge already acquired by service members. To provide decisionmakers with greater visibility of the language skills and cultural 

knowledge of service members that could inform force management 

processes, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Secretaries of the military services to query service members returning from deployment to a non-English-speaking country 

regarding language skills acquired or improved while deployed, and 

to allow service members to rate their own competence in speaking, 

oral understanding, reading, and/or writing a foreign language, 

using a language proficiency self-assessment scale like the one used 

to assess proficiency standards throughout the U.S. Government. 

Additionally, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the military services to allow a service member who acquired a speaking knowledge of a language to be tested on oral proficiency alone. The data collected from these language competency 

self-assessments and tests should be made accessible to service 

commanders and others who need to identify a pool of potential 

candidates for advanced language training to meet force management requirements. 

Missile Defense Capabilities for Guam 

The committee recognizes the strategic importance of providing 

ballistic missile defense for Guam and the current U.S. assets 

based there. The committee further recognizes that as part of bilateral negotiations with the Government of Japan, the U.S. military 

presence on the island and the need to protect it from a missile 

threat are projected to increase. The committee notes that the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation 

contains a recommendation to base an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) on Guam as part of the realignment of 

U.S. Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. The committee also 

notes the actions of the Department of Defense of temporarily stationing a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile 

defense capability on Guam to respond to immediate threats of 

missile launches from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

toward U.S. military assets on Guam. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

The committee is concerned that despite projected growth in the 

U.S. military population on Guam and the President’s new Defense 

Strategic Guidance focusing on the U.S. Pacific Command area of 

responsibility, the Army has not provided any resources for the 

basing of an AMDTF or other missile defense capability on Guam 

in the current year budget proposal or in the Future Years Defense 

Program. The committee is aware that Aegis-based missile defense 

capabilities or other land-based missile defense capabilities also 

could, if required, provide coverage and defense for assets on 

Guam. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

in coordination with the appropriate military services, to brief the 

committee by December 1, 2013, on: 

(1) Any analysis the Department of Defense has conducted to 

determine which missile-defense capability or capabilities are 

best suited for the defense of Guam and the recommendations 

from that analysis; 

(2) The Department’s timeline for resourcing and establishing an AMDTF or other missile-defense capability on or for 

Guam, including the number of required personnel billets and 

costs; 

(3) An assessment of which component of the military—Active or Reserve—would be most appropriate to support the mission, either fully or partially; and 

(4) A description of permanent and other missile defense capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region that could provide protection to U.S. military assets on Guam. 

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 

The committee recognizes the important contribution of the Navy 

Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) as a scalable force that 

facilitates securing strategic access and global freedom of action. 

Specifically, the Naval Construction Battalion plays a critical role 

in support of operating forces through efforts such as construction 

of roads, bridges, bunkers, airfields, and logistics bases in addition 

to civic action projects. The committee is concerned that the Navy’s 

planned force-structure reduction of 8,000 positions could hinder 

the strategic capabilities of the Navy. The Naval Construction Battalion represents approximately 50 percent of the total NECC manpower, and as a high-demand, low-density asset, the committee encourages the Navy to consider the important contribution of these 

forces. 

Military Ocean Terminal Concord 

The committee is concerned about the readiness status of the 

Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California. The port’s 

net explosive weight limitation, combined with its other facilities 

such as magazines, rail lines, piers, and staging areas, gives it the 

capacity to handle common user ordnance load-out requirements 

for the military services and combatant commanders during wartime and contingency operations. Consequently, it is a key national 

asset essential to military readiness, and the committee recognizes 

its need to be maintained. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

The Government Accountability Office in its May 13, 2013, report 

‘‘Defense Logistics: The Department of Defense’s Report on Strategic Seaports Addressed All Congressionally Directed Elements,’’ 

cited significant deficiencies that impair the port’s capability to 

support required missions. Information provided to the committee 

by the Department of the Army, which is responsible for the operation and maintenance of MOTCO, indicates port facilities and 

equipment need major rehabilitation and modernization. While the 

Army has been directed by internal Department of Defense documents to fund equipment and facility improvements and pier replacements, the committee notes these efforts will not return the 

port to full operational status until 2018 at the earliest. 

Because the lack of this critical mobility infrastructure could 

delay support of operational plans, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to provide to the congressional defense committees an assessment of: 

(1) The current physical condition of Military Ocean Terminal Concord; 

(2) The ability of the port to successfully execute mission requirements of the military services and the combatant commanders; 

(3) The repairs required to bring the port to full mission capability, to include total cost and timeline and options to expedite the timeline; 

(4) The risk associated with failing to make equipment and 

facility improvements and pier replacements in a timely fashion; and 

(5) Options available to mitigate any shortfalls, including 

munitions supply, load-out, and transportation options, and potential statutory or regulatory waivers. 

As part of the assessment, the Comptroller General shall consult 

with the combatant commanders regarding their operational requirements. The report shall be submitted no later than December 

31, 2013, and may be submitted in a classified format if necessary. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 

to the congressional defense committees a summary of the current 

equipment and facilities conditions MOTCO. The report shall include: a status of the Environmental Impact Statement; a projects 

list identifying requirements necessary to address infrastructure 

deficiencies by fiscal year and funding amounts required; the design initiation associated with the project list; and a time line for 

completion of the infrastructure improvements. This report shall be 

submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 

September 30, 2013. The report may be submitted in a classified 

format if necessary. 

Report on Career Progression of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

Advisory Personnel 

For the past several years, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

have been providing forces to support security force assistance missions in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and other locations 

around the world. To conduct these missions, the services have relied on a number of non-doctrinal approaches. For example, in Afghanistan, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps have increasingly 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

relied on larger units, such as brigade combat teams, to provide advisory teams. In addition, the U.S. Army is beginning to execute its 

regionally aligned force concept, which aligns specific brigades to 

specific regions and calls for the deployment of small groups of 

leaders to conduct security force assistance activities while the rest 

of the unit remains at the home station. 

The committee is concerned about the career implications for 

U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps personnel assigned to security 

force assistance-related activities as well as the ability of these 

units to conduct these activities while maintaining readiness requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to examine and report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2014, on the impact of the 

U.S. Army’s and U.S. Marine Corps’ approaches to the security 

force assistance mission, including: 

(1) To what extent the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

have policies or procedures to identify personnel with advising 

or other security force assistance-related skills and experience; 

(2) To what extent the assignment of U.S. Army and U.S. 

Marine Corps officer and senior enlisted personnel to advising 

or other security force assistance-related activities has affected 

the career progression of these individuals, including opportunities for command positions, promotions, or other career development opportunities; and 

(3) What impact, if any, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine 

Corps’ approaches of relying on units to provide personnel for 

advising and other security force assistance-related activities 

have had on the units’ ability to maintain readiness. 

Sustainable Range Planning 

The committee notes that section 2802 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) requires the Department of Defense to provide installation master 

plans for a period not to exceed 10 years that, among other things, 

shall address sustainable range planning. The committee is aware 

that the Department of Defense submits the annual Sustainable 

Range Report, prepares Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plans for military installations, and works with other Federal, 

State, and local government entities, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations to address situations both on and in the vicinity of military installations and ranges that impact the ability of 

the Department to perform its mission. These efforts are essential 

to avoiding or reducing encroachment, sustaining military readiness, and ensuring the continued viability of military test and 

training ranges. The committee encourages the Department to leverage these existing sustainable range planning efforts as an integral part of installation master plans. 

Water Egress Training 

The committee recognizes the need to ensure that the Department of Defense provides its rotary-wing aviators with the best 

survivability training available. The committee is concerned that 

not all services have the facilities and capabilities necessary to enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

sure adequate training and throughput. The committee believes 

that a reassessment of the Department’s capabilities is especially 

important given the new defense strategic guidance shifting departmental focus to the Pacific Rim. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a formal assessment and report back to the congressional defense committees, not later than April 1, 2014, on the 

state of the Department’s rotary-wing water egress training capabilities. At a minimum, this assessment should include: 

(1) Training facilities and infrastructure; 

(2) Disparities and commonalities among the military departments; 

(3) Current training capacity and its adequacy to meet future 

requirements; and 

(4) Any capacity shortfalls in meeting water egress training 

requirements. 

OTHER MATTERS

Concerns Related to Fuel Rate Determinations 

The committee continues to be concerned with the insufficient 

funding of fuel within the operation and maintenance accounts 

based on inadequate fuel rate determinations by the Department 

of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) within the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). In fiscal year 2012, $1.0 billion was reprogrammed from other accounts to the DWCF to support cash balances within the fund and to avoid increasing the cost 

charged to the Department of Defense customer as a result of fully 

burdened costs for fuel exceeding budget estimates. In fiscal year 

2013, the Department requested an additional $1.4 billion be reprogrammed to cover costs not captured in the budgeted fuel rates. 

The committee believes these significant reprogramming requests 

were due to the Department underestimating the fully burdened 

cost of procuring and distributing refined fuel. The committee is 

aware that the Office of Management and Budget provides the Department with a budgeted price per crude barrel (an estimated projection of the market rate) from which the Department builds the 

fully burdened rate charged to customers. However, estimates of 

the fully burdened rate have been well short of the market rates, 

requiring reprogramming or price adjustments during the fiscal 

year to maintain solvency within the fund. This will perpetuate 

into fiscal year 2014, as Department officials have stated that the 

shortfalls relating to the cost of refined fuel have not been resolved 

within the current budget request. This practice of poor estimation 

disrupts congressional oversight, promulgates faulty budgeting 

practices, and leaves the readiness of the military services at risk 

in the year of execution. 

Based on the current budgeted rate for refined fuel, the Government Accountability Office has estimated that funds in fiscal year 

2014 are understated by approximately $536.0 million, which 

would generate significant shortfalls in the operation and maintenance accounts if the Department raises rates during the fiscal 

year. The committee encourages the Department to revise processes for fuel rate determination to better capture market indicaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

tors for refined fuel pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United 

States Code, prior to submission of the President’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2015. In the interim, the committee has recommended authorization of additional funds to support the anticipated shortfalls due to the inadequate budgeted rate for 2014. 

Furthermore, if the Department fails to reform its budgeting 

practices related to fuel rates, and subsequently requests a reprogramming due to shortfalls within the DWCF specifically tied to 

the fully burdened costs of refining fuel, the committee will not 

look favorably upon such a request. 

Department of Defense Travel Restrictions 

The committee commends the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

promote efficiency and reduce expenses. The committee further 

commends the Department’s efforts to increase scrutiny on travel, 

training, and conference spending by elevating approval authority 

and implementing a tiered approval structure. However, the committee is concerned that designated approval authorities may be 

subjectively restricting travel to specific geographic locations, and 

that these determinations are a product of perception rather than 

cost efficiencies or misalignment with training requirements, professional military education, or support to combatant commanders. 

As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue its 

efforts to increase scrutiny and accountability of travel, training, 

and conference spending, but recommends that the Department not 

prohibit travel to specific geographical locations without case-bycase consideration and to develop objective guidance and accounting measures for approving travel, training, and conference spending. 

Navy Arctic Roadmap 

The committee continues to be concerned about the Department 

of Defense’s resources and preparedness for accessing, operating in, 

and protecting national interests in the Arctic. The Navy currently 

estimates that between 2020 and 2030, the Arctic could be ice free 

for one month during the summer which may lead to an increase 

in trans-Arctic passage for vessels seeking to reduce transit distance by utilizing the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. The Navy’s Strategic Objectives for the Arctic was signed in 

May 2010 and is referred to in both the Navy Arctic Capabilities 

Based Assessment, approved in September 2011, and the Navy 

Arctic Environmental Capabilities Based Assessment, approved in 

December 2012. Those objectives include ensuring Navy forces are 

capable and ready, contributing to the safety, stability and security 

in the region, safeguarding U.S. maritime interests, protecting critical infrastructure and key resources in the Arctic, and strengthening and fostering new cooperative relationships in the region. As 

a global Nation, the United States needs to ensure that the Navy 

is adequately prepared to preserve U.S. national security interests 

and collaborate with other Arctic nations if and when the region 

will be open for passage with increased traffic. 

The committee recognizes the importance of transparency of action without seeking to militarize the region. Therefore, the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

mittee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a roadmap for 

future activities and costs for training and operating in the Arctic. 

This roadmap should be a derivative of the National Security Strategy, and shall identify proposed exercises (including table top exercises), to include the frequency, cost, and a more detailed investment strategy across the Program Objective Memorandum through 

fiscal years 2020 to support a timeframe leading to increased operations in the region between 2020 to 2030. Additionally, the Navy 

should include details regarding international forums in which they 

participate. The committee further directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to provide this roadmap to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2014. 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 included $31.2 million in 

operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, for the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). 

The committee notes that this request reflects a transfer of NSHQ 

authorized funding from operation and maintenance, Army, to operation and maintenance, Defense-wide. The committee does not 

support this transfer and as such maintains the NSHQ authorization within operation and maintenance, Army. 

Operations and Maintenance of the Ballistic Missile Defense 

System 

The committee is concerned with the increasing share of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget being consumed by operations 

and maintenance. According to MDA budget documents, this will 

amount to $1.47 billion over the fiscal year 2014 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP); these costs are increasing over the fiscal 

year 2014 FYDP. 

The committee is aware that former Deputy Secretary of Defense 

William Lynn issued a Memorandum for Secretaries of the military 

departments on June 10, 2011, that established funding responsibilities for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Under 

this memorandum, the MDA will fund sustainment of BMDS-specific mission equipment and initial spares, as well as the first 2 

years of operations of BMDS-specific mission equipment. 

The committee understands that with the maturation of missile 

defense systems, the MDA and the military departments are grappling for the first time with the division of responsibility in these 

long-term operations and maintenance costs; the now operational 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, which was deployed 

to Guam as of April 21, 2013, is one example. 

The committee expects to be kept informed of any difficulty in 

the appropriate division of operations and maintenance funding responsibility between MDA and the military departments. 

Weather Data and Modeling 

The committee is aware that weather forecasting plays a vital 

role in mission readiness, and that the Department of Defense has 

taken steps to improve its forecasting. However, weather models 

are only as effective as the underlying data which inform them. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

The military relies largely on weather balloons for data gathering. 

Further, the committee is aware of recent advances in data gathering methods already in use in the private sector which promise 

to deliver more accurate data, and thus, more precise forecasts. 

In an asymmetric warfare environment, inclement or unanticipated weather phenomena can have a dramatic impact on U.S. and 

coalition forces, especially with regard to air superiority and special 

operations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate a brief on existing commercial 

meteorological data gathering technologies, their adaptability to 

military usage, practicality in a combat environment, and accuracy 

of data. The brief should also include estimated costs associated 

with acquisition, maintenance, and licensing, where applicable, of 

these commercially available technologies. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize appropriations for operation and 

maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Section 311—Deadline for Submission of Reports on Proposed 

Budgets for Activities Relating to Operational Energy Strategy 

This section would modify amend section 138c(e) of title 10, 

United States Code, to revise the date of submission for the report 

on the proposed budgets for that fiscal year that were not certified. 

Section 312—Facilitation of Interagency Cooperation in Conservation Programs of the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and 

Interior to Avoid or Reduce Adverse Impacts on Military Readiness Activities 

This section would amend section 2684a of title 10, United States 

Code, to permit a recipient of funds under the Sikes Act to be able 

to use the funds for matching funds or cost-sharing requirements 

of conservation programs. This section would also expire the authority on October 1, 2019, but permit any agreements that were 

entered into prior to September 30, 2019 to continue according to 

its terms and conditions. 

Section 313—Reauthorization of Sikes Act 

This section would extend the authority of the Sikes Act through 

2019. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

Section 314—Cooperative Agreements Under Sikes Act for Land 

Management Related to Department of Defense Readiness Activities 

This section would amend section 103A of the Sikes Act, section 

670c–1 of title 16, United States Code, to permit lump sum payment and accrual of interest used for the purposes of the original 

agreement. This section would also permit the cooperative agreements to be used to acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, and sets limitations 

on agreements that are not on military installations. Finally, this 

section would also expire the authority on October 1, 2019, but permit any agreements that were entered into prior to September 30, 

2019 to continue according to its terms and conditions. 

Section 315—Exclusions from Definition of ‘‘Chemical Substance’’ 

under Toxic Substances Control Act 

This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15, United 

States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of any article 

including shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article, and primers. 

Section 316—Exemption of Department of Defense from 

Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement 

This section would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (Section 42 of United States Code 17142) to 

exempt the Department of Defense from the requirements related 

to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section. 

Section 317—Clarification of Prohibition on Disposing of Waste in 

Open-Air Burn Pits 

This section would codify the definition of covered waste as it relates to the requirements established by section 317 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84; title 10 of United States Code 2701 note). 

Section 318—Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or 

Construction of Biofuels Refineries 

This section would require the Department of Defense to obtain 

a congressional authorization before entering into a contract for the 

planning, design, refurbishing, or construction of a biofuels refinery. 

Section 319—Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels 

This section would limit the Department of Defense’s ability to 

purchase or produce biofuels until the earlier of either the date on 

which the Budget Control Act of 2011 is no longer in effect, or the 

date on which the cost of biofuel is equal to the cost of conventional 

fuels. This section would provide an exception for biofuel test and 

certification and research and development. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

SUBTITLE C—LOGISTICS AND SUSTAINMENT

Section 321—Littoral Combat Ship Strategic Sustainment Plan 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to create a 

Strategic Sustainment Plan for the Littoral Combat Ship and submit this plan to the congressional defense committees not later 

than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 322—Review of Critical Manufacturing Capabilities within 

Army Arsenals 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review 

current and expected manufacturing requirements across the Department of Defense to identify critical manufacturing capabilities 

which could be executed by Government-owned arsenals, and to 

brief the results of the review to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee supports efforts to improve utilization of Army arsenals by the military services and Defense agencies. The committee encourages greater use of Army arsenals across the Department of Defense to meet manufacturing requirements and applauds 

efforts to increase visibility of the manufacturing capabilities provided by Army arsenals in order to support national security requirements. 

Section 323—Inclusion of Army Arsenals Capabilities in 

Solicitations 

This section would require Program Executive Officers and Program Managers to solicit information from Government-owned arsenals when undertaking a make-or-buy analysis, notify Government-owned arsenals of the requirement, and allow arsenals that 

have the capability to fulfill a manufacturing requirement to submit a proposal for the requirement. 

The committee notes that in addition to directly soliciting information from the arsenals, Program Executive Officers and Program 

Managers may utilize the Materiel Enterprise Capabilities Database (MEC–D) and other organic industrial base enterprise-wide 

capabilities information. The committee notes that utilization of 

the MEC–D provides quick access to organic industrial base capabilities information and assists in consideration of manufacturing 

and repair requirements. The committee commends the Army for 

development of the MEC–D and encourages its use. 

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 331—Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to 

Personnel and Unit Readiness 

This section would amend the report required under section 482 

of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense 

to report to the congressional defense committees on the ability of 

the geographic and functional combatant commanders to successfully meet their respective contingency and operational plans and 

key mission essential tasks. This section would also require the report to include an assessment by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

of Staff of the level of risk incurred by using contract support in 

contingency operations. In addition, this section adds a quarterly 

readiness reporting requirement for the defense combat support 

agencies to section 482 of title 10, United States Code. These reports would have to include readiness trends and indicators and an 

assessment of an agency’s ability to execute formal operational 

plans and to support contingency operations. 

The committee is concerned that it does not receive comprehensive reporting on the geographic and functional combatant commanders’ ability to successfully execute the full range of their respective operational and contingency plans. The committee believes 

that absent this information, its ability to make informed oversight 

decisions regarding the readiness of U.S. forces may be degraded. 

The committee understands that this lack of visibility may be, in 

part, due to classification issues. The committee encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to submit multiple annexes as required to provide complete and timely readiness information to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee is also concerned that it lacks visibility on the 

readiness of the various combat support agencies. These agencies 

are a key readiness enabler, and the inability to understand how 

they contribute to military readiness limits the ability of Congress 

to provide effective oversight of military readiness. 

Section 332—Repeal of Annual Comptroller General Report on 

Army Progress 

This section would repeal the requirement that the Comptroller 

General of the United States report on the Army’s progress in moving to a modular force design as the Army has completed the transition. 

Section 333—Revision to Requirement for Annual Submission of 

Information Regarding Information Technology Capital Assets 

This section would amend the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314; 10 

U.S.C. 221 note) to align Department of Defense high-threshold information technology Capital Asset reporting with the Department’s Major Automated Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to the Office of Management and Budget. 

SUBTITLE E—LIMITATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORITY

Section 341—Limitation on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes 

Air Force Base, Azores 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from 

reducing the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores, based 

on the force structure in existence on October 1, 2013, until the 

Secretary of Defense briefs the congressional defense committees. 

This brief shall specifically assess the efficacy of Lajes Air Force 

Base, Azores in support of the United States overseas force posture. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

Section 342—Prohibition on Performance of Department of Defense 

Flight Demonstration Teams Outside the United States 

This section would place a 2 year moratorium on the Department 

of Defense use of funds for airshows outside the United States. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Requirement to Establish Policy on Joint Combat 

Uniforms 

This section would establish as national policy a requirement for 

all the U.S. military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, with certain exceptions. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has not 

complied with section 352 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) which required the 

military departments to establish joint criteria for future ground 

combat uniforms. Rather than continue on a course that does not, 

as the Government Accountability Office reported, meet statutory 

requirements for the development of service-unique uniforms that 

provide service members equivalent levels of performance and protection nor minimize risk to individuals operating in the joint battle space, the committee instead adopts a path that would provide 

standardization and economies of scale while at the same time ensuring new uniforms are joint, effective, compatible with troops’ 

personal equipment, and suitable to operational needs. 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

Although the committee supports the President’s fiscal year 2014 

budget request for end strength for the Active and Reserve Components, it continues to have concerns with the amount and pace of 

reductions over the next 3 years and the impact this will have on 

force structure. The budget request reduces the Active Duty end 

strength authorizations by little more than 40,000 from the fiscal 

year 2013 authorized levels. However, the actual reduction levels 

will be closer to 15,000 since the Army will end fiscal year 2013 

at approximately 530,000 (about 22,000 below the fiscal year 2013 

authorized levels) and the Marine Corps will end the year at approximately 193,000 (about 4,300 below the fiscal year 2013 authorized levels). The Army and Marine Corps requests are within 

the minimum levels on end strength prescribed in section 402 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). The Air Force will make minimum reductions in 

its Active Component. The Navy has a slight growth of 900 sailors 

from its fiscal year 2013 authorization, but remains undermanned 

by almost 4,000 sailors, well below minimum end strength levels. 

While the Navy believes that it will achieve its authorized end 

strength at the end of fiscal year 2013, that has yet to be seen, and 

could continue to impact the Navy’s ability to meet force structure 

requirements in fiscal year 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

The budget request includes a reduction of 8,100 for the Reserve 

Components. The Army National Guard (4,000) and the Navy Reserve (3,400) make up the majority of the reductions. Both requests 

are consistent with the fiscal year 2013 end strength reduction 

plan submitted with last year’s budget request. The Air National 

Guard and the Air Force Reserve have minimal reductions pending 

the results of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force. 

The committee remains concerned that unfettered reductions in 

end strength will have a detrimental impact on force structure and, 

ultimately, operational mission capability and capacity among the 

services. The committee recognizes that the Army and Marine 

Corps have implemented planned end strength reductions over the 

next several years, and cautions the services not to abruptly 

change this course of action and break faith with those who have 

served this Nation in war. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Operational Reserves 

The committee understands that the Army and Air Force are reducing end strength and rebalancing force structure in response to 

the drawdown in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, reduced 

budgets, and the effects of sequestration. However, as has been 

stated in previous years, the committee remains concerned with increased potential reductions in the Reserve Components, specifically for the Army and the Air Force. The Reserve Components 

have been and remain an integral capability of the total force that 

must continue to be embraced as an operational reserve through 

periodic mobilization for real-world missions. Such employment 

sustains the skills and competencies to enable the Reserve Components to respond to crises or combat requirements in a timely manner. As the focus shifts from Afghanistan, the potential for persistent conflict remains. Thus, the committee continues to encourage the Secretary of Defense and the military services to ensure 

rigorous analysis is used when assessing the capabilities of the 

total force. Such analysis should be conducted if further reductions 

to force structure are necessary, and should include an assessment 

of the ability to meet the requirements of the combatant commands 

and those of the Federal Government and the States for homeland 

security and natural disasters. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 30, 2014: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

Authorized 

Army ................................................................................................. 552,100 520,000 520,000 0 –32,100 

Navy .................................................................................................. 322,700 323,600 323,600 0 900 

USMC ................................................................................................ 197,300 190,200 190,200 0 –7,100 

Air Force ........................................................................................... 329,460 327,600 327,600 0 –1,860 

DOD ......................................................................................... 1,401,560 1,361,400 1,361,400 0 –40,160 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end 

strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of 

September 30, 2014. The committee recommends 520,000 as the 

minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 323,600 as the 

minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 190,200 as the 

minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 

327,600 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air 

Force. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for Reserves 

on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of September 30, 

2014: 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ........................................................................... 358,200 354,200 354,200 0 –4,000 

Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ........................................................................................ 62,500 59,100 59,100 0 –3,400 

Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 

Air National Guard ............................................................................... 105,700 105,400 105,400 0 –300

Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 70,880 70,400 70,400 0 –480 

DOD Total .................................................................................... 841,880 833,700 833,700 0 –8,180 

Coast Guard Reserve ........................................................................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 0 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 

Support of the Reserves 

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

30, 2014: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ........................................................................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0 

Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 16,277 16,261 16,261 0 –16 

Naval Reserve ...................................................................................... 10,114 10,159 10,159 0 45 

Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard ............................................................................... 14,765 14,734 14,734 0 –31 

Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 2,888 2,911 2,911 0 23 

DOD Total .................................................................................... 78,365 78,386 78,386 0 21 

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

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2014: 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ........................................................................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0 

Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0 

Air National Guard ............................................................................... 22,180 21,875 21,875 0 –305 

Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 10,400 10,429 10,429 0 29 

DOD Total .................................................................................... 68,185 67,909 67,909 0 –276 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2014 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Status Technicians 

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the 

Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status 

technicians as of September 30, 2014: 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 

To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of 

title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve 

Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time National Guard duty during fiscal year 2014 to provide operational 

support. The personnel authorized here do not count against the 

end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 412 of this Act 

unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 

Service FY 2013 

Authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2014 

Request 

FY 2013 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ........................................................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Naval Reserve ...................................................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard ............................................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total .................................................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in section 4401 

of division D of this Act. 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee has taken a number of actions to address areas 

of concern. With regard to military justice, the committee fundamentally reformed the way that the Department of Defense must 

address sexual assault in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 

provides significant additional support to victims of this terrible 

crime. Specifically, with regard to the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, the committee limited the convening authority’s discretion 

to change a court-martial finding and sentence; eliminated the 5- 

year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault of a child; and, established dismissal (for 

officers) and dishonorable discharge (for enlisted personnel) as the 

mandatory minimum sentence for service members convicted by 

court-marital of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts 

at those offenses. To improve support to victims, the committee 

mandated that each of the Armed Services establish Victims’ Counsels to provide dedicated legal assistance to victims of sex-related 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

crimes. Furthermore, the committee expanded whistleblower protections by adding reports of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual 

misconduct as protected communications by members of the Armed 

Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. 

A number of initiatives reflected the committee’s concerns about 

the number of general and flag officers serving at a time when 

military manpower is being reduced. Thus, the committee reduced 

the number of general and flag officers on Active Duty, mandated 

a review of the requirements and authorizations for Reserve Component general and flag officers in an active status, and directed 

the Comptroller General to assess trends in the costs of general 

and flag officers on Active Duty. 

In support of military families, the committee authorized the 

Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct 

family support pilot programs for the immediate family members 

of military personnel assigned to Special Operations Forces. The 

committee also authorized transitional compensation and other 

benefits for dependents of retirement eligible service members who 

are separated from military service for violation of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. 

With regard to the Reserve Components, the committee established a 180-day minimum notification requirement for members of 

the Reserve Components before deployment to or cancellation of a 

deployment to a contingency operation. Furthermore, out of concern 

for the time that Reserve Component members were spending in 

the disability evaluation system, the committee directed a review 

of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. 

Finally, the committee adopted the Stolen Valor Act, which 

would make it a crime to fraudulently claim to be a recipient of 

certain decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, 

property, or other tangible benefits. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Air Force Education Programs 

Air Education and Training Command (AETC) provides basic 

military training, initial and advanced technical training, flying 

training, and professional military and degree-granting education. 

The committee recognizes the importance of defense- and technicalfocused education and is concerned that, as budget pressures force 

the services to reevaluate their priorities, AETC may be forced to 

shift resources to training and reduce its commitment to professional and technical degree-granting education. Such action could 

have long term implications on the professionalism of the Air 

Force. Section 245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the National Research Council to review specialized degree-granting graduate programs of the Department of Defense in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and management. The report required a review of existing organizational structures, including reporting 

chains, to manage the graduate education needs within the military departments. Until the committee receives this report, the 

committee encourages the Air Force to continue its traditional emVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

phasis on education and maintain its Air Force education programs. 

Assessing the Trend in Costs of General and Flag Officers on 

Active Duty 

While the committee understands efforts are underway in the 

Department of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military services 

to control the numbers of general and flag officers on Active Duty, 

the committee is concerned about the costs associated with sustaining that general and flag officer population as the size of the 

military forces decreases. According to the Department of Defense, 

there were 917 general and flag officers on Active Duty in fiscal 

year 2013. To better understand the costs of maintaining a sizable 

senior military officer population, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the trends in costs 

from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2013 of the general and 

flag officers of the Armed Forces on Active Duty for each fiscal 

year. The Comptroller General shall provide the assessment to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services no later than April 15, 2014. 

In making this assessment, the Comptroller General shall, as a 

minimum, assess both the direct and support costs associated with 

general and flag officers. In assessing the direct costs, the Comptroller General shall include basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence, basic allowance for housing and, to the extent practicable, the 

tax advantage associated with those allowances; and, all other compensation paid to general or flag officers as reflected on military 

leave and earnings statements; the travel and per diem costs of 

such officers; the official entertainment and representation expenditures of such officers; and, other direct costs the Comptroller General, in coordination with the committee, determines to be appropriate. For support costs, the assessment shall include the direct 

costs, as described above, of all officer and enlisted aides assigned 

to or supporting general or flag officers; the travel and per diem 

costs of such aides; the annual expenditures for military housing 

provided the general and flag officers; and other support costs the 

Comptroller General, in coordination with the committee, determines to be appropriate. 

Clarification of Conferees Statement on the Assignments of Military Officers as Academic Instructors at Military Service Academies as Joint Duty Assignments 

The committee recognizes that the conferee statement contained 

in Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic instructors at the military service academies as joint duty assignments, on 

page 758 of the conference report (H. Rept. 112–705) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, is 

contrary to section 668 of title 10, United States Code. The committee recognizes that the Secretary of Defense must adhere to the 

requirements in law and that the law takes precedence over directive report language contained in a conference report. Therefore, 

the committee seeks to clarify for the Secretary of Defense that he 

must comply with section 668 of title 10, United States Code, when 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

determining joint duty assignment designations in accordance with 

section 661 of title 10, United States Code. 

The committee recognizes that the directive report language in 

the conference report stemmed from concern that Naval officers 

with expertise in military science and humanities may be deterred 

from service on the faculty of the United States Naval Academy 

(USNA) due to their inability to obtain promotion opportunities 

and joint duty credit requirements in the course of their career. To 

ensure that the USNA continues to attract and retain mature and 

skilled instructors with successful Navy careers, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the barriers faced by instructors at the USNA and to develop a plan to mitigate those challenges, including ways to achieve expanded promotion opportunities and joint duty assignments. This plan shall include assignment 

policies to ensure the highest quality Naval officers who seek assignments as USNA instructors remain competitive for promotion 

and that the Navy has a method for ensuring the quality of instructors assigned to the academy is not degraded. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the findings and plan 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives by April 1, 2014. 

Community-Based Youth Organizations 

The committee commends the numerous community-based youth 

organizations, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and others that have stepped forward to support military children and dependents. Children of military personnel face many challenges 

stemming from frequent moves due to changes in permanent stationing, to dealing with a deployed parent or parents, trying to support an injured, ill or wounded parent who is recovering, or from 

losing a parent. Community-based youth organizations provide 

needed support to our military families. These organizations are 

valuable assets in providing consistent and stable education and 

prevention programs that constitute positive experiences in the development of our military children. While the Department of Defense is confronting difficult decisions as the budgets decline, the 

committee urges the Department to continue to partner with community-based youth organizations to provide youth education and 

development programs for military children. 

Comptroller General Review of Recommendations to Prevent Sexual Misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base and Other Basic and 

Technical Training Facilities 

The sexual misconduct by Military Training Instructors (MTIs) 

at Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas has been one of 

the largest sexual misconduct investigations within the military 

with nearly 60 victims from basic and technical training. To date, 

over 32 MTIs have been investigated and 18 have been convicted. 

While the cases continue to be prosecuted, the Air Force undertook 

a significant effort to understand the circumstances that lead to 

this environment, and what steps needed to be taken to correct the 

situation and prevent such assaults from occurring in the future. 

A Command-Directed Investigation led to 46 recommendations, of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

which the Air Force proposed to implement 45. In addition, the Air 

Force conducted an investigation focused on senior leadership and 

organization actions in response to the delayed reporting of sexual 

assault allegations. The committee remains focused on efforts to 

ensure that such sexual misconduct does not occur at basic military 

training or technical training bases across the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to review the actions taken by the Air Force as 

a result of the investigations in order to provide a status of the recommendations; to assess the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations; and to conduct an assessment of best practices from 

among the services that can be shared to prevent sexual misconduct at basic and technical training. The review should also 

identify challenges and other potential improvements or recommendations for services to review to prevent sexual misconduct 

from occurring at basic and technical training bases. The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit the results of the 

review by April 1, 2014, to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Consistency Among Exceptional Family Member Programs 

The 2013 Annual Report to Congress on the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, as required by section 

1781a of Title 10, United States Code, contained a number of recommendations to improve support to military families, such as establishing evaluation criteria to ensure that programs are effective 

based on outcome measurements that are aligned with program objectives. The Council also recommended that the services standardize their Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) offerings 

to ensure parity across the services, the need for which have become apparent at joint bases. While the committee supports efforts 

to improve parity and standardization of the services provided 

under EFMP, the committee urges the services and the Department to work together to ensure that such standardization and 

parity does not result in the minimization of program offerings to 

EFMP families. 

Disposition of Remains by Host Nations 

The committee recognizes that there are instances in which a 

host nation under Status of Forces Agreements may require the retention of the remains of a service member killed while stationed 

overseas. However, the committee believes that the services have 

a responsibility to ensure that such remains are returned as quickly as reasonably possible while complying with the terms of the 

Status of Forces Agreement. The committee understands there are 

Status of Forces Agreements that do not address or include specific 

regulations or guidance on mortuary affairs. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to work with the Department of State to review this issue and determine whether inclusion 

of such guidance and regulation, including providing technical assistance, will help to ensure the expeditious return of service members remains when the Department of State updates Status of 

Forces Agreements with host nations. Further, the committee diVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

rects the Secretary of Defense to brief the committee on Armed 

Forces of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later 

than December 31, 2014, on the results of the review conducted 

with the Department of State. 

Domestic Violence and Child Abuse 

The committee recognizes the improvements the Department of 

Defense and the services have made over the past several years to 

address domestic violence and child abuse among the force. However, the committee remains concerned that the stress on the force 

continues to take its toll and may be manifested in increasing incidents of domestic violence, child abuse, and neglect. The committee 

appreciates the actions the Department has taken to address the 

recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States, 

which were included in the ‘‘Report to Congressional Defense Committees on Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic Violence Program’’, dated April 2012. These actions included hiring additional Domestic Abuse Victim Advocates; expansion of the New 

Parent Support Home Visitation Program; hiring of additional clinical providers and staff to oversee programs and personnel; implementation and tracking of chaplain domestic violence training; and 

development of a formalized oversight framework for domestic violence programs to improve management and delivery of services. 

The committee understands that the Department is moving forward on an incident-based reporting system that would accurately 

track domestic violence incident, and recommends that the system 

also be able to track child abuse incidents as well. The committee 

looks forward to the update on the status of recommendations in 

the near future. 

Department of Defense Efforts To Ensure Operation of Current 

Prohibition on Accrual of Interest on Direct Student Loans of 

Members of the Armed Forces Receiving Imminent Danger Pay 

The committee is strongly supportive of the current prohibition 

on accrual of interest for service members serving in a combat 

zone. However, the committee is concerned that lack of information 

regarding this benefit and the administrative burden placed on 

service members in order to receive it may be preventing more 

members of the armed services from participating. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all service members, when assigned to duty in an area for which special 

pay is available, are made aware of the benefits provided under 

section 455(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1087e(o)), and include this information in the out-processing checklist, briefings and counseling that all deploying service members receive. 

Foreign Exchange Program for Reserve Officer Training Corps 

Cadets and Critical Military Language Training 

The committee commends the Army for establishing a Reserve 

Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign exchange program 

that provides cadets an unprecedented and valuable training opportunity in a non-contingency, deployed environment to learn forVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

eign cultures and languages. The committee understands that the 

program is relatively new and is still maturing; however, the committee remains concerned in several areas. First, there is a lack of 

consistency in the programs among the various foreign nations. 

Second, efforts to develop greater coordination with the various 

combatant commands (COCOMs) are disjointed. Third, it is unclear 

to the committee that the overall mission and goals of the program 

are in step with the security cooperation strategy. The committee 

urges the Army, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide greater oversight and 

support of this important leadership development program to ensure that it is meeting the needs of the cadets, the service, and the 

missions of the COCOMs. The Department of Defense has highlighted over the past decade, and more recently in the fiscal year 

2014 budget submission, the strategic importance of language and 

cultural programs in order to build international partnerships as 

well as the successful outcomes across the full spectrum of operations. The committee believes the ROTC cadet foreign exchange 

program, as well as the use of Language Training Centers at accredited universities in support of the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap, National Security Education Program, and the 

Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, are instrumental in achieving the 

Secretary of Defense’s goals. 

Fully Burdened Life Cycle Cost of Military Personnel 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

standardize costing models for Active Duty and civilian personnel 

across the Department. The committee understands the Secretary 

of Defense is finalizing a Department of Defense Instruction to formalize the policy, as well as implement a costing tool, Full Cost of 

Manpower (FCoM), to reduce the myriad of calculations required 

under current guidelines and reduce errors in costing of Active 

Duty and civilian personnel. The committee is encouraged by the 

Department’s effort to expand this model to include the full cost of 

reserve manpower as well. As fiscal pressures become the focus in 

operational planning and force structure development, it is crucial 

to understand the cost of the total force in order for leaders to 

make informed decisions to fulfill combatant commander requirements, as well as homeland defense and natural disaster response. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to incorporate at a 

minimum all of the existing elements of the FCoM tool for the reserve model and encourages the Secretary to include as many comparable factors between the Active Duty and Reserve Component 

in the FCoM tool as possible to ensure the most efficient use of resources and manpower. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than 180 days after implementation of the 

reserve costing model. The report shall include an explanation of 

the elements required in the costing model; the criteria used to determine the elements; how the reserve model compares to the 

model used for Active Duty; and a comparison of the cost of a similar Active and Reserve unit for each of the services, including the 

training and mobilization costs of the Reserve unit, with the asVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

sumption that an operational Reserve unit will mobilize and deploy 

once every 5 years, and an Active Duty unit will mobilize and deploy once every 3 years as required by current policy. 

Mental Health Professional on a Physical Evaluation Board 

The committee continues to have concerns with the Department 

of Defense’s evaluation of service member physical evaluation 

board cases that may involve post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or other mental health conditions. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that a behavioral health professional is included as a member of the board on 

any physical evaluation board that considers issues of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental 

health conditions. The behavioral health professional should normally take the place of the medical member of the board, unless 

as a result of the health related issues before the board, the board 

would benefit from the presence of both a behavioral health professional and medical member. In this context a behavioral health 

professional means a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed 

clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered 

nurse. 

National Support for Service Members, Veterans, Retirees and 

their Families 

The committee recognizes that after more than a decade of war, 

the Department of Defense and the services have undertaken many 

initiatives to address the myriad of issues that have been brought 

to the forefront, such as ensuring the appropriate amounts of 

equipment and training are available, improving medical evacuations from theater, new treatment for post-traumatic stress and 

traumatic brain injury, building resiliency among the force and 

family members, and improving transition assistance programs for 

service members back into civilian communities. While the committee commends the services for their recent efforts to enhance 

and improve programs and policies that strengthen the resilience 

of the force, there still remain gaps in the Nation’s support for and 

recognition of service members and their families. When less than 

1 percent of the population of our society serves in uniform, it is 

important for the civilian communities in which they live, work, 

and return, to understand the challenges uniformed members confront in their service to our Nation. To address these gaps, the 

committee believes there has to be not only a whole-of-government 

approach, but also a national approach to improve the myriad of 

programs that are available to service members, retirees, veterans, 

and their families through the Government and many civilian organizations and communities. There needs to be an improved recognition of the sacrifices this small population endures for our Nation. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to continue to 

work with Federal, state, local, and non-profit organizations to expand the network of support to ensure not only a whole-of-government approach to supporting and recognizing our Armed Forces 

but a national effort. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

Navy Sea Cadet Corps Sustainment 

The committee recognizes the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps as an 

exemplary, cost effective program that assists the U.S. Navy by 

creating a favorable image of the U.S. Navy on the part of American youth and ensuring a high-quality source of future sailors for 

both enlisted and commissioned service. To ensure the viability of 

this valuable program, the Secretary of the Navy is strongly urged 

to ensure that the program is fully funded for fiscal year 2014, and 

beyond. This amount should take into consideration additional 

funds that may be necessary as a result of program growth and annual inflation as determined by the U.S. Navy, in conjunction with 

the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps. 

Relocation Assistance Program Resource Access Review 

The committee is concerned with the availability and access to 

resources provided by the Department of Defense’s relocation assistance program to members of the Armed Forces. Acknowledging 

that some of these services are inherently governmental, the committee, in light of the constrained current and future budgets, directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the current relocation services provided by the Department, and 

how those services are fulfilling the provision under section 1056 

of title 10, United States Code. Included in this report should be 

an evaluation of whether the present system, including a review of 

applicable Federal regulations, is utilizing the best practices from 

both governmental and nongovernmental agencies, and incorporating innovative ideas that allow for the most current, easily accessible, and accurate local area information and services to be provided to service members and their families in the most cost effective manner. The report should be provided to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Reserve Component Temporary Duty Assignments 

The committee has concerns with the Department of Defense’s 

use of permanent change of station (PCS) orders in lieu of temporary duty orders for Reserve Component members (not including 

Active Guard and Reserve when activated). Current Department of 

Defense directives set 180 days as the limit for temporary duty orders. Beyond 180 days, the orders become PCS orders. The committee is concerned that the services have taken advantage of these 

rules when mobilizing some reservists by either calling them to Active Duty through PCS orders for 181 days or changing the orders 

from temporary duty to PCS after the member has taken the assignment. This practice, when selectively applied to reservists mobilized for temporary duty from a high cost-of-living area to a low 

cost-of-living area, allows the services to save money at the expense 

of the service members and their families. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that if a Reserve Component member receives temporary duty orders, the orders are not 

changed to PCS orders without required notification and processing. This will protect members of the Reserve Component by enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

suring that they are compensated appropriately during their Active 

Duty service. Furthermore, it will ensure they are able to maintain, 

without disruption, their full-time households. 

Review of Programs for Male Victims of Sexual Assault in the U.S. 

Military 

In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that approximately 1 in 100 service men indicated that they experienced 

sexual trauma in the military. During that same year, the veteran 

health facilities documented 244,074 occasions in which male veterans were provided military sexual trauma-related outpatient 

care. In its latest Report on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, the Department of Defense estimates that only about 14% of 

its service members who are sexually assaulted report that they 

were a victim of this crime. Reporting a sexual assault is difficult 

for any victim, but for males in the military, it may be especially 

daunting. The committee is concerned that the DOD has not focused on efforts to assist male service members to ensure victims 

receive the specialized care that may be needed. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

undertake a review to determine to what extent (1) does the culture of the U.S. military pose unique challenges for preventing and 

responding to sexual assaults of male service members, (2) what 

steps the DOD has taken steps to address the incidence of and response to male service members who are sexually assaulted, and 

(3) whether the DOD established policies and protocols for the provision of medical and mental healthcare to address sexual trauma 

given the unique requirements for male victims of sexual assault. 

The Comptroller General shall submit the results of the review by 

May 30, 2014. 

Suicides and Military Families 

Over a decade of conflict has contributed to an increase in suicides among military members. Efforts by the Department of Defense to combat suicide among military members continue; however, what is less known is the impact on military families. The 

committee is concerned that there may be a corresponding increase 

in suicides among immediate family members. Currently, the Department of the Army is the only service that attempts to track the 

number of military dependents that commit suicide. Yet, such collection and validation remains a challenge for the Army. Suicide 

among the force has a direct impact on military readiness, and suicide among dependents can have a direct impact on individual 

readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the ability of the services to collect information and 

perform analysis on suicide among immediate family members as 

part of their suicide information retention and analysis. The Secretary shall submit a report on the feasibility, including the potential costs, of collecting and retaining such data to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

by April 1, 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 

Support for the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for 

Military Children 

The committee understands the challenges that military dependent children face when they move, as a result of military orders, 

from one local educational agency and school district to another. 

For that reason, the committee supported the Interstate Compact 

on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, as originally expressed in section 539 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). The committee reaffirms 

its support for the compact and encourages the Secretary of Defense to work with the remaining non-signatory states to join the 

Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children. 

Transition Assistance Program 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s revamped 

Transition Assistance Program to provide assistance to career 

ready military members transitioning for a career or education following military separation. The new Transition-Goals, Plans, Success (Transition-GPS) is an enhanced program established to assist 

members with their transition as the military draws down. Transition-GPS gives the Department the flexibility and authorities required to execute its role in providing information, counseling, 

tools, and training for service members to transition from the military. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continuously improve and build the program by, among other things, 

partnering with the education community for opportunities to increase interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and medical programs; and with the veterans community to allow for valuable feedback from recently separated veterans to be incorporated into the program. The committee 

also supports the Administration’s Information Technology (IT) 

Training and Certification Partnership that will allow service members to obtain IT certifications before they transition from military 

service, and the new grant program that will allow service members with health care experience to pursue a career in nursing. The 

committee also encourages the Secretary to use existing authorities 

to continue to partner with private industry, vocational and technical training centers, and state and professional licensing and 

credentialing agencies to assist military personnel in obtaining 

technical skills, licenses, or credentials applicable to their military 

skill as well as post military employment opportunities. The committee looks forward to the results of, and report on, the pilot program on receipt of civilian credentialing for skills required for Military Occupational Specialties required by section 558 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

Tuition Assistance 

The committee recognizes the important value Military Tuition 

Assistance provides the All-Volunteer Force. An educated force provides increased capability to an already dynamic and highly technical military. The committee supports efforts to afford opportunities to service members to further increase their education while in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
151 

the military. The committee is concerned that the increased fiscal 

pressures will impact the viability of the Tuition Assistance Program in the long-term, if the Department of Defense and the military services do not put into place measures to control rising costs. 

Therefore, requiring service oversight of individual education plans 

and the use of cost share methods is reasonable action that the 

services can take to ensure Federal resources are spent efficiently, 

and ensure that service members maintain a vested interest in 

their education. The committee also supports efforts by the secretaries concerned to execute their programs to the needs of the individual service, recognizing that how each service views the use of 

tuition assistance differs based on culture, training, and retention 

requirements. A Department-wide policy, while worthy, may not be 

the most efficient or effective method of managing this program. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

maintain flexibility in prescribed regulations and policies to allow 

the Secretaries of the military departments to execute and maintain a tuition assistance program that will remain viable during a 

period of budget constraints without impacting the opportunities of 

deserving service members. 

U.S. Special Operations Command Educational Initiatives 

The committee supports U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) education initiatives that provide Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) with additional professional military education opportunities that serve to professionalize the force. While the committee 

supports these initiatives, it expects the educational opportunities 

to address requirements unique to SOF and that they will not duplicate educational opportunities provided by the military services 

unless the utilization tour required by the services for that educational opportunity proves burdensome for the SOF student. The 

committee is aware that USSOCOM is in the process of formalizing 

educational agreements with the Secretaries of the military departments to ensure effective coordination and to establish a process to 

formalize SOF education requirements. 

The committee is pleased with this coordination, encourages a 

rapid coordination process, and looks forward to continued dialogue 

on the future of SOF education initiatives. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination 

with the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 90 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, outlining all SOFunique educational requirements, recommendations for meeting 

those requirements, and how the proposed USSOCOM educational 

initiatives compare to service-offered educational opportunities. 

Use of Radio in Department of Defense Advertising 

The Department of Defense spent $450.1 million in advertising 

in fiscal year 2012. The focus of the Department’s commercial advertising expenditures were recruiting and reaching influencers. A 

review of advertising expenditures shows that the Department 

spends less than 2 percent of its advertising budget on radio, compared to the 10.1 percent the average national commercial adverVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

tiser usually spends. Radio reaches 92 percent of all Americans 

each week. Thus, the broad reach of radio makes it an effective 

media vehicle to utilize to reach both recruits and influencers. 

Radio reaches diverse racial and ethnic communities in our Nation, 

because there are many stations and networks that target these diverse communities. The committee encourages the Department to 

examine its commercial advertising expenditures to determine 

whether greater utilization of radio to reach a larger target audience among diverse communities would be cost-effective. 

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

The committee commends the Department of Defense Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Office for its efforts over the past 5 

years to assist the military services by providing information, support, and best practices to maintain a ready Reserve Component 

with stronger and more resilient service members and families. As 

the Nation reduces its overseas commitment in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee believes there will continue to be 

a requirement for the utilization and mobilization of the Reserves 

in support of combatant commanders and contingency operations 

for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the committee recommends 

that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program remains current, flexible, and viable by maintaining the appropriate expertise, knowledge, and resources in 

order to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended, 

to support the operational reserves. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY GENERALLY

Section 501—Limitations on Number of General and Flag Officers 

on Active Duty 

This section would reduce by 14 the total of the number of general and flag officers authorized to be on Active Duty in the military services, and by 10 the number of general and flag officers authorized to be assigned to joint duty assignments. The reductions 

would take effect on October 1, 2014. The committee is aware that 

reductions in the number of general and flag officers are proceeding 

as a result of previously directed actions by the Secretary of Defense. For example, based on data provided by the Department of 

Defense, there were 889 general and flag officers on Active Duty 

in 2001. That number grew to 971 in 2011, but will decrease to 908 

in 2013 and is projected to be 869 in 2016. Given both the projected 

decrease and the known reductions in active end strength, the committee believes the reductions required by this section are prudent. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
153 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Minimum Notification Requirements for Members of 

Reserve Components Before Deployment or Cancellation of Deployment Related to a Contingency Operation 

This section would require the service secretaries to provide Reserve Component members or units notification 120 days in advance of being ordered to deployment or being notified that such 

deployment has been canceled, postponed, or otherwise altered. If 

the service secretary fails to meet the 120-day notification requirement, the Secretary of the military service must submit, within 30 

days after the date of the failure, written notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives explaining the reason for not meeting the required 

minimum notification and the units and members of the Reserve 

Component affected. 

Section 512—Information to be Provided to Boards Considering Officers for Selective Early Removal from Reserve Active-Status 

List 

This section would amend Section 14704 of title 10, United 

States Code, by aligning the statutory procedures for a board convened to consider officers with sufficient qualifying service for early 

removal from the reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an Active Duty selective early retirement board. The 

statutes governing Active Duty selective early retirement boards, 

sections 638 and 638a of title 10, U.S. Code, provide the Secretary 

of the military department concerned discretion to limit the zone 

of officers eligible for selective early retirement based on date of 

rank and to exclude officers with approved voluntary or involuntary retirements from consideration. The proposed amendment 

would extend this authority to reserve selective early removal 

boards. 

Section 513—Temporary Authority to Maintain Active Status and 

Inactive Status Lists of Members in the Inactive National Guard 

This section would provide temporary authority for the Secretary 

of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain an active status and an inactive status list of members in the inactive 

National Guard. This section would also limit the number of members that may be carried on the active list of the inactive National 

Guard to no more than 4,000 at any one time. This section would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to commission an independent study to evaluate the effectiveness of using an active status list for the inactive National Guard to improve the readiness 

of the Army and Air National Guard. The study would also assess 

the impact of using the temporary authority with personnel who 

have permanent profiles and are non-deployable to improve the 

time necessary to complete the Integrated Disability Evaluation 

System (IDES) process. The temporary authority under this provision is available between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. 

Prior to implementation of the authority provided by this section, 

the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit to the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the implementation guidance to execute this authority. 

The Secretary of Defense would also be required to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives the results of the study required by this section 

within 180 days of the completion of the study. 

Section 514—Review of Requirements and Authorizations for 

Reserve Component General and Flag Officers in an Active Status 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report the 

findings and recommendations of a review of the requirements for 

Reserve Component general and flag officers in an active status. 

The section would require the report to be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. The Secretary of Defense’s efficiencies review in 2011 projected that such a review would be completed by the end of 2012. 

However, a lack of funding and incomplete Reserve Component 

force structure and organizational studies postponed the review. 

Under current law, 422 such officers are authorized. They are in 

addition to the Reserve Component general and flag officers on Active Duty and in addition to those general officers serving in the 

National Guard Bureau or as adjutants general in the Army and 

Air National Guard. The committee has provided funding for this 

study in the tables accompanying this Act. 

Section 515—Feasibility Study on Establishing a Unit of the national Guard in American Samoa and in the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study to determine the feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Guard in American Samoa and a unit of the National Guard 

in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

SUBTITLE C—GENERAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES

Section 521—Review of Integrated Disability Evaluation System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of the backlog of Reserve Component cases in the Integrated 

Disability Evaluation System and consider improvements to the 

system, and to submit a report on the results of the review to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

Section 522—Compliance Requirements for Organizational Climate 

Assessments 

This section would require verification and tracking of the organizational climate assessments mandated as part of the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program, 

as required by section 572(a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the progress in developing, and estimated completion of, a tracking system to ensure compliance. 

Section 523—Command Responsibility and Accountability for Remains of Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 

Corps Who Die Outside the United States 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that there is a continuous military command responsibility and accountability for the remains of each deceased member of the military services who died outside of the United States. 

Section 524—Contents of Transition Assistance Program 

This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States 

Code, by requiring information about disability-related employment 

and education protections to be provided to service members during 

the transition assistance program. This section would also require 

any member who plans to use educational assistance entitlements 

under title 38 to receive instruction on an overview of those entitlements, courses in post-secondary education appropriate for the 

member and compatible with the member’s goals, and how to finance the member’s education. Implementation of this section 

would occur not later than April 1, 2015. In addition, this section 

would require, within 270 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives the results of a feasibility study 

of providing instruction described in subsection (b) of section 1142 

of title 10, United States Code, at all overseas locations. 

Section 525—Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel 

Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records 

This section would establish procedures for judicial review for 

any final decision regarding records correction made under sections 

1034(f) or (g) and section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, by 

requiring the service member to exhaust administrative relief procedures before seeking judicial review for correction of military 

records or decisions granted by the boards for the correction of military records. Additionally, this section would require that service 

members be notified of their right to judicial review and of the statutory time limits associated with judicial review of correction board 

decisions. 

Section 526—Establishment And Use of Consistent Definition of 

Gender-Neutral Occupational Standard For Military Career Designators 

This section would amend section 543 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160) by 

adding definitions for gender-neutral occupational standard and 

military career designator. This section would also consistently 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

apply the gender-neutral occupational standard and military career 

designator throughout the amended section. 

Section 527—Expansion and Enhancement of Authorities Relating 

To Protected Communications of Members of The Armed Forces 

and Prohibited Retaliatory Actions 

This section would add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications by members of the Armed 

Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. In addition, this section would clarify that a communication would not be 

excluded from protections because of the time, place, method off 

communication, or the motivation of the individual providing information. Further, this section would require a determination as to 

whether a prohibited personnel action took place and recommendations for the disposition of the complaint be included in a report of 

the investigation. This section would require the Secretary of the 

military department to take disciplinary action against an individual who commits a prohibited personnel action and to correct 

the record of the person experiencing a prohibited personnel action. 

This section would also establish as the burden of proof for any investigation by an Inspector General or review by the secretary concerned to be that specified in section 1221(e) of title 5, United 

States Code. 

Section 528—Applicability of Medical Examination Requirement 

Regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain 

Injury to Proceedings Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

This section would strike subsection (c) of section 1177 of title 10, 

United States Code. Subsection (c) allows a military service an exception to the requirement for a medical examination in connection 

with the administrative discharge of a service member, diagnosed 

with or reasonably asserting post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, who is facing court-martial or proceedings 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By taking this action, 

the committee ensures that service members are not disadvantaged 

due to combat related injuries. 

Section 529—Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According 

to the Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith Group 

This section would permit chaplains in the Armed Forces to close 

a prayer, outside of a religious service, according to the traditions, 

expressions, and religious exercises of the chaplain’s endorsing 

faith group. 

Section 530—Expansion and Implementation of Protections of 

Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members 

This section would amend section 533 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

which mandates the accommodation of the beliefs of a service member that stem from the member’s conscience, moral principles, or 

religious beliefs and prohibits adverse action against a service 

member for those beliefs. This section would expand the accommodation and prohibition against adverse action to a member’s actions 

and speech. Furthermore, this section would change the standard 

that would trigger disciplinary action from beliefs, speech, or action 

that threaten good order and discipline to beliefs, speech, or action 

that actually harm good order and discipline. Finally, this section 

would require that the Secretary of Defense issue regulations to 

implement section 533 within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 530A—Service Members’ Accountability, Rights, and 

Responsibilities Training 

This section would establish a set of rights and responsibilities 

for each member of the Armed Services, and would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a formal means for a service member 

to acknowledge those rights and responsibilities at certain times in 

a member’s military career. 

Section 530B—Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces who Made 

Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault. 

This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct a review to identify all members of the 

Armed Forces who, since January 1, 2002, were separated from the 

Armed Forces after making an unrestricted report of sexual assault. The review would seek to determine the circumstances of 

and the grounds for the separation and whether the separation was 

in retaliation or influenced by the unrestricted report. The Inspector General would then submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

concerning the results of the review. 

Section 530C—Report on Data and Information Collected in Connection with Department of Defense Review of Laws, Policies, 

and Regulations Restricting Service of Female Members of the 

Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report containing the results and data produced by the review required by section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), not later 

than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. 

Section 530D—Sense of Congress Regarding the Women in Service 

Implementation Plan 

This section would express the sense of Congress that no later 

than September 2015, the Secretaries of the military departments 

should develop, review, and validate occupational standards in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 

order to assess and assign members of the Armed Forces to units, 

including Special Operations Forces, and should complete all assessments by January 1, 2016. 

SUBTITLE D—MILITARY JUSTICE AND LEGAL MATTERS, INCLUDING

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

Section 531—Limitations on Convening Authority Discretion 

Regarding Court-Martial Findings and Sentence 

This section would amend section 860 of title 10, United States 

Code, to remove the command prerogative and sole discretion of the 

court-martial convening authority with regard to the findings and 

sentence of a court-martial. Specifically, with regard to the findings 

of a court-martial, this section would prohibit the convening authority from dismissing a finding, or from reducing a guilty finding 

to guilty of a lesser included offense, except for qualifying offenses. 

This section would define a qualifying offense as any in which the 

maximum sentence for the offense does not exceed 2 years and the 

adjudged court-martial sentence does not include dismissal, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or confinement for more than 

6 months. This section would exclude any offense under section 

920, Rape and Sexual Assault, of title 10, United States Code, from 

being a qualifying offense. 

With regard to sentences, this section would prohibit, with some 

exceptions, the convening authority from reducing, disapproving, 

commuting, or suspending a mandatory minimum sentence, or an 

adjudged sentence of confinement or a punitive discharge. With regard to those exceptions, when the accused has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person 

and upon the recommendation of the trial counsel, this section 

would allow the convening authority to reduce a sentence below a 

mandatory minimum sentence, to reduce a confinement sentence, 

or to disapprove, commute, or suspend the adjudged sentence in 

whole or in part. This section would also permit the convening authority to reduce, dismiss, or suspend an adjudged sentence of confinement as part of a plea bargain, if a mandatory minimum sentence does not exist. Furthermore, when an adjudged sentence includes punishments in addition to the mandatory minimum sentence, this section would permit the convening authority to modify, 

disapprove, commute, or suspend those additional punishments. Finally, this section would require that if the convening authority 

acted to change a finding or sentence, then the convening 

authority’s written rationale for the action would be provided at 

the same time and made part of the record of trial. 

Section 532—Elimination of Five-Year Statute of Limitations on 

Trial By Court-Martial for Additional Offenses Involving Sex-Related Crimes 

This section would add sexual assault and sexual assault of a 

child, offenses covered respectively by section 920(b) and section 

920b(b) of title 10, United States Code, to the list of offenses in the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice that may be tried and punished 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
159 

at any time without limitation. This section would apply to offenses 

committed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 533—Discharge or Dismissal for Certain Sex-Related 

Offenses and Trial of Offenses by General Courts-Martial 

This section would establish dismissal (for officers, commissioned 

warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen) or dishonorable discharge (for enlisted personnel and warrant officers who are not 

commissioned) as the mandatory minimum sentence for a person 

subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice who is convicted by 

court-martial of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or an attempt to commit those offenses. Given such mandatory minimum 

sentences, this section would also limit jurisdiction for trial of the 

cited offenses to only a general court-martial. The changes to the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice made by this section would be effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and 

apply to offenses committed after that date. This section would also 

require the independent Response Systems Panel established by 

section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to assess the appropriateness 

of establishing additional mandatory minimum sentences for other 

offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Furthermore, 

this section would require the independent Judicial Proceedings 

Panel established by section 576(a)(2) of Public Law 112–239 to assess the implementation and effect of mandatory minimum sentences established by this section. 

Section 534—Regulations Regarding Consideration of Application 

for Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer by Victims of 

Sexual Assault 

This section would require the Secretary concerned to issue regulations to provide for timely determination and action on an application for consideration of a change of station or unit transfer submitted by a member of the Armed Forces serving on Active Duty 

who is a victim of sexual assault. 

Section 535—Consideration of Need for, and Authority to Provide 

for, Temporary Administrative Reassignment or Removal of a 

Member on Active Duty Who is Accused of Committing a Sexual 

Assault or Related Offense 

This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to provide 

guidance for commanders regarding authority for temporary reassignment or removal of an individual from a position of authority 

who is alleged to have committed a sexual assault or other sex-related offense under section 920, 920a, 920b or 920c of title 10, 

United States Code. Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to include information on the use of such authority as part of training for new and prospective commanders. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
160 

Section 536—Victims’ Counsel for Victims of Sex-Related Offenses 

and Related Provisions 

This section would require Victims’ Counsels, who would be 

qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the Armed 

Forces, to be made available to provide legal assistance to victims 

of sex-related offenses, which include rape and sexual assault, 

stalking, and rape and sexual assault of a child. The legal assistance authorized by this section would include accompanying the 

victim at any proceedings related to the reporting, military investigation, and military prosecution of the sex-related offense, as well 

as legal consultation on the military justice system, the potential 

criminal liability of the victim stemming from the sex-related offense, the Victim Witness Assistance Program, potential civil litigation by the victim, medical support, and mental health counseling. 

This section would allow the victim the option of declining the assistance without prejudicing a later decision to seek such assistance. This section would require Victim’s Counsels to be available 

within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This 

section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives with a report on how the Armed Forces will implement this 

section. The report would be due within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. Furthermore, this section would require 

the independent Response Systems Panel, established by section 

576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) to assess whether the legal assistance 

authorized by this section should be expanded to include legal 

standing to represent the victim during investigative and military 

justice proceedings. Finally, this section would task the independent Judicial Proceedings Panel established by section 576(a)(2) 

of the cited public law to assess the implementation and effect of 

the Victims’ Counsel program established by this section. 

Section 537—Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of Retaliatory Personnel Actions Taken in Response to Making Protected Communications Regarding Sexual Assault 

The section would add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of members of the Armed 

Forces with Members of Congress or an Inspector General. 

Section 538—Secretary Defense Report on Role of Commanders in 

Military Justice Process 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assess the 

current role and authorities of commanders in the administration 

of military justice and the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This 

section would also require the Secretary to report the assessment, 

together with his recommendation whether the role and authorities 

of commanders should be further modified or repealed, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
161 

Section 539—Review and Policy Regarding Department of Defense 

Investigative Practices in Response to Allegations of Sex-Related 

Offenses 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to review of the 

practices of military criminal investigative organizations regarding 

the investigation of alleged sex-related offenses involving members 

of the Armed Forces. The review would include an assessment of 

the extent to which the investigative organizations make a recommendation on whether an allegation of a sex-related offense appears founded or unfounded. This section would also require the 

Secretary to develop a uniform policy regarding the use of case determinations by the investigative organizations to record the results of the investigation of a sex-related offense. In developing the 

policy the Secretary shall consider the feasibility of adopting case 

determination methods used by non-military law enforcement agencies. 

Section 540—Uniform Training and Education Programs for Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

uniform curriculum, to include lesson plans, to ensure that sexual 

assault prevention and response training and education for members of the Armed Forces are uniform across the Department of Defense. 

Section 541—Development of Selection Criteria for Assignment as 

Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program Managers, 

Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

selection qualifications for members of the Armed Forces or civilian 

employees for assignment to duty as Sexual Assault Response and 

Prevention Program Managers, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. In addition, this section 

would require the Secretary of each military department to assign 

at least one Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent to 

each brigade or equivalent unless the Secretary of Defense determines that it is more practicable and effective for assignment to 

other units. This section would also require that personnel assigned as Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent be 

members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Further, this section would require the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent be trained and certified. 

Section 542—Extension of Crime Victims’ Rights to Victims of 

Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

This section would set out the rights of a person who was a victim of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The 

articulated rights and procedures are similar, but not identical to 

those set forth in section 3771 of title 18, United States Code. The 

section would also require that, within 1 year of the date of the enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
162 

actment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense would not only submit 

to the President recommended changes to the Manual for CourtsMartial needed to carry out this section, but would also prescribe 

regulations to promote compliance with the section. Finally, the 

section would task the independent panel established by the Secretary of Defense under section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of incorporating into the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice additional crime victims’ rights 

set out in section 3771, but not incorporated into the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice by this section. 

Section 543—Defense Counsel Interview of Complaining Witnesses 

in Presence of Counsel for the Complaining Witnesses or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate 

This section would require that if the defense counsel in connection with proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

desires to interview a complaining witness, then the request for the 

interview must be placed through the trial counsel. Furthermore, 

if the defense counsel interviews the complaining witness, the section would require that the interview take place in the presence of 

the counsel for the witness or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. 

Section 544—Participation by Complaining Witness in Clemency 

Phase of Courts-Martial Process 

This section would enable a complaining witness, who is a person 

who has suffered a direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm 

as a result of the commission of an offense, to submit matters for 

consideration by the convening authority following a court-martial 

and prior to the convening authority taking action on the findings 

or sentence of that court-martial. 

Section 545—Eight-Day Incident Reporting Requirement in Response to Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault in Which the 

Victim is a Member of the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a policy for a written incident report, by a person designated by the 

Secretary, to detail the actions taken or in progress to provide the 

victim of a sexual assault the necessary care and support, to refer 

the alleged assault to the proper military criminal investigative organization, and to provide initial notification to the chain of command above the unit in which the victim served, when such notification had not already taken place. This section would require the 

incident report to be provided within 8 days of the unrestricted report of a sexual assault. Furthermore, this section would require 

that the Secretary of Defense prescribe regulations to carry out the 

policy within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
163 

Section 546—Amendment to Manual for Courts-Martial to Eliminate Considerations Relating to Character and Military Service 

of Accused in Initial Disposition of Sex-Related Offenses 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 

days of the date of the enactment of this Act, to recommend to the 

President a change to the Manual for Courts-Martial that would 

strike the words ‘‘the character and the military service of the accused’’ from the list of factors contained in the manual’s Rule 306, 

Initial Disposition, when that rule was applied to sex-related offenses. 

Section 547—Inclusion of Letter of Reprimands, Nonpunitive Letter 

of Reprimands and Counseling Statements 

This section, in order to provide increased visibility to commanders and to identify and prevent trends of unacceptable behavior at an early stage, would direct the Secretary of Defense to require commanders to include letters of reprimand, nonpunitive letters of action, and counseling statements involving substantiated 

cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault in the performance 

evaluation of a member of the Armed Forces. 

Section 548—Enhanced Protections for Prospective Members and 

New Members of the Armed Forces During Entry-Level Processing and Training 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and maintain a policy that uniformly defines and prescribes what 

constitutes an inappropriate and prohibited relationship, communication, conduct, or contact, including when such an action is consensual, between certain members of the Armed Forces, such as recruiters, military personnel assigned to a military entrance processing center, or drill instructors in basic training centers, and a 

prospective member of the Armed Forces or a member undergoing 

entry-level processing or training. This section would also require 

that substantiated violations of the policy by a member would result in the member being automatically processed for administrative separation from military service. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to propose an amendment to the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice that would address violations of 

the policy. 

Section 549—Independent Reviews and Assessments of Uniform 

Code of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases 

This section would require the independent panel established 

under section 576(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to assess the impact, if 

any, that removing from the chain of command the disposition authority for charges preferred under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice would have on overall reporting and prosecution of sexual 

assault cases. This section would also require the independent 

panel to review the report of the Secretary of Defense, which is 

mandated by section 538 of this Act, on the role of military comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
164 

manders in the military justice system. Finally, this section would 

require the independent panel to render its report of findings and 

recommendations within 1 year of the panel’s first meeting. 

Section 550—Review of the Office of Diversity Management and 

Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity for the purposes of identifying resource and personnel gaps 

in the office, the role of the office in sexual harassment cases, and 

evaluating how the office works with the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to address sexual assault in the Armed 

Forces. 

SUBTITLE E—MILITARY FAMILY READINESS

Section 551—Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of 

Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve in Combat Zones 

This section would require the design of a spouse-of-a-combat 

veteran lapel button, approved by the Secretary of Defense, to identify and recognize the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces who 

is serving or has served in a combat zone for a period of more than 

30 days. In addition, this section would authorize the Secretary 

concerned to use appropriated funds to procure spouse-of-a-combatveteran lapel buttons and to provide for their presentation to eligible spouses of members. 

Section 552—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements For 

Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would amend title II of the Service Members Civil 

Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that issued a temporary custody order based solely on the deployment or anticipated 

deployment of a service member to reinstate the custody order that 

was in effect immediately preceding the temporary order, unless 

the court finds reinstatement is not in the best interest of the child. 

This section would also prohibit a court from using deployment or 

the possibility of deployment as the sole factor when determining 

the best interest of a child. 

Section 553—Treatment of Relocation of Members of the Armed 

Forces for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage Refinancing 

This section would amend section 303 of the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act to expand certain mortgage protections for service 

members, surviving spouses, and veterans; to make knowing violations of these protections a criminal offense; and to increase civil 

penalties for violations of these protections. 

Section 554—Family Support Programs for Immediate Family 

Members of Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special 

Operations Forces 

This section would authorize the Commander, United States Special Operations Command, consistent with regulations that the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
165 

retary of Defense may prescribe, to conduct up to three pilot programs to assess the feasibility and benefits of providing family support activities for the immediate family members of the Armed 

Forces assigned to special operations forces. This section would require that family support programs provided by pilot programs not 

duplicate those family support programs being provided by the Secretary of a military department. This section also would authorize 

the pilot programs for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. It is the 

committee’s intent is that any pilot program initiated under this 

section be completed by the end of fiscal year 2016. The section 

would also limit to $5.0 million the amount that may be spent on 

the pilot programs in a fiscal year, and require the Commander, 

United States Special Operations Command to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the completion of a pilot program initiated under this section. 

SUBTITLE F—EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AND

ADMINISTRATION

Section 561—Inclusion of Freely Associated States within Scope of 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program 

This section would amend section 2031(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to authorize the Secretary of a military department to 

establish and maintain a unit of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps at a secondary education institution in the Freely Associated States, if the conditions of section 2031(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, are met. 

Section 562—Improved Climate Assessments and Dissemination 

and Tracking of Results 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 

the results of command climate assessments are provided to the 

relevant commander and the next higher level of command. This 

section would also require the Secretary to include in the performance evaluation of a commander evidence of compliance with the 

requirements for conducting climate assessments. Additionally, this 

section would require the Inspector General of the Department of 

Defense to develop a system to track command compliance. Unit 

commanders would be required to develop a compliance report that 

will include an overview of the unit members’ concerns, data showing how the leadership is perceived and a detailed plan on how 

leadership will address unit concerns. 

Section 563—Service-wide 360 Assessments 

This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to develop an assessment program modeled after the current 

Department of the Army Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback 

program (‘‘360–degree approach’’) including individual counseling 

as part of the performance evaluation process. 

Section 564—Health Welfare Inspections 

This section would require the Secretary of each military department to conduct health and welfare inspections on a monthly basis 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
166 

to ensure and maintain security, military readiness, and good order 

and discipline. 

Section 565—Review of Security of Military Installations, Including 

Barracks and multi-family residences. 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of security measures on military installations specifically 

with regard to barracks and multi-family housing units. Elements 

of the study would include identifying security gaps on military installations, evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of 24–hour 

electronic monitoring or placing security guards at points of entry 

to barracks and military family housing. 

Section 566—Enhancement of Mechanisms to Correlate Skills and 

Training for Military Occupational Specialties with Skills and 

Training Required for Civilian Certification and Licenses 

This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to make information on civilian credentialing opportunities 

available to members of the Armed Forces, including during the 

transition assistance program. This section would also require the 

Secretaries of the military departments to make available to accredited civilian credentialing agencies information on military 

courses and skills. 

Section 567—Use of Educational Assistance for Courses in Pursuit 

of Civilian Certifications or Licenses 

This section would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States 

Code, by placing limitations on when educational assistance may 

be used to pursue civilian certifications and licenses. This section 

would also authorize the use of educational assistance authorities 

under sections 2007, 2015, 106A, 2183, 1606 and 1607 of title 10, 

United States Code, to pursue civilian certifications and licenses. 

SUBTITLE G—DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

Section 571—Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the 

Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would authorize $20.0 million for continuation of the 

Department of Defense assistance program to local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that are impacted by the enrollment of dependent 

children of military members and Department civilian employees. 

This section would also authorize $5.0 million for assistance to 

LEAs with significant changes in enrollment of school-aged dependents of military members and civilian employees due to base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. Furthermore, 

this section would extend the authority for assistance to LEAs impacted by base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations by 1 year to September 30, 2015. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
167 

Section 572—Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement 

and Transition of Military Dependent Students 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 

grant assistance to non-profit organizations that provide services to 

improve the academic achievement of military dependent students, 

including those non-profit organizations whose programs focus on 

increasing the civic responsibility of military dependent students 

and their understanding of the Federal Government through direct 

exposure to the Government. 

Section 573—Treatment of Tuition Payments Received for Virtual 

Elementary and Secondary Education Component of Department 

of Defense Education Program 

This section would amend section 2164(l) of title 10, United 

States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to retain the tuition 

payments made by participants in the Department of Defense virtual elementary and secondary education programs. The retained 

tuition would be used to provide support for the virtual education 

programs authorized by section 2164(l). 

SUBTITLE H—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 581—Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military 

Decorations or Medals 

This section would amend title 18, United States Code, to make 

fraudulently claiming to be a recipient of certain decorations or 

medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible 

benefits a crime. 

Section 582—Repeal of Limitation on Number of Medals of Honor 

That May Be Awarded to the same Member of the Armed Forces 

This section would authorize a service member to receive a 

Medal of Honor for each subsequent valorous act that results in the 

award of a Medal of Honor. 

Section 583—Standardization of Time-Limits for Recommending 

and Awarding Medal of Honor, Distinguished-Service Cross, 

Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, and Distinguished-Service Medal 

This section would modify the Army and Air Force time limits to 

3 years for recommending and 5 years for awarding a soldier or 

airman a Medal of Honor, Service Cross, or Distinguished-Service 

Medal, thereby standardizing those limits for all services. 

Section 584—Recodification and Revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll Requirements 

This section would require the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

Air Force, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating to establish and maintain a Medal of Honor 

Roll and enter the name of each person on the roll who has served 

on Active Duty in the Armed Forces and who has been awarded the 

Medal of Honor. This section would also require the Secretary concerned to furnish the Secretary of Veterans Affairs a certified copy 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
168 

of each certification of enrollment. This section would repeal sections 1560 and 1561 of title 38, United States Code. 

Section 585—Treatment of Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting 

Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas 

This section would require the Secretary of the military department concerned to award the Purple Heart to members of the 

Armed Forces who were killed or wounded in the attacks that occurred at the recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 

1, 2009, and at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009. Furthermore, this section would deem the members of the Armed Forces 

killed or wounded in those attacks to have been killed or injured 

in a combat zone and the Department of Defense civilians to have 

been killed or wounded in a contingency operation. The effect 

would be to make those members and civilians eligible for additional monetary benefits. 

Section 586—Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award 

the Army Combat Action Badge to a person who, while a member 

of the Army, participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or was personnally engaged by, the enemy at any 

time during the period beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending 

on September 18, 2001. 

Section 587—Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant 

Rafael Peralta 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report on the Navy review, findings, and actions pertaining to the 

Medal of Honor nomination of Sergeant Rafael Peralta to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Section 588—Authorization For Award Of The Distinguished-Service Cross To Sergeant First Class Robert F. Keiser For Acts Of 

Valor During The Korean War 

This section would waive the statutory time limitation under section 3144 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F. 

Keiser, who served in the United States Army during the Korean 

War. The committee takes this action based on the written confirmation by the Secretary of the Army that the actions of Robert 

F. Keiser merit the award of the Distinguished Service Cross. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
169 

SUBTITLE I—OTHER MATTERS

Section 591—Revision of Specified Senior Military Colleges to Reflect Consolidation of North Georgia College and State University 

and Gainesville State College 

This section would amend section 2111a(f) of title 10, United 

States Code, to reflect the name change of North Georgia College 

and State University to The University of North Georgia. 

Section 592—Authority to Enter into Concessions Contracts at 

Army National Military Cemeteries 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter 

into concession contracts for transportation, interpretative, and 

other services in support of visitors at Arlington National Cemetery 

and the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. This section would also require that each concession contract 

include terms that the Secretary determines are necessary to ensure the protection, dignity, and solemnity of the cemetery at 

which services are provided. Furthermore, the section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from instituting a concession contract for operation of the gift shop at Arlington National Cemetery 

without subsequent authorization. In providing for transportation 

services at Arlington National Cemetery, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to ensure that service provides visitors with 

access to the Custis Lee Mansion. 

Section 593—Commission on Military Behavioral Health and 

Disciplinary Issues 

This section would establish a 10-member commission to study 

whether the Department of Defenses’ mechanisms for disciplinary 

action adequately address the impact of service-connected mental 

disorders and traumatic brain injury. Specifically, this section 

would require the examination of those members diagnosed with or 

reasonably asserting post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic 

brain injury that have been deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation during the previous 24 months, and how that 

injury or deployment may constitute matters in extenuation that 

relate to the basis for administrative separation under conditions 

other than honorable or the overall characterization of service of 

the member as other than honorable. 

Section 594—Commission on Service to the Nation 

This section would establish a commission to be known as the 

‘‘Commission on Service to the Nation’’ to study the effects of warfare on members of the Armed Forces, their families, and communities, and the gaps between the military and the rest of civilian 

society. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
170 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are central to maintaining a high-quality, AllVolunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the committee supports 

a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2014, in accordance 

with current law, in order for military pay raises to keep pace with 

the pay increases in the private sector as measured by the Employment Cost Index. The committee believes that future pay-raise proposals that are below the Employment Cost Index may have long 

term affects on the recruiting and retention of a high-quality AllVolunteer Force. Additionally, to sustain the All-Volunteer Force, 

the committee recommends that the authorities for a wide array of 

bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other compensation benefits set to expire on December 31, 2013, be extended for an additional year. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Military Exchanges, Commissaries, and Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation Activities 

The committee considers the military exchanges, commissaries, 

and the morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) activities to be quality of life benefits that are important to the welfare of military 

communities around the world and key factors in maintaining the 

All-Volunteer Force. The committee remains concerned that the 

growing fiscal pressures on the Department of Defense and the 

military services will increase efforts to reduce or divert to other 

priorities the minimal amount of appropriated funding the military 

resale community receives. Such a reduction would reduce the benefit to patrons and dividends to MRW activities, and adversely impact the quality of life for service members and their families. The 

committee commends the commissaries for being forward-leaning 

in reducing overhead costs and increasing internal efficiencies to 

maintain the benefit for military and retiree patrons with reduced 

appropriated funding. The committee encourages the military resale community and MWR activities to continue to refine their 

business processes and create efficiencies in order to reduce the reliance on appropriated funding, and maintain and protect the important quality of life benefit these programs have brought to the 

service members and their families. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

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

Circumstances 

This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
171 

ance for housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special 

Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces 

This section would extend the authority for the Selected Reserve 

reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment 

bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain highpriority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 

without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, income replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty 

service, and the authority to reimburse travel expenses for inactive 

duty training outside of normal commuting distance until December 31, 2014. 

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special 

Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals 

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession 

bonus for registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the accession bonus 

for dental officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the 

accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in 

critically short wartime specialties until December 31, 2014. 

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 

Authorities for Nuclear Officers 

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for 

nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2014. 

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 

37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities 

This section would extend the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the special 

bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency 

bonus, and the retention bonus for members with critical military 

skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31, 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
172 

Section 615—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 

Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays 

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer 

retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus 

for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the 

accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive 

bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between Armed 

Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates until December 31, 2014. 

Section 616—One-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Incentive 

Pay for Members of Precommissioning Programs Pursuing Foreign Language Proficiency 

This section would authorize payment of incentive pay for members of pre-commissioning programs who are pursuing foreign language proficiency. 

Section 617—Authority to Provide Bonus to Certain Cadets and 

Midshipmen Enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps 

This section would extend from December 31, 2012, until December 31, 2015, the authority for a student attending the senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Leaders Course, who executes a 

written agreement to accept a commission or an appointment as an 

Officer of the Armed Forces and to serve on Active Duty, to receive 

a bonus. 

SUBTITLE C—DISABILITY, RETIRED PAY, SURVIVOR, AND

TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS

Section 621—Transitional Compensation and Other Benefits for 

Dependents of Certain Members Separated for Violation of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice 

This section would amend section 1059 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the provision of transitional compensation and 

other benefits for the dependent of a member of the Armed Forces 

when the member, after completing more than 20 years of service, 

is separated from the Armed Forces because of a violation of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice and forfeits all pay and allowances. 

Section 622—Prevention of Retired Pay Inversion for Members 

Whose Retired Pay is Computed Using High-Three Average 

This section would clarify the application of the Tower amendment, section 1401a(f) of title 10, United States Code, to the computation of retired pay for service members who first entered military service on or after September 8, 1980. The Tower amendment 

was enacted in 1975 to prevent the loss of military retired pay for 

members who were eligible to retire earlier than their actual retirement date under the Final Pay Retirement System. The High-36 

Retirement System enacted in 1980 obviated the need for applicaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
173 

tion of the Tower amendment. This section would clarify that 

Tower amendment does not apply in the application of the High36 retirement calculations, but will continue to be used when calculating retired pay under the Final Pay Retirement System. 

SUBTITLE D—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS AND OPERATIONS

Section 631—Expansion of Protection of Employees of 

Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities from Reprisals 

This section would amend section 1587(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to include ‘‘threaten to take’’ as an adverse personnel 

action. This amendment would bring whistleblower protections for 

non-appropriated fund instrumentality employees in line with protections afforded to members of the Armed Forces. 

Section 632—Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food Products, and Recyclable Materials for Resale in Commissary and Exchange Store Systems 

This section would require the governing body giving oversight 

and management direction to the military exchange and commissary systems in accordance with section 2481(c) of title 10, 

United States Code, to establish guidelines for the identification of 

fresh meat, poultry, seafood, produce, and other products raised or 

produced through sustainable methods that are not harmful to the 

ecology. This section would require the guidelines to be established 

not later than 2 years from the date of the enactment of this Act. 

The committee believes the guidelines should consider the impact 

of implementing sustainable product policies on the cost of goods 

and the pricing of the products offered to patrons. This section 

would also require the governing body to establish, not later than 

September 30, 2018, goals for all exchange and commissary stores 

to purchase sustainable products, local food products, and recyclable materials. 

Section 633—Correction of Obsolete References to Certain 

Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities 

This section would amend section 2105(c) of title 5, United States 

Code, to strike obsolete Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities 

references to the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and 

Navy Ships Stores Ashore, and update with an accurate title of the 

Navy Ships Store Program. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 641—Authority to Provide Certain Expenses for Care and 

Disposition of Human Remains Retained by the Department of 

Defense for Forensic Pathology Investigation 

This section would amend sections 1481 and 1482 of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to pay for expenses incident to death for certain decedents whose deaths are investigated by the Armed Forces Medical 

Examiner System (AFMES) under section 1471 of title 10, United 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
174 

States Code, when payment of such expenses is not otherwise authorized by law. Currently, when the AFMES removes decedent remains to a Department of Defense mortuary for a forensic pathology investigation pursuant to section 1471, title 10, United States 

Code, some decedent’s next of kin must pay for the mortuary services, including transportation costs, which may otherwise not be 

available under section 1482 of title 10, at the conclusion of the investigation. 

Section 642—Provision of Status Under Law by Honoring Certain 

Members of the Reserve Components as Veterans 

This section would honor as veterans those retired members of 

the Reserve Components who, because of age, are not yet eligible 

to receive retired pay. This honorary designation as a veteran 

would not entitle the retiree to any benefit. 

Section 643—Survey of Military Pay and Benefits Preferences 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

an anonymous survey of random members of the Armed Forces regarding pay and benefits, including the value that members place 

on forms of compensation, relative to one another, including basic 

pay, allowances for housing, bonuses and special pay, healthcare 

benefits, and retirement pay. 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to strongly support a high-quality and 

cost-effective military health system that provides members of the 

Armed Forces, retirees, survivors, and their families access to quality health care. The committee remains committed to ensuring 

service members and their families have access to mental health 

care and that every opportunity is utilized to screen service members for mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury. In 

that regard, the committee mandated periodic mental health assessments for all service members serving on Active Duty and increased the frequency of mental health assessments for deployed 

personnel. The committee also required the Department of Defense 

to conduct research focused on drug development to halt 

neurodegeneration following traumatic brain injury. To further the 

committee’s focus on addressing suicide by members of the Armed 

Forces, the Department is authorized to carry out collaborative programs to respond to suicide and combat stress, substance addiction, 

risk-taking behaviors, and family violence. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Additional Therapeutic Treatment Activities Available Under 

Exceptional Care Health Option 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to explore the 

possibility of providing additional rehabilitative therapies pursuant 

to subsection (a)(17) of section 1077 of title 10, United States Code, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
175 

or through inclusion within the Exceptional Care Health Option 

(ECHO) program to expand the utilization of non-traditional modalities, including a horse, balance board, ball, bolster, and bench. 

The Secretary is required to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 

2014, on the results of his review to expand additional therapeutic 

treatment activities. 

Administration of Blood Products On-board U.S. Medical 

Evacuation Aircraft 

The committee recognizes the major advances in military medicine that have significantly reduced the mortality rate among combat wounded personnel. The most critical time to respond to battlefield casualties remains the first hour after injury, the so-called 

golden hour. The committee recognizes that the military services 

have committed tremendous resources and training in order to provide service members the best possible treatment at the point of injury. The committee is aware of a recent demonstration project conducted by a limited number of Army MEDEVAC aviation components in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to administer blood 

products to injured soldiers during the soldiers’ en-route medical 

care and movement to a medical facility. Preliminary data suggest 

that these in-flight blood transfusions have greatly increased the 

probability of survival for injured soldiers. The committee understands the Army as a result has expanded this capability across 

MEDEVAC units in the operational area. The committee is interested in understanding the underpinning analysis that was conducted to support this change. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the program, including the timeline toward 

outfitting MEDEVAC aviation units with blood products to improve 

en-route patient care. 

Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 

and the military services recognize the deleterious effects of alcohol 

abuse on service members, families and military readiness. However, the committee remains concerned with the incidence of alcohol abuse by members of the military and their families. The committee believes that applying best practices across the military 

services may allow for more effective alcohol abuse prevention programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the military services, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees, a report on 

alcohol abuse prevention programs to include a cost benefit analysis detailing the most effective methods for preventing alcohol 

abuse. 

Department of Defense and Early Autism Diagnosis and 

Intervention for Military Families 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its continued efforts to ensure that military families have access to auVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
176 

tism diagnosis, intervention, and treatment services. The committee encourages the Department to continue to assist military 

families with autistic children to receive the full and expanding 

range of evidence-based intervention and treatment approaches. In 

addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that sufficient priority is given to efforts to provide services specifically for autistic children of military families living in rural or 

under-served communities. 

Efforts to Advance Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics 

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have been the number one 

threat to the men and women who have served and are currently 

serving in contingency operations in the Middle East. The committee understands that the incidence of significant traumatic injuries to lower extremities as a result of IED blasts has led to innovative and improved care of these injuries. Recognizing that lower 

extremity injuries often require long-term and continuous care, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue looking 

for new and innovative prosthetic and orthopedic technologies to 

assist service members adapting to these significant injuries. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the Department of Defense’s effort to advance lower extremity prosthetics and orthotics, and the process by which such advancements 

are made available to members of the Armed Forces in a timely 

manner. This report should also include information on research efforts and funding for powered prosthetics and orthotics for service 

members with a lower extremity amputation or other lower extremity injuries with limb salvage. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report within 120 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

Efforts to Improve Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress and 

Traumatic Brain Injury 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 

made great strides in research and development of Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) over the 

past decade. The current budget climate will have an impact on 

continued research and development efforts and the committee 

urges the Department to consider a systems medicine approach 

that will better leverage the limited resources that will be available 

in the future. Systems medicine promotes a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach that includes clinical care, professional education, and the interaction between genetics, the external environment, and individual behaviors to focus on prevention of diseases. 

Many large research universities and hospitals have found that 

employing systems medicine has made tremendous progress on informing its research efforts. The committee believes that such a 

comprehensive approach may improve the research and development of PTSD and TBI to better support our service members. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
177 

Healthy Base Initiative 

The committee recognizes that a healthy and fit force is essential 

as service members must be physically prepared to deploy in a moment’s notice, often to locations that are extremely austere and 

with demanding conditions. The committee commends the Department of Defense for initiating its Healthy Base Initiative (HBI) 

demonstration program which promotes and supports the overall 

health and wellness of service members, families, and civilians 

through improved nutritional choices, increased physical activity, 

obesity reduction and control, and efforts to decrease tobacco use. 

In addition, the committee commends the Department of the Army 

for initiating the Performance Triad designed to improve stamina, 

readiness and health through enhanced activity and improved nutrition and sleep. The committee believes that supporting healthy 

lifestyle choices will positively impact troop and family readiness 

and may result in an overall increase in the health of service members and their families. 

Military Health System Governance Reform Report 

The committee received the March 2013 report of the Department of Defense on the Military Health System governance reform 

implementation plan as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). That public 

law required that the report provide detailed goals that were to be 

achieved while carrying out reforms. Those reforms included improving clinical and business practices and reducing costs, infrastructure, and personnel. The report also required a detailed schedule for meeting the goals. While the goals for the reform of the 

Military Health System included in the report address the statutory requirements, the report does not clearly describe the linkage 

of the goals to the responsibilities of the newly established Defense 

Heath Agency. In addition, the report neither provides the information to understand how the Department developed its goals, nor did 

the report provide a detailed schedule as required. The establishment of a Defense Health Agency is a major transformation, and 

its success is dependent upon greater system integration. The committee remains concerned that the Defense Health Agency could result in greater costs and personnel expenditures if the goals are not 

clearly linked to the roles and responsibilities of the Agency, and 

if a complete schedule is not clearly linked to the goals. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address the 

shortcomings identified above with the required elements of the report that is due not later than June 30, 2013, or by separate letter 

to the committee within 30 days of the latter suspense. 

Report on Prostate Cancer Imaging Research 

The committee notes the encouragement to the Department of 

Defense to intensify research on the advancement of prostate imaging technologies that is contained on page 180 of House Report 

112–479, the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310). The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees 

on Armed Service of the Senate and the House of Representatives 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
178 

on research either conducted by or funded by the Department of 

Defense to advance technology for the detection of prostate cancer. 

Report on Provider Referrals for Ancillary Services Under 

TRICARE 

The committee remains concerned with the long term viability of 

the TRICARE benefit for service members and their families. In 

that regard the committee is committed to ensuring that adequate 

protections are in place to make certain that the Department of Defense is not paying excessive costs for ancillary services through referrals by TRICARE providers. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense, no later than April 1, 2014, to report to 

the committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the policies and procedures in place to avoid 

paying excessive costs for provider referred ancillary services under 

TRICARE and the effectiveness of such policies and procedures in 

avoiding excessive costs. 

Review of the Military Health System Medical Training 

Consolidation 

The Services established a memorandum of agreement for the 

governance of the recently established Medical Education and 

Training Campus (METC) in 2011. The establishment of METC 

consolidated the Department of Defense’s five enlisted medical 

training campuses at one location in San Antonio, Texas and, according to the Department of Defense, over half of its programs of 

instruction. While the Department has reported it realized savings 

from this effort, it remains unclear if there are additional efficiencies to be gained in medical training consolidation. Further, it 

is unclear whether the individual programs of instruction have 

been consolidated into a joint program of instruction. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

review the consolidation of the Department of Defense’s medical 

training. The review should include at an minimum: (1) the extent 

to which enlisted and officer medical training have been consolidated and standardized and what, if any, financial savings has the 

Department achieved; (2) the extent to which there are further opportunities for consolidation of enlisted medical training; (3) the extent to which the Department has examined consolidation of officer 

medical training, including an estimate of potential financial savings; and (4) an assessment of the lessons learned from the Medical 

Education and Training Campus consolidation that could apply to 

future consolidation efforts in the military health system’s governance. The Comptroller General shall submit the results of the review no later than April 18, 2014 to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program 

The committee is aware that recovering service members in 

treatment at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) 

and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center are reporting 

improvement in their symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) when participating in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
179 

the service dog training programs currently operating in those facilities. In addition, clinical observations support the benefits of 

this animal-assisted therapy modality to psychologically injured 

service members, including: decreased depressive symptoms, improved emotional regulation, improved sleep patterns, a greater 

sense of purpose, better reintegration into their communities, pain 

reduction, and improved parenting skills. The committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to consider making this promising new therapeutic intervention more available to service members suffering 

from the invisible wounds of PTSD and TBI. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct such studies as 

may be necessary to evaluate the efficacy of service dog training as 

an adjunctive treatment for PTSD and TBI and to maximize the 

therapeutic benefits to recovering members who participate in the 

programs. The committee further directs the Secretary to provide 

a report not later than March 1, 2015 to update the congressional 

defense committees on this research. 

Trauma Clinical Research Repository 

The committee recognizes that trauma-related deaths impact our 

military services, as well as the general civilian population. The 

committee understands that advancements in trauma care are the 

results of research conducted across the public-private spectrum by 

Federal, academic, and private institutions. The life-saving impact 

of this research can be seen on the battlefield and in civilian trauma. However, in an era of constrained medical research budgets 

and a shrinking defense budget, it is imperative that trauma research funding be used efficiently and for the greatest good. The 

committee believes that to continue the advancement in trauma 

care the collective research data should be maintained centrally so 

it can be accessed by both public and private researchers for future 

use. A trauma clinical research repository would provide an opportunity to make widely available the data resulting from current 

and future clinical trauma research in both the military and civilian sectors that could lead to significant advances in treatment and 

improved outcomes in both the military and civilian populations. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

work with other Federal agencies and the private sector to establish a trauma clinical research repository to share and maximize 

critical trauma research data. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—IMPROVEMENTS TO HEALTH BENEFITS

Section 701—Mental Health Assessments for Members of the 

Armed Forces 

This section would amend section 1074m of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide personto-person mental health screenings once during each 180-day period in which a member is deployed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

Section 702—Periodic Mental Health Assessments for Members of 

the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

periodic mental health assessments to each member of the Armed 

Forces serving on Active Duty. 

SUBTITLE B—HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

Section 711—Future Availability of TRICARE Prime for Certain 

Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime 

This section would authorize a one time opt-in to TRICARE 

Prime for beneficiaries who are eligible for TRICARE Prime as of 

September 30, 2013, provided the beneficiary remains in the same 

ZIP Code as the ZIP Code the beneficiary resided in at the time 

of the opt-in, notwithstanding eligibility for enrollment based on 

the location at which the beneficiary resides. 

Section 712—Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the 

Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities 

This section would permit the Secretaries of the military departments to establish cooperative health care arrangements and 

agreements between military installations and local and regional 

non-military health care entities. 

Section 713—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Integrated 

Electronic Health Record Program 

This section would limit the amount of funds the Secretary of Defense may obligate or expend for procurement, or research, development, test and evaluation of the integrated electronic health record 

until 30 days after the date that the Secretary submits a report detailing an analysis of alternatives for the plan of the Secretary to 

proceed with such program. 

Section 714—Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party Collection 

Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment Facilities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

pilot program for 3 years at military installations to assess the feasibility of using revenue-cycle management processes, including 

cash flow management and accounts-receivable processes to increase amounts collected by military treatment facilities from third 

party payers. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit 

a report of the results of the pilot program to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after completion of the pilot program. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 721—Display of Budget Information for Embedded Mental 

Health Providers of the Reserve Components 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include in 

the documents that support the President’s annual budget, a budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
181 

et justification display for embedded mental health providers of the 

Reserve Components that includes the amount for each component. 

Section 722—Authority of Uniformed Services University of Health 

Sciences to Enter Into Contracts and Agreements and Make 

Grants to Other Nonprofit Entities 

This section would clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with regard to the Uniformed Services University of Health 

Sciences, to enter into contracts and agreements and make grants 

to nonprofit entities. 

Section 723—Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and 

Families 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

collaborative programs to respond to suicide and combat stress related arrest rates of members of the Armed Forces as well as to 

train Active Duty members to recognize and respond to combat 

stress disorder, suicide risk, substance addiction, risk taking behaviors, and family violence. 

Section 724—Research Regarding Hydrocephalus 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to consider 

selecting research projects relating to hydrocephalus under the 

Peer Review Medical Research Program. 

Section 725—Traumatic Brain Injury Research 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

research, test, and evaluation activities regarding drug development to halt neurodegeneration following traumatic brain injury. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Advanced Technical Exploitation Program 

The committee is aware the National Air and Space Intelligence 

Center (NASIC) is seeking to alter the acquisition strategy for the 

follow-on contract for the Advanced Technical Exploitation Program 

(ATEP). The committee is also aware that the objective of this follow-on contract, referred to as ATEP II, is ‘‘to provide contract 

services to support the NASIC mission in Geospatial Intelligence 

(GEOINT) and non-nuclear Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT) Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, 

and Dissemination activities. This includes up to 24x7 intelligence 

operations, reach-back advanced data exploitation support, and cutting-edge GEOINT and MASINT research and development for 

NASIC and mission partners throughout the Department of Defense and intelligence communities.’’ 

The committee is also aware that the Air Force intends to use 

a lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) acquisition strategy 

for ATEP II and is planning to set this contract aside for small 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

business concerns. The committee is concerned that the scope, 

scale, complexity and mission criticality of this work is inappropriate for an LPTA source selection and may not be well-suited for 

small business participation at the prime contract level. When 

those strategies are combined and used to procure complex, mission 

critical services, the risk of acquisition failure rises. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to examine the Air 

Force’s acquisition strategy related to provision of these services 

and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, that includes a detailed description of the 

following: (1) the acquisition strategy; (2) rationale and justification 

for using such strategy; (3) summary of market research methodology and findings performed during the development of the acquisition strategy; (4) assessment of risks related to such strategy; and 

(5) a description of the management and oversight structure necessary to ensure successful performance of the contracted activity 

throughout the period of performance. 

Commercial Items Pricing Information 

The committee remains confident that sections 2379 and 

2306a(d) of title 10, United States Code, provide the Department 

of Defense with adequate authority for obtaining cost and pricing 

information to evaluate the price reasonableness of certain commercial items that are procured to support a major system, and the 

committee looks forward to issuance of the guidance mandated by 

section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) on use of that authority. The committee notes that inconsistent use of the authority granted by sections 2379 and 2306a(d) within the Department of Defense continues to foster uncertainty among vendors, as recently evidenced 

by factors leading to the corrective action taken by the Department 

of the Army in amending its solicitation for overhaul services for 

certain fuel pumps in light of a protest filed with the Government 

Accountability Office. The committee expects that the Department 

of Defense’s forthcoming guidance and the plan of action for training and developing the acquisition workforce, also required by section 831 of Public Law 112–239, will address inconsistencies in exercising the authority granted by sections 2379 and 2306a(d) to 

avert further complications in contracting for commercial items. 

Competition in Air Force Network-Centric Solutions Contracts 

The committee is aware of reports that the Air Force may be inappropriately using sole source and brand name procurement solicitations and contract awards in the Network-Centric Solutions 

(NETCENTS), Air Force contract vehicles. The committee is concerned that these decisions may be negatively impacting competition between NETCENTS–1 and NETCENTS–2 contract vehicles. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review NETCENTS vehicles and provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services 

of the House of Representatives within 60 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. The review should detail the Air Force’s 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
183 

use of ‘‘sole source’’ and ‘‘brand name only’’ procurement solicitations and contract awards under NETCENTS–1 and NETCENTS– 

2 contracts, as well as the extent to which the Air Force met the 

statutory requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

6.303 and/or FAR 16.505, as applicable. The review should also detail remedial steps to be taken when the requirements of FAR 

6.303 and/or FAR 16.505 have not been met, as applicable. 

Implementation of Requirement for Designation of a Lead 

Inspector General for Certain Contingency Operations 

The committee applauds the work done by the Special Inspector 

General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and the Special Inspector 

General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Both have done 

much to provide independent and objective oversight of reconstruction projects and activities through the conduct of audits and investigations. The committee believes they have promoted efficiency 

and effectiveness in reconstruction programs and have detected 

and prevented waste, fraud, and abuse. They have also provided 

valuable recommendations to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness during contingency operations and have aided the development of policies to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse 

during those operations. However, the committee notes that SIGIR 

was not established by law until October 2004 and SIGAR was not 

established by law until January 2008, years and months after the 

United States began contingency operations and reconstruction activities in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

The committee recognizes that future contingency operations will 

likely be heavily reliant on contractors, including contracts for the 

procurement of locally available goods and services, to support and 

assist the U.S. mission in such operations, and therefore certain 

contingency operations could benefit from the designation of a lead 

Inspector General (IG) early in the operation. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239) included a provision, section 848, which requires the designation of a lead IG for overseas contingency operations not later 

than 30 days after the commencement of certain military operations. 

The committee is aware that the offices of the Inspectors General 

of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have 

initiated preliminary interagency discussions on the implementation of section 848. The committee applauds this effort and recognizes that development of a framework for section 848 implementation is a complex and challenging endeavor. Such challenges include establishing a process for requesting funding to support the 

activities of the lead IG once a contingency operation is declared; 

resourcing and manpower considerations, including the ability to 

surge when needed; maintaining a workforce that is skilled and 

trained to conduct IG responsibilities in a wide variety of potential 

contingency operations; and keeping open lines of communication 

so as to foster relationships between the three agencies’ Inspectors 

General during peacetime. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Inspectors General of 

the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID 

to establish a memorandum of agreement that would serve as a 

framework for implementation of section 848 and execution of the 

responsibilities described therein. The committee requests to be 

kept informed of progress and notified of obstacles related to the 

implementation of section 848. Furthermore, the committee specifically requests to be notified of the need for any changes to law or 

regulation in order to better enhance oversight of future contingency operations. 

Online Reverse Auctions 

The committee is aware that the military services have been increasingly utilizing online reverse auctions for the procurement of 

certain commodities and simple services. This procurement strategy, when used effectively and appropriately, can result in savings 

to the Federal Government versus estimated prices. According to 

Federal Times, Naval Supply Systems Command recently piloted a 

reverse auction program, saving approximately $2.0 million in the 

first year of the program. 

In view of the serious fiscal challenges facing the Department of 

Defense, acquisitions strategies which provide the same level of 

goods and service to the warfighter at reduced costs to the taxpayer 

are commendable. The committee would encourage the services to 

consider increasing their use of reverse auctions for certain types 

of acquisitions that lend themselves to this model and meet this 

standard, but to also review their own studies, including that of the 

Corps of Engineers, that may provide additional guidance regarding the best utilization of this procurement methodology. 

Report on Operational Contract Support in Afghanistan 

The Department of Defense has begun its drawdown of troops 

and equipment from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. For the 

past 11 years, the Department of Defense has spent billions of dollars on operational contract support in Afghanistan and continues 

to employ over 100,000 U.S. personnel, third country nationals, and 

Afghans as contractor employees in Afghanistan. Additionally, 

there is potentially a large amount of contractor-managed Government-owned equipment in Afghanistan, which must also be disposed. The Comptroller General of the United States’ previous 

work on the drawdown of U.S. troops in the Republic of Iraq highlighted the difficulties the Department of Defense had in planning 

and executing the drawdown of contractors from Iraq. The drawdown of contractors in Afghanistan is likely to be more complex 

than that which the Department of Defense faced in Iraq due to 

continuing combat operations and the need to plan operational contract support for the post-2014 advise and assist mission. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 10, 2014, that reviews the processes and procedures that the 

Department of Defense is using to plan and execute the drawdown 

of contractors and their equipment in Afghanistan. The committee 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

is particularly concerned with how the Department of Defense is 

ensuring that its contractor drawdown is done in the most cost-effective manner. The report should include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(1) How the Department is applying operational contract 

support lessons learned as it begins its drawdown of contractors and their equipment in Afghanistan; 

(2) How the Department and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan have 

established processes and procedures to draw down its contractor workforce and associated equipment and the extent to 

which these processes are synchronized with established milestones and other guidance; 

(3) How the Department is using cost and other information 

to help ensure it is making cost-effective operational contract 

support drawdown decisions, including decisions on the disposition of contractor-managed, Government-owned equipment; 

(4) How the Department has taken actions to ensure that 

there are sufficient personnel in place to oversee contractors as 

it reduces the number of military forces in Afghanistan; and 

(5) How the Department and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan have 

planned for the use of contractors after December 31, 2014, 

and the extent to which the Department has considered post2014 contractor requirements and costs in such planning. 

Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection 

Processes 

The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of Defense to cut costs and save taxpayer dollars. These efforts, such as 

‘‘Better Buying Power’’ initiatives, seek to achieve greater efficiencies through affordability, cost control and the elimination of 

unproductive processes or bureaucracy. Such efforts also seek to 

promote competition. However, the committee is concerned that 

this well-intentioned effort by the Department to lower costs frequently results in the inappropriate awarding of contracts based on 

a lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) standard instead of a 

best-value tradeoff approach. 

According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the goal of the 

acquisition system is to ‘‘deliver on a timely basis the best value 

product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s 

trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.’’ In certain circumstances, pursuing the lowest cost in the short term can result 

in significant operational and financial costs in the long term. In 

October 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued 

a report on the Department’s use of best value processes. In that 

report (GAO–11–8), GAO found that the Department used a bestvalue tradeoff approach for about 70 percent of its new, competitively awarded contracts in fiscal year 2009. An LPTA approach 

was used for about 25 percent of these contracts. 

The committee believes that awarding contracts based on an 

LPTA basis should not become the default position of the Department. Instead, careful consideration must be given to each contract 

to ensure that there is an appropriate weighing of cost versus other 

considerations. When a requirement is well defined and the risk of 

poor contract performance is minimal, it may be appropriate to use 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

price as the primary basis for awarding a contract. However, when 

the requirement is complex, performance risk is high, or failure to 

perform has significant consequences (such as in the case of intelligence or private security services, or development and procurement of personal protective equipment and critical safety items, or 

development of emerging or critical technology), then a best-value 

tradeoff approach may be more appropriate. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of the Department’s recent use 

of source selection processes, including LPTA. Such a review 

should, at a minimum, examine the following: 

(1) Guidance and directives, including those of the military 

services, related to the use of appropriate source selection approaches, including LPTA; 

(2) Sufficiency of training of the acquisition workforce (to include training offered at the Defense Acquisition University) on 

the appropriate use of source selection approaches; 

(3) Implementation of recent efficiency initiatives, to include 

‘‘Better Buying Power’’ initiatives to influence the use of LPTA 

source selection procedures; 

(4) Risks associated with implementing the reverse auction 

method as part of any LPTA approach for the procurement of 

critical safety items, personal protective equipment and other 

complex technologies; and 

(5) Waiver guidance and frequency of use on contracts 

awarded using LPTA procedures. 

In conducting the review, the committee encourages the Comptroller General to obtain the views of defense contractors to gain 

insight into how the use of LPTA source selection procedures affects business decisions and to identify the unintended consequences, if any, resulting from the use of this approach. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide the findings of the review, along with recommendations to improve the Department’s contracting practices, to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2014. 

Utilization of Standardized Services Contract Approval Form 

The committee recognizes that the Department of the Army has 

promoted compliance with important sourcing and management 

laws through the establishment of a Request for Services Contract 

Approval Form, which is, essentially, a checklist which conveniently and concisely integrates those laws in one form. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination and consultation 

with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

to issue policies for implementing a standard checklist to be completed prior to the issuance of solicitation for any new service contract or exercising of any existing contract option for services, including services provided under a goods contract. In implementing 

a standard checklist, the committee directs the Department to 

model, to the maximum extent practicable, its policies and checklist on those already used by the Department of the Army. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACQUISITION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Section 801—Modification of Reporting Requirement for Department of Defense Business System Acquisition Programs when 

Initial Operating Capability is not Achieved within Five-Years of 

Milestone A Approval 

This section would amend the reporting requirement imposed on 

defense business systems (DBS) acquisition programs by section 

811 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) by clarifying the separate 

treatment of Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) DBS 

and non-MAIS DBS. Specifically, this section would clarify that 

section 811 is inapplicable to MAIS DBS acquisition programs because such programs are independently subject to critical change 

reporting under section 2445c of title 10, United States Code. This 

section would also modify the requirement for non-MAIS DBS reporting a failure to achieve initial operational capacity (IOC) within 

5-years of milestone A approval from a critical change report to a 

report to the Department of Defense pre-certification authority explaining the causes and circumstances surrounding the failure to 

achieve IOC within the required time. 

Section 802—Enhanced Transfer of Technology Developed at 

Department of Defense Laboratories 

This section would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to license DOD-owned intellectual property that may or may not be patented, and to retain 

associated royalties consistent with existing statutes on patent licensing, section 209 of title 35, United States Code, and royalties, 

section 3710c of title 15, United States Code. 

Section 803—Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount 

Available for Contract Services 

This section would extend limitations on contract services under 

section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 111–84), through 2015. 

SUBTITLE B—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 811—Additional Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations 

Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts 

This section would amend section 818 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) to provide that the costs associated with the use of counterfeit electronic 

parts, and the subsequent cost of rework or corrective action that 

may be required to remedy the use or inclusion of such parts, are 

allowable costs under Department of Defense contracts if the counterfeit electronic parts were procured from an original manufacturer or its authorized dealer, or from a trusted supplier. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 

Section 812—Amendments Relating to Detection and Avoidance of 

Counterfeit Electronic Parts 

This section would amend section 818 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) to expand the conditions under which covered contractors can qualify for 

exemption from strict liability associated with rework and corrective action related to counterfeits of obsolete electronic parts. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a section that 

would further amend section 818 Public Law 112–81. 

Section 813—Government-wide Limitations on Allowable Costs for 

Contractor Compensation 

This section would amend section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United 

States Code, and section 4304(a) of title 41, United States Code, to 

replace the current statutory benchmark compensation formula 

used to determine the amount of contractor compensation that is 

considered an allowable cost for a federal contract, with the current 

compensation benchmark amount for fiscal year 2013 of $763,209. 

This section would limit additional changes to the current compensation baseline to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index (ECI). This section would also make unallowable 

the entire cost of compensation for the five most-highly compensated employees of a contractor that was awarded more than 

$500.0 million in federal contracts in the previous fiscal year. 

The committee believes the application of the current formula by 

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy is flawed, as it has resulted in an escalation of $422,559, or nearly 225 percent, in the 

15 years since the compensation cap was established in law. The 

committee does not believe this escalation reflects the actual adjustments in compensation for defense contractors over this same 

period due to inflation and other market factors. The committee 

notes that section 1127 of title 41, United States Code, directs the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to ‘‘review commercially available surveys of executive compensation and, on the basis 

of the results of the review, determine a benchmark compensation 

amount to apply for each fiscal year.’’ The Administrator is also directed to consult with the Director of the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency and other officials from executive agencies in making the 

determination. However, rather than using all available data and 

input from appropriate officials to inform decision-making, it appears that the Administrator has interpreted the requirements of 

section 1127 to require that the benchmark compensation amount 

be established at an amount equal to the median amount of the 

total compensation (total amount of wages, salary, bonuses and deferred compensation) accrued over a 12-month period for the top 

five highest paid employees in management positions at each home 

office and each segment of publicly traded U.S. companies with annual sales over $50.0 million. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the current approach remains in place the compensation cap could be raised to as high as $1.6 million by fiscal year 

2020. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
189 

Section 814—Inclusion of Additional Cost Estimate Information in 

Certain Reports 

This section would amend section 2432 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require that the program’s baseline cost estimate, along 

with the associated risk curve and sensitivity of that estimate be 

provided in the quarterly selected acquisition reports. In addition, 

this section would require that the reports include the current 

point estimate bounded by the the low-end and high-end estimates 

and the associated sensitivity of those estimates, and identification 

of the primary risk parameters associated with that point estimate. 

Furthermore, this section would require reporting of estimated termination liability remaining on the contract. Finally, this section 

would amend section 2334(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to 

review the information required by this section and to include 

trend information, a summary of findings and recommendations to 

improve the cost estimates of the Department of Defense in the annual report to Congress on cost assessment activities. 

Section 815—Amendment Relating to Compelling Reasons for 

Waiving Suspension or Debarment 

This section would amend section 2393(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to make available on a publicly accessible website any determination that there 

is a compelling reason to solicit an offer from, award a contract to, 

extend a contract with, or approve a subcontract with an offeror or 

contractor that has been debarred or suspended by a Federal agency. 

Section 816—Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or 

Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense 

Contracts 

This section would amend section 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the head of an agency of the Department of Defense, in prescribing the evaluation factors to be included in each solicitation for competitive proposals, assign importance to cost or price at least equal to all evaluation factors other 

than cost or price when combined. This section would allow the 

head of an agency to waive the requirement, and it would require 

the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, not later than 180 

days after the end of each fiscal year, a report containing a list of 

each waiver issued during the preceding fiscal year. 

Section 817—Requirement to Buy American Flags from Domestic 

Sources 

This section would amend section 2533a(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to include ‘‘a flag of the United States of America’’ to 

the list of items that the Department of Defense may not procure 

unless the item is grown, processed, reused, or produced in the 

United States. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

SUBTITLE C—PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTRACTS IN SUPPORT OF

CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN

Section 821—Amendments Relating to Prohibition on Contracting 

with the Enemy 

This section would amend section 841 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), regarding the authority of the Secretary of Defense to void a contract 

upon a determination that a foreign entity performing on the contract is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, to: 

(1) Lower the threshold for covered contracts from $0.1 million to $0.05 million; 

(2) Provide the authority to certain other geographic combatant commands during a contingency operation as defined by 

section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code; and 

(3) Make the authority permanent. 

Section 822—Collection of Data Relating to Contracts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan 

This section would amend section 861 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

amended, to allow for imposition of a penalty on any contractor 

that does not comply with the policies, guidance or regulations 

issued pursuant to that section. This section would also amend section 863 of Public Law 110–181 to require that the Annual Joint 

Report on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan include information 

on any penalties imposed on contractors for failing to comply with 

requirements under section 861(e) of Public Law 110–181. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 831—Extension of Pilot Program on Acquisition of Military 

Purpose Non-Developmental Items 

This section would amend section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383) by extending the program authority to December 31, 

2019. 

In February 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics reported to the congressional defense committees that the pilot program for acquisition of military 

purpose non-developmental items (MPNDI) had not been used even 

though the Secretary of Defense implemented it through the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement in June 2011. The committee 

is aware that there may be confusion about the requirement in section 866 of Public Law 111–383 for a contract under the MPNDI 

pilot program to be awarded using competitive procedures in accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that section 866 of Public Law 111–383 is clear that 

any exception to competition requirements provided in the Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304) applies to MPNDI acquisitions because section 2304(c) is part of chapter 137. However, 

the committee is concerned that the program has been impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 

mented in a manner that either discourages use of the MPNDI authority, or infers that section 2304(c) of title 10, United States 

Code, does not apply. The committee encourages the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the MPNDI implementation guidance and to clarify that the 

standard exceptions to competition may be used as appropriate. 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

has not yet utilized the authorities provided by section 866 of Public Law 111–383, and it continues to believe that, if implemented, 

the MPNDI program could improve rapid acquisitions of privatelydeveloped, militarily-useful items. This potential for improvement 

includes prospects for reducing costs, eliminating developmental 

periods, and expanding the industrial base by including non-traditional contractors. 

Section 832—Extension of Authority to Acquire Products and Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan 

This section would amend section 801 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), as 

amended by section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by extending the authority to acquire products and services produced in countries 

along a major route of supply in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through December 31, 2015. 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Air Force Force Structure 

The committee recognizes the challenges the U.S. Air Force confronts as a result of sequestration, a restricted budget with limited 

resources to modernize, and an aging aircraft fleet. The committee 

believes that the Air Force must remain a premier fighting force. 

To this end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) created the National Commission on 

the Structure of the Air Force following extensive debate during 

the last budget cycle regarding the Air Force’s Total Force Plan 

submitted with the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request and 

as revised in November 2012. 

The commission is undertaking a comprehensive study of the 

structure of the Air Force to determine whether, and how, the 

structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated 

mission requirements in a manner consistent with strategy and 

available resources. The considerations of the commission, outlined 

in section 363(a)(2) of Public Law 112–239, state that the commission shall give particular consideration to evaluating a structure 

that: 

(1) Meets current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

(2) Achieves an appropriate balance between the regular and 

Reserve Components, taking advantage of the unique strengths 

and capabilities of each; 

(3) Ensures that the regular and Reserve Components have 

the capacity needed to support current and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United 

States; 

(4) Provides for sufficient numbers of Active Duty members 

of the Air Force to provide a base of trained personnel from 

which the personnel of the Reserve Components of the Air 

Force could be recruited; 

(5) Maintains a peacetime rotation force to support operational tempo goals of 1:2 for active-duty members of the Air 

Force and 1:5 for members of the Reserve Components; and 

(6) Maximizes and appropriately balances affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, capability, and readiness. 

As the committee awaits the report by the commission due by 

February 1, 2014, the committee seeks to understand the measures 

the Air Force is taking to retrain airmen affected by the elimination of weapons systems and equipment under the November 

2012 Total Force Plan to ensure mission readiness. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, by October 1, 2013, the plan to transition qualified airmen, whose weapons systems or positions are being terminated, to new skills and weapons systems. 

Air Force Materiel Command Metrics 

The committee notes that the Air Force is undertaking a significant reorganization of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) that 

the Secretary of the Air Force indicates will improve warfighter 

support, drive standard processes, improve life-cycle acquisition 

management, and reduce overhead. Specifically, the Air Force is reducing more than 1,000 positions across the command at an estimated annual savings of more than $100.0 million. 

As the Air Force implements this reorganization, the committee 

expects the Secretary to adhere to the reporting requirements in 

section 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and the reporting requirement in section 2814 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). While the committee agrees it is imperative to generate efficiencies across the Air 

Force enterprise, the committee also believes it is essential to preserve critical functions and capabilities at AFMC installations. 

The committee notes that RAND Project Air Force, in its 2012 

report ‘‘Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization Analysis,’’ recommended AFMC develop and use a suite of metrics to track mission performance against goals. These metrics would facilitate rootcause analysis of any inefficiencies resulting from the reorganization. The committee is pleased that AFMC, through the AFMC corporate governance structure outlined in the 2013 AFMC strategic 

plan, currently uses these metrics to monitor progress towards 

meeting AFMC’s enduring priorities. 

The committee seeks to better understand how AFMC is measuring organizational successes and identifying challenges arising 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

from the new 5-Center construct. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to adopt an additional metric 

which measures progress on AFMC objectives against a designated 

pre-reorganization baseline. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 

January 1, 2014, on AFMC’s internal metrics. The report should include, but not be limited to, command metrics, tracking, and data 

collected as of the report due date. The report should be submitted 

quarterly and in an unclassified form, with a classified annex if 

necessary. Updated reports should be submitted to the aforementioned committees on a quarterly basis through January 1, 2015. 

Air Sea Battle Office 

The committee is aware that the military services established the 

Air Sea Battle (ASB) office in 2012 as a result of the U.S. Joint 

Forces Command (USJFCOM) disestablishment. USJFCOM had an 

office focused on the Air Sea Battle concept integration, specifically 

as it related to requirements, capability gaps and shortfalls, 

projects and programs directly related to effectively employing in 

an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) contingency operation. 

The committee is concerned whether the placement of the current ASB office outside of the Joint Staff is the most logical and 

effective location for integrating ASB concepts across the services. 

The committee believes the Secretary of Defense should evaluate 

the ASB office to see if it is accomplishing its goals to enable and 

prepare the U.S. military to effectively operate in an A2/AD environment, and whether the office provides a unique function and 

perspective or it duplicates other efforts carried out elsewhere in 

the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to determine the effectiveness of the ASB office and whether the office is carrying out a unique function or duplicates other efforts. Should the Secretary conclude that the ASB 

office is effective and non-duplicative of other efforts, the Secretary 

should determine whether the ASB office should continue as is, be 

modified, or placed within the Joint Staff. The committee directs 

the Secretary to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 

January 31, 2014, on the results of the analysis and the future of 

the ASB office. 

Air Force High Consequence Information Technology Services 

The committee is aware that while currently Air Force Space 

Command can rapidly contract for mission critical high consequence information technology needs, new contracting mechanisms may negatively impact that current capability. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 

a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 

Representatives by October 1, 2013 on its plan to preserve and sustain the high consequence, mission critical information technology 

services procurement for fiscal year 2014 and beyond. This plan 

should address how the Air Force, including Air Force Space Command, will provision for rapidly contracting for mission critical, 

high consequence, network command and control (C2), cyber, nuVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

clear-related, and combatant commander mission support responsibilities. 

Assessment of Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence 

The committee is aware that the cyber security and information 

assurance manpower needs are growing increasingly in both total 

numbers as well as in disciplines where new skills are needed. 

In order to develop an adequate pool of appropriately skilled individuals, the National Security Agency and the Department of 

Homeland Security have jointly established a program to certify institutions of higher learning that provides curricula for information 

assurance education. The certification program for Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) includes a rigorous application and screening process, which focuses on identifying schools offering a highly 

technical and interdisciplinary curriculum. The committee believes 

that leveraging CAEs may help the Department of Defense achieve 

its near-term goals of increasing the number of qualified cyber personnel. However, the committee believes that the current certification program should be assessed to determine its strengths as 

well as areas where improvement is needed. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Networks and Information Integration/Chief Information Officer, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military 

services and the Director, National Security Agency, to provide an 

assessment to the congressional defense committees within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the National 

Security Agency/Department of Homeland Security Centers of Academic Excellence program. The report should include an assessment of criteria for certification of institutions, mechanisms for increasing collaboration between Department of Defense and certified 

institutions, and mechanisms for increasing the number of graduates from CAE-certified institutions into the Department of Defense’s cyber workforce. 

Briefing to Congress on ICBM motor stockpile 

The committee understands the need for cost savings, but is concerned about the impact that budget cuts, industry consolidation, 

and lack of sufficient and stable demand have had on the industrial 

base for strategic solid rocket motors. The committee believes that 

a healthy solid rocket motor industrial base is critical. However, 

the committee is also aware of commercial launch systems that use 

surplus solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) motors, 

in accordance with existing laws and restrictions. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees on the status of the surplus 

ICBM motor stockpile. The briefing should include, at a minimum, 

the current inventory of surplus ICBM motors; a cost-benefit analysis of using surplus ICBM motors for space launch versus acquisition of new motors, including potential taxpayer savings and the 

associated costs such as surplus motor maintenance, modification 

for space launch, and possible destruction; and the potential effects 

on the solid rocket motor industrial base as well as on civil, governVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

ment, and military launch vehicle markets of adjustments to the 

existing laws and restrictions. 

Cadastral Geographic Information Systems Inventory 

The committee recognizes and supports the efforts of the Installations and Environment Business Enterprise Integration (I&E 

BEI) to modernize the parcel and land inventory or ‘‘cadastral’’ 

records to meet the challenges of the future. The work accomplished thus far to develop, modernize, and consolidate the Department of Defense’s real property asset inventory should continue to 

be a high priority, particularly given that real property asset management continues to be a GAO High Risk activity (GAO–13–359T) 

and the Department of Defense still cannot accurately account for 

its real property assets or the environmental liabilities thereon 

(GAO–13–271R). The committee recommends that the Department 

of Defense I&E BEI work with other agencies within the Federal 

Government to develop a current, accurate, interoperable cadastral 

geographic information systems based inventory that eliminates 

duplicate and obsolete activities. 

Comptroller General Review of the Department of Defense’s 

Implementation of Civilian Personnel Furloughs 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

waited so late in the fiscal year to explore options and the potential 

impact resulting from the required reductions in spending in accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–25). 

The Department’s civilian workforce is key to carrying out its roles 

and responsibilities. The Department has announced that it will 

implement furloughs of the civilian workforce in order to meet its 

required reductions. According to the Secretary of Defense’s May 

14, 2013, memorandum, certain civilian employees will be excepted 

from furloughs. In light of this, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess what criteria were 

used in the determination of which civilian employees to except 

from furloughs and how the Department planned for, implemented, 

and is monitoring furloughs of the civilian workforce to include 

what challenges the Department has faced in its implementation 

and cost savings realized. The Comptroller General should submit 

the results of the review to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 10, 2014. 

Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by December 

1, 2013, on the steps that the Department is taking to minimize 

any negative impact on the morale of the civilian workforce and 

long-term consequences on recruiting and retention of the civilian 

workforce. 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Cyber 

Resiliency 

The committee notes that the national and economic security of 

the United States depends on the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct its mission-essential functions across a 

wide range of potential emergencies, including localized natural 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

disasters and accidents, as well as technological and/or attack-related emergencies. Historically, nuclear threats to DOD locations 

led to the development of leadership succession plans and identifying alternate work facilities. However, events such as Hurricane 

Katrina, have demonstrated that the need for effective continuity 

of operations planning on a broader scope is necessary. Further, 

the committee is concerned that as the cyber threat continues to 

evolve and escalate, the information systems and networks upon 

which the Department’s operations and continuity plans are dependent may become unavailable, infiltrated, and/or destroyed. 

The committee is aware that the Department’s Continuity Program requires the Department to develop continuity of operations 

plans that would allow it to conduct its mission-essential functions 

under any circumstances across the spectrum of threats on the assumption that no warning of attack or event will be received. Such 

plans should identify, among other things, information systems and 

networks that are needed to execute their plans, and those information systems should have contingency plans that recognize their 

support to the ability to maintain continuity of operations. The Department’s Continuity Program also requires the Department to exercise its plans to validate planning assumptions and to take action 

to address deficiencies that are identified. Given the number of 

cyber incidents occurring within the Department and the sophisticated nature of the threats, the committee is concerned about the 

extent to which the Department of Defense has developed and exercised its continuity of operations plans for a degraded cyber environment. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of the Department of Defense 

continuity of operations planning for a degraded cyber environment, and to submit a report on the findings to the review to the 

congressional defense committees by January 7, 2014. The review 

should include the following: 

(1) The extent to which the Department has oversight of 

DOD component efforts to plan for and conduct continuity of 

operations in a degraded cyber environment; 

(2) The extent to which the Department has identified information systems and networks that are necessary to support 

DOD’s continuity of operations; 

(3) The extent to which the Department has coordinated its 

continuity of operations planning efforts with the Department’s 

information system and network contingency planning efforts; 

(4) The extent to which the Department has exercised its 

continuity of operations plans in a cyber degraded environment 

through identification and action to address any deficiencies; 

and 

(5) Any additional matters that the Comptroller General determines to be relevant. 

Comptroller General Review of Conduct of Roles and Missions 

Analysis 

Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) created section 118b of title 10, 

United States Code, which requires a comprehensive assessment of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
197 

the roles and missions of the Armed Forces and the core competencies and capabilities of the Department of Defense to perform 

and support such roles and missions. The committee notes this section contains specific requirements for the conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Mission Review (QRMR) and is disappointed that 

the Department has failed to fully comply with the law. By statute, 

the Secretary of Defense, after giving appropriate consideration to 

recommendations of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, is to identify: 

(1) The core mission areas of the Armed Forces; 

(2) The core competencies and capabilities that are associated with the performance or support of such core mission 

areas; 

(3) The elements of the Department that are responsible for 

providing the core competencies and capabilities; 

(4) Any gaps in the ability of the elements of the Department 

to provide for core competencies and capabilities; 

(5) Any unnecessary duplication of effort; and 

(6) A plan to address identified gaps and reduce unnecessary 

duplication of effort. 

Rather than conduct the QRMR in 2011, as mandated, the Secretary provided the committee with a summary of the results of a 

presidentially-directed strategic review over 5 months after the 

deadline for the 2012 QRMR report to Congress. While the committee is pleased that the Department took steps to identify strategic interests in an attempt to guide defense priorities and spending for the coming decade, the strategic guidance is not a substitute 

for the QRMR. Furthermore, while the strategic guidance does 

broadly identify primary missions of the U.S. Armed Forces, such 

as counterterrorism, deterring and defeating aggression, and projecting power despite anti-access/area denial challenges, it does not 

address items (2) through (6), as noted above and required by section 118b of title 10, United States Code. 

Moreover, section 222 of title 10, United States Code, requires 

the Secretary of Defense to submit a future years mission budget 

at the same time as, and in addition to, the submission of the 

budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year. The 

future years mission budget is required to organize the military 

programs of the Department of Defense on the basis of both major 

force programs and the core mission areas identified under the 

most recent QRMR. The committee notes that the Department has 

also failed to consistently meet this requirement. In a partial attempt to comply with it, the Department provided the committee 

with a document this year which merely highlighted certain areas 

of the budget request for fiscal year 2013 which could be connected 

to the primary missions identified in the strategic guidance. 

The committee believes the failure to identify core mission areas, 

core competencies, capability gaps, unnecessary duplications, and 

plans for addressing any such gaps or duplications, undermines national security and wastes valuable defense funds in a time of constrained budgets. The committee is disappointed that the Department did not leverage the requirement for the 2012 QRMR as a 

tool for reducing waste, while also improving its joint warfighting 

capability. The committee is also aware that in March 2013, the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
198 

Secretary of Defense announced that the Department would undertake a ‘‘Strategic Choices and Management Review’’. While the 

committee applauds active leadership on these matters, the committee notes that title 10 of United States Code, provides for a detailed and continuous framework for such reviews. The committee 

is concerned that although section 118b of title 10, United States 

Code, was enacted in January 2008, it appears that little has been 

done to improve QRMR processes to enhance subsequent reviews 

or to inform the Quadrennial Defense Review, resulting in the selfinitiation of several other duplicative, short-term reviews by the 

Department. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the processes used by Secretary of Defense 

in the conduct of the 2012 QRMR and the preparation of the fiscal 

year 2013 future years mission budget. The Comptroller should 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees by July 

1, 2014, on the findings of the review, along with recommendations 

for improving the Department’s conduct of future QRMRs and 

preparation of the future years mission budget. 

Coordination of Cyber and Electronic Warfare Capabilities 

The committee notes that significant advances have been made 

in both the cyber and electronic warfare (EW) domains. The committee is aware that there is increasing overlap between these domains, particularly with the advanced capabilities of next-generation EW platforms. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

on the status and level of coordination of research, development, 

test and evaluation efforts within the EW and cyber disciplines 

that bridge, or have corresponding dependencies, across these 

fields. 

Cost Drivers in the Department of Defense 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense is not 

like a commercial entity, though in many ways it can benefit from 

analysis and best practices also present in the commercial sector. 

In a time of fiscal austerity, the committee believes that the Department should do more to understand the major cost drivers 

within its business practices in an effort to contain costs and ensure efficiency. The committee also recognizes that there will be instances where effectiveness will be more important than efficiency, 

and will rightly accept increased costs for things that it needs, particularly when they pertain to the security of the Nation or protecting the life and limb of our service members. The committee believes, however, that such decisions should be made consciously 

and with full understanding of the risks, rewards, and subsequent 

costs. The committee encourages the Department to utilize tools 

such as the Strategic Management Plan to increase attention and 

collection of data on the cost drivers within the business processes 

of the Department. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
199 

Critical Program Information 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 

issued guidance related to the protection of critical program information, including requirements for the development and implementation of program protection plans for significant developmental activities where the risk of compromise of that information would 

allow an adversary to clone, counter, or defeat crucial capabilities. 

However, the committee is concerned about reports indicating that 

many recent designs of weapon systems have been compromised by 

foreign nation-state adversaries. For example, as noted elsewhere 

in this report, the 2012 Defense Security Service report, ‘‘Targeting 

Technology: A Trend Analysis of Reporting from Defense Industry’’, 

indicated that there are increases in aggressive cyber collection activities which target cleared contractor networks in attempts to obtain sensitive U.S. information and technologies. The committee is 

also aware that in a January 2013 report, ‘‘Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat,’’ the Defense Science Board 

(DSB) observed that the Department’s poor cyber hygiene and lack 

of personal and command accountability for cyber actions pose serious threats to the secure use of defense networks and systems. 

Furthermore, the DSB called for development of more effective policies, operational rules and consequences for breeches of policy, including the development and tracking of performance measures, 

such as tracking of computer security violations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives by August 1, 2013, that details 

the known network cyber intrusions resulting in compromise of 

critical program information related to Department of Defense 

weapon systems, information systems development, or other research and development initiatives from January 1, 2000, until August 1, 2013. The briefing should include: 

(1) Information on the critical program information that was 

compromised; 

(2) The source of the network that was compromised; 

(3) What systems or developmental activities were compromised; and 

(4) The suspected origin of the cyber intrusion. 

Cyber Standards Framework 

The committee is aware of the recent Executive Order ‘‘Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,’’ included language that 

directs the development of a framework for reducing cyber risks to 

critical infrastructure within the next year. The committee expects 

that the Cybersecurity Framework, developed under the leadership 

of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will incorporate a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological 

approaches to address cyber risks, including, where possible, voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to explore ways in 

which to incentivize, wherever possible, the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework, such as through contracts and other agreeVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
200 

ments with relevant outside vendors and utilities. Furthermore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act on actions being considered to encourage adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework. 

Data Management and Protection 

The committee is aware that the military departments have significant requirements for data usage, as well as data and information protection, for the development, acquisition, sustainment, 

maintenance, sale, and final disposition of nearly all military 

equipment and services. The committee is concerned that the combatant commands and the services generally do not view data management as a military critical function necessary for the efficient 

and effective operation of the services, and thus do not place a high 

enough priority on the investment of people or resources to carry 

out those tasks. The services spend a significant amount of time 

and resources on data collection, cleansing, and organization for individual acquisition and sustainment programs, but little time is 

spent looking at data management at an enterprise level to manage data standardization and interoperability across networks, 

platforms, or domains to ensure entrance of appropriate and accurate data into support enterprise activities and individual programs. With the emergence of the Joint Information Environment 

(JIE), the committee sees an opportunity for the Department of Defense to implement a comprehensive, enterprise-wide capability 

that will provide for data collection, management, and protection 

that can be utilized across the Department’s functional communities for human resources, finance, logistics, intelligence, and materiel development. The committee believes such a data management and protection strategy should be a core tenet in the development and implementation of the JIE. Furthermore, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the 

military departments to work with the affected functional communities to ensure that the JIE provides the data interoperability, enterprise management, and life cycle sustainment to maintain the 

support community, requirements generators, training forces, 

warfighters, and materiel developers throughout the military. 

Defense Intelligence Collection Management 

The committee recognizes the importance of effective collection 

management in the Department of Defense to enable optimal collection against intelligence targets that are a priority of the military services and combatant commands. The committee is aware 

that the Department identifies a collection management strategy as 

the method used by a collection manager to establish, prioritize, 

and submit collection requirements in a deliberate, focused, integrated, and synchronized manner across multiple intelligence disciplines. The goals of this strategy are: (1) to identify, allocate, and 

apply national, theater and tactical intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance resources and capabilities; (2) to task these resources, submit requirements, and collect in a way that effectively 

and efficiently answers the priority intelligence requirements; (3) to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

support analytic intelligence information shortfalls and gaps; and 

(4) to support the development of effective and responsive collection 

plans to ground the adaptive planning process. 

Based on feedback from the combatant commands, the committee 

is concerned that the Department has not established the proper 

tools and training to fully enable the most effective collection and 

mission management. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense and the congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2014, on the Department’s activities to support 

effective intelligence collection management and mission management. 

Enterprise Query and Correlation Pilot 

The committee applauds the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for implementing the Enterprise Query and Correlation 

Pilot required by section 925 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). The committee supports the goals of this pilot to demonstrate cross-agency, large 

scale, distributed information query and correlation. The committee 

anticipates that the end result of this pilot will deliver reusable 

services with validated mission utility through the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue providing adequate resources for 

this effort in order to ensure timely completion and, as applicable, 

to incorporate the results into current intelligence systems. 

Exploitation of Foreign Commercial Cellular Networks 

The committee recognizes that foreign commercial cellular networks have posed a significant challenge as a source of command 

and control for insurgent forces in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as providing critical initiation techniques for improvised explosive devices. The committee 

understands that U.S. forces will continue to face similar threats 

in other parts of the world and must be positioned with the necessary technologies to combat these different threat environments. 

The committee believes that future force protection will require the 

ability to both exploit and defend against modern commercial cellular networks. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine the various regions within the different geographic combatant commands to understand the possible threats 

from the commercial cellular environment, and to ensure that the 

Department has the capabilities to exploit and defend against any 

vulnerabilities. 

Global Response Force 

The committee considers it a national priority to maintain the capability to rapidly project military power in support of our national 

interests. To that end, the committee seeks to provide the support 

necessary to maintain a robust expeditionary capability. A global 

response force that is ready to deploy at any time, to any location, 

by forcible entry, if required, is a critical element necessary to fulfill the U.S. national security objectives. A fully capable global reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

sponse force provides strategic depth in order to provide effective 

crisis response and serves as a creditable deterrent, supporting diplomatic initiatives and the application of national power. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to prioritize the 

identification of the current operational requirements and capability gaps for an effective global response force and ensure that a 

fully developed joint operational concept is in place to support the 

national military strategy. Further, the committee encourages additional investment in joint training programs and joint exercises 

that are necessary to further develop an effective global response 

force capability in accordance with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff Joint Force 2020 construct. 

Guidance on the Use of Borrowed Military Manpower 

As the Department of Defense (DOD) makes reductions in its 

Total Force workforce composition, military, civilians, and contractors, the committee is increasingly concerned about the use of military manpower to perform functions previously performed by either 

civilians or contractors. While the Department of the Navy and the 

Department of the Air Force have indicated they do not anticipate 

wholesale substitutions using military personnel, the Secretary of 

the Army, in testimony before the committee in April 2013, predicted that the Army could use as many as 8,000 uniformed personnel to fill positions during the current fiscal year because reduced funding for training has created time gaps in the duty day 

and freed up soldiers for other duties. The committee understands 

the need for temporary, limited local command use of military personnel performing civilian work to accomplish mission objectives, 

but the committee notes that use of military manpower outside the 

service member’s military occupational specialty poses risks to 

readiness and training, and raises issues of unsustainable costs. 

Consistent with ‘‘Guidance Related to the Utilization of Military 

Manpower to Perform Certain Functions,’’ issued March 2, 2012, by 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the 

committee expects the Department of Defense to calculate the cost 

of using military personnel in lieu of civilian personnel or service 

contractors to perform non-military tasks in accordance with Directive Type Memorandum (DTM)–09–007, ‘‘Estimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract Support’’ or any succeeding guidance. For the purposes of this 

direction, military tasks are as defined in DOD Directive 1100.4, 

DOD Instruction 1100.22, and any successor or amplifying guidance as issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to review the use of borrowed military manpower 

(BMM) and to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 30, 

2014, regarding the impacts on military readiness and training in 

fiscal year 2013, including how the Department weighed operational risks and capabilities and readiness levels with BMM calculations and decisions. The Comptroller General also should examine the extent to which manpower costs were calculated using 

the DTM 09–00. The committee understands that the Government 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 

Accountability Office is undertaking an extensive body of work regarding the impacts of sequestration on the Department of Defense 

and further directs the Comptroller General to include the use of 

BMM as a part of this effort. 

Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Functions Performed by 

Non-appropriated Fund Employees 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112–439) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Department of Defense to clarify that the December 2011 guidance entitled Prohibition on Converting Certain 

Functions to Contract Performance ‘‘applies as well to functions 

performed by Non-Appropriated Fund employees, which is consistent with section 2461 of title 10, United States Code.’’ Section 

2461 ensures that work performed by Department of Defense civilian employees is not outsourced without first conducting a formal 

cost comparison process; the committee notes that the law includes 

no exceptions for Non-Appropriated Fund employees. However, the 

committee is aware that the Department has not clarified the guidance and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness to issue the clarification guidance by July 8, 2013. 

Input into National Intelligence Priorities Framework 

The committee continues to support and commend efforts of the 

Department of Defense and the intelligence community to further 

integrate and coordinate intelligence activities. The committee believes that as integration continues, it is essential to periodically 

assess and ensure that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are meeting the intelligence needs of the 

warfighter. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joints Chiefs of 

Staff to submit an assessment to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by October 1, 

2013, evaluating the extent to which the coordination process for 

the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF) incorporates 

the intelligence priorities of the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments. Such assessment should include a description of the input from the Joint Staff, the combatant 

commands, and the military departments regarding significant intelligence priorities; the process used to communicate such input; 

and the results of such input. The assessment should also include 

specific feedback from each of the combatant commands and military departments regarding the NIPF coordination process and any 

recommendations for improving the input of the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and military departments to that process. 

Integrated Science and Technology Campus for the Defense 

Intelligence Agency 

The committee recognizes the important role that science and 

technology research play in advancing the mission of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency (DIA). As threats become increasingly more 

complex and sophisticated, DIA science and technology programs 

will need to work in synergy and leverage assets available in the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
204 

interagency, academic, and industrial research community to address new interdisciplinary challenges. 

The committee believes that the Base Closure and Realignment 

(BRAC) 2005 vision of an integrated science and technology campus 

for DIA is critical component of its ability to provide indications 

and warning of future technology threats, as well as in-depth analyses that could monitor and develop countermeasures or mitigation 

measures for those threat technologies, as necessary. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, on the progress of the BRAC 

2005 vision. The briefing should address the following: 

(1) How DIA is leveraging other Government agency expertise to fulfill its mission; 

(2) How DIA is utilizing or plans to utilize, academic, industry, and non-profit research organization capabilities to enhance its science and technology focus; 

(3) To what extent DIA is at space capacity at its current facilities; 

(4) What facilities have been considered, designed, or constructed to realize the integrated campus; and 

(5) What resources are required to achieve the BRAC 2005 

vision. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft Utilization 

The committee is concerned that there is a growing divide between combatant commanders’ day-to-day utilization of airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft and the 

Department of Defense’s current formal requirements generation 

process that focuses on meeting specific contingency plan-related 

metrics. The committee believes that non-combat, ‘‘peacetime’’ ISR 

demand is at least as important, if not more important, than highly 

speculative predictions regarding ISR demand during combat operations. For example, the committee notes that the Air Force’s fiscal 

year 2013 proposal to retire RQ–4 Block 30 Global Hawk aircraft 

was based on changes to contingency plan requirements rather 

than on daily, ongoing ISR missions and unfulfilled combatant 

command ISR needs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a classified briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by 

November 1, 2013, that includes a detailed layout of ISR aircraft 

utilization in fiscal year 2013. The briefing should address all 

manned ISR aircraft, and all unmanned ISR aircraft in the MQ– 

1/9 and larger class of UAS. The briefing should specify the number of systems, types of missions, flight hours, and other operational data. 

Non-Perimeter Cyber Defenses 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense continues 

to make progress in securing its networks from cyber threats. In 

order to combat new and evolving threats, the committee believes 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

that new tactics, techniques, and technologies will be needed to increase the cyber security of defense information systems. Recent reports from commercial computer security firms indicate that U.S. 

adversaries increasingly are using techniques that can compromise 

‘‘perimeter defenses.’’ The committee is concerned that the Department’s cyber security posture will continue to be weakened without 

the investigation and implementation of new, emerging protection 

technologies. 

The committee encourages the Department to look at new cyber 

security approaches, such as ‘‘dynamic maneuvering’’ or ‘‘moving 

target’’ technologies that can help to proactively reduce the attack 

surfaces of the Department and increase mission resiliency and 

survivability. The committee is particularly interested in how these 

technologies might be incorporated into existing networks, as well 

as the future Joint Information Enterprise. The committee encourages the Department to examine these technologies and include 

their findings in future quarterly cyber operations briefings. 

Open-Source Intelligence Utilization 

The committee notes that open-source intelligence (OSINT) is intelligence that is produced from publicly available information collected, exploited, and disseminated to an appropriate audience for 

the purpose of addressing a specific intelligence requirement. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for OSINT to be incorporated into the larger military intelligence strategy. The committee recognizes that the accessibility of 

open-source information has increased significantly in recent years 

due to rapid growth of international internet use and consideration 

as a global commons. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense and the congressional intelligence committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

on the current status of the OSINT strategy and operations within 

the Department of Defense. The briefing should include the following: 

(1) An overview of the current strategy for OSINT collection, 

to meet the intelligence priorities of the military services and 

combatant commands; 

(2) A description of all OSINT activities within the military 

services and combatant commands including the level of coordination and deconfliction between ongoing joint efforts; 

(3) A description of the current level of coordination with the 

Director of National Intelligence Open Source Center; 

(4) Gaps in OSINT capabilities within the Department; 

(5) Research, development, test and evaluation efforts in the 

Department related to collection, processing and sharing of 

open-source intelligence; and 

(6) Recommendations for future improvements in the Department’s OSINT strategy and efforts. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

Pilot to Counter Brokers of Transnational Criminal Organizations 

The committee is aware that the complex pathways and instrumentalities of the global economic system provide both a source of 

revenue and backdrop in which to hide for a number of nation-state 

and non-state actors. In particular, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) have increasingly been able to use the global economic environment to their advantage. TCOs have grown more 

complex over time, and so has our ability to defeat them, however, 

this complexity has challenged our ability to access and use collective information available. 

The committee believes that criminal cartel organizations are 

hosting themselves in U.S. cities and may be teaming with terrorists also embedded in the United States to fund terror networks 

overseas. These networks provide sustained and substantial funding to pay operatives, support families, purchase and traffic weapons, indoctrinate and recruit new members, train, travel, and bribe 

officials and also perpetrate billions of dollars worth of fraud 

against banks, businesses and Governments. The list of crimes that 

the new international criminal organizations are involved in includes the trafficking of narcotics, humans, weapons, illegally 

poached animal remains, and chemical, biological, and nuclear material. Disrupting the means and mechanisms through which these 

networks move money will significantly disrupt their operations, 

but remains the most challenging piece of the puzzle to unravel. 

The key to dissecting these financial networks is to identify the 

‘‘brokers;’’ a category of individuals who facilitates financial activities. Brokers may be employees of a single TCO, such as a terrorist 

group or drug cartel, or they may be independent operators charging variable fees based on external factors such as interest rates, 

dollar amount, and denomination of currency. These individuals 

may work in banking, real estate, insurance, own small businesses, 

or simply have legitimate access to the financial system. The information needed to unravel these global networks is available 

through various technical, commercial, open source and Government-owned means, yet require experienced subject matter experts 

to ‘‘connect the dots;’’ an ability directly proportional to their access 

to information across the community of interest. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, to establish a pilot program to determine the information requirements for identifying and countering TCO brokers, 

and to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives within 1 year after the 

date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the pilot program. 

Science and Technology Community Intelligence Needs Planning 

The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of Defense science and technology (S&T) community to reinvigorate its 

relationship with the intelligence community. The committee is 

aware that in 2010, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering drafted an Intelligence Needs Plan in order 

to formally convey the S&T communities’ intelligence requirements 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

to the intelligence community. The committee believes that such efforts are important in order to position science and technology for 

the development of capabilities for new and emerging threat areas. 

The committee is concerned that the focus of intelligence activities 

for the past 10 years has been primarily focused on near-term, 

operationally-oriented support that consequently, the capabilities to 

do long-term, open-ended estimations have atrophied. Creating a 

demand signal for such analyses would both rebuild needed intelligence skills and support better S&T planning. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a briefing 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee 

on Intelligence of the Senate by February 1, 2014, on the intelligence requirements of the science and technology community, as 

well as the process by which the intelligence community would satisfy those requirements. 

Software Assurance Policy 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is in the 

process of developing a baseline software assurance policy for the 

entire life cycle of covered systems in response to section 933 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239). The committee believes that any such guidance and 

direction for Department program managers should conform with 

internationally recognized, consensus-based security assurance 

standards, and should explore options for accepting both self-certification or third-party certification for compliance purposes. For 

example, the committee believes that this software assurance policy should be developed in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum for Chief Information Officers and 

Senior Procurement Executive’s regarding Technology Neutrality 

dated January 7, 2011. The committee also believes that any future 

software assurance policy that include requirements concerning 

Federal participation in the development and use of voluntary consensus standards should be conducted in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, section 

272 of title 15, United States Code, and the Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–119. 

Space Training 

The committee notes that the U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) commissioned a study on the Joint Space Individual 

Training and Education Needs Assessment (JSITENA). This study, 

which concluded in September 2012, defined and analyzed the joint 

space training and education environment and recommended solutions to existing gaps, shortfalls, and redundancies in preparation 

of officers and enlisted personnel to support joint space missions. 

The committee commends STRATCOM on the study and supports the recommendations identified in the JSITENA which improve integration, find efficiencies, and identify opportunities to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
208 

better meet joint requirements across the services and combatant 

commands. 

Technical Defense Intelligence Training 

The committee supports training for the Defense intelligence 

workforce, particularly in the area of technical intelligence, as a 

critical investment in national security. The expansion of advanced 

sensors and platforms is increasing the volume of technical intelligence and the demand for intelligence exploitation. When necessary, based on Government capacity, the committee encourages 

the Department of Defense to consider appropriately cleared nonGovernment providers of specialized technical intelligence training 

if providers can meet Defense intelligence needs and reduce Government costs. 

Training Standards for Department of Defense Cyber Missions 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in the 

process of staffing a number of national cyber forces under U.S. 

Cyber Command, including national mission teams, combatant 

command mission teams, and cyber protection platoons. The committee is also aware that as part of this process, the Department 

is working to establish a joint standard to provide some level of 

standardization and compatibility among forces being supplied by 

the military services. The committee encourages the Department to 

continue developing these training standards for cyber forces, but 

believes that the Department should consider the scalability and 

sustainability of such training. The committee is aware that the 

Department already faces serious challenges in building and sustaining its cyber forces, and the increased demands from U.S. 

Cyber Command make that challenge even more acute. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the military services already 

have training demands to meet their own statutory requirements 

to man, train and equip forces for their networks, and that those 

requirements must be taken into consideration as well. 

The committee is concerned that the process for determining a 

joint training standard may be settling on a proposed standard too 

quickly, without sufficient analysis to support the scalability demands on the services. In addition, the committee believes that 

such a standard should include an assessment of the current training and education capabilities inherent in the services to determine 

if the current infrastructure meets the personnel training pipeline, 

as well as if there are any gaps that will need to be resourced in 

the future. The committee also notes that any standard should include the means for leveraging commercial standards and certifications to reduce the burden on departmental infrastructure. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the cyber force 

training needs of the Department. The briefing should include the 

current and proposed training standard and the Department’s process for expanding the training across the force. The committee also 

expects that future quarterly cyber operations briefings will include 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 

updates on the manning and training metrics for U.S. Cyber Command national mission teams. 

Vulnerability of Tactical Data Links in Denied Areas 

The committee believes that future conflicts against threats with 

anti-access/area-denial capabilities could see significant threats to 

U.S. airborne and ground tactical data links. However, the committee is concerned that many such data links are not currently designed or funded to operate against a robust electromagnetic warfare threat. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, to provide a classified briefing to the congressional defense 

committees by October 1, 2013, that describes the potential 

vulnerabilities of current and planned tactical data links, along 

with a summary of development efforts to address these 

vulnerabilities. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Section 901—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps 

This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy as 

the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the 

title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine 

Corps. This section would formally recognize the responsibility of 

the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with 

the Navy. 

Section 902—Revisions to composition of transition plan for defense 

business enterprise architecture 

This section would revise the definition for legacy systems in section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to align with the updated 

business systems investment review process. 

SUBTITLE B—SPACE ACTIVITIES

Section 911—National Security Space Satellite Reporting Policy 

This section would amend chapter 135 of title 10, United States 

Code, to add a notification, required of the Secretary of Defense, of 

each attempt by a foreign actor to disrupt, degrade, or destroy a 

U.S. national security space capability. 

The notification shall be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 48 hours after the Secretary determines that there is reason to believe such attempt occurred. Not 

later than 10 days after the date on which the Secretary determines that there is reason to believe such attempt occurred, further information should be provided including the name and a brief 

description of the national security space capability that was impacted by such attempt; a description of the attempt, including the 

foreign actor, the date and time of the attempt, and any related caVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
210 

pability outage and the mission impact of such outage; and any 

other information considered relevant by the Secretary. 

The appropriate committees are defined as the congressional defense committees, and with respect to a U.S. national security 

space capability that is intelligence-related, the congressional intelligence committees. 

The committee notes the Director of National Intelligence’s 2013 

Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment that 

threats to vital United States space services will increase during 

the next decade as disruptive and destructive counter-space capabilities are developed. 

Section 912—National Security Space Defense and Protection 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to enter 

into an arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct a review in response to the near-term and long-term threats 

to the national security space systems of the United States. The review should include: 

(1) The range of strategic options available to address such 

threats, in terms of deterring hostile actions, defeating hostile 

actions, or surviving hostile actions until such actions conclude; 

(2) Strategies and plans to counter such threats, including 

resilience, reconstitution, disaggregation, and other appropriate concepts; and 

(3) Existing and planned architectures, warfighter requirements, technology development, systems, workforce, or other 

factors related to addressing such threats. 

The National Research Council should also identify recommend 

courses of action to address the threats, including potential barriers or limiting factors in implementing such courses of action. 

This section would also modify section 911(f)(1) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 2271), 

to include a description of how the Department of Defense and the 

intelligence community plan to provide the necessary national security capabilities, through alternative space, airborne, or ground systems, if a foreign actor degrades, denies access to, or destroys U.S. 

national security space capabilities. 

Section 913—Space Acquisition Strategy 

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the 

Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, to establish a strategy for the multi-year procurement of commercial satellite services to include: 

(1) An analysis of financial or other benefits to multi-year acquisition approaches; 

(2) An analysis of the risks associated with such an approach; 

(3) An identification of methods to address planning, programming, budgeting, and execution challenges to such an approach, to include consideration of methods to address potenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
211 

tial termination liability or cancellation costs associated with 

these types of contracts; 

(4) An identification of any changes needed in the requirements development and approval processes of the Department 

of Defense to facilitate effective and efficient implementation of 

such strategy; and, 

(5) An identification of any necessary changes to policy, procedures, regulation, or legislation in order for such strategy to 

be successful. 

This section would also require the strategy and the elements 

supporting it to be provided to the congressional defense committees by the Under Secretary not later than 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 914—Space Control Mission Report 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees on the space control 

mission of the Department of Defense. 

Section 915—Responsive Launch 

This section would require a study by the Department of Defense 

Executive Agent for Space on responsive, low-cost launch efforts to 

include a review of existing and past operationally responsive, lowcost launch capabilities; a technology assessment of various methods to develop an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability; and an assessment of the viability of any other innovative 

methods, such as secondary payload adapters on existing launch 

vehicles. In addition, this section would require a report from the 

Executive Agent for Space regarding the results of the above mentioned study, as well as a consolidated plan for development within 

the Department of an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability. 

The committee notes that there are multiple ongoing efforts in 

the Department, including Air Force, Army, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs. The committee is concerned that these efforts may be duplicative and are not fully coordinated across the Department. 

SUBTITLE C—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED

MATTERS

Section 921—Revision of Secretary of Defense Authority to Engage 

in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection 

Activities 

This section would amend current statutory authority for the 

Secretary of Defense to authorize the conduct of those commercial 

activities necessary to provide security for authorized intelligence 

collection activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense. This section would: 

(1) Delete the requirement that the Secretary of Defense designate a single office within the Defense Intelligence Agency to 

be responsible for the management and supervision of all comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
212 

mercial activities authorized by the intelligence commercial activity statute (10 U.S.C. 431–437); 

(2) Change the annual audit requirement to a biennial audit 

requirement; 

(3) Add the congressional defense committees to the reporting requirement; and 

(4) Insert a definition of ‘‘congressional intelligence committees’’ for purposes of section 437 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Section 922—Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a written policy governing the internal coordination and 

prioritization of intelligence priorities of the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments to improve identification of the intelligence needs 

of the Department of Defense. This section would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to identify any significant intelligence gaps of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the military departments. The Secretary would 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees and the 

congressional intelligence committees regarding the policy established under this section and any identified significant intelligence 

gaps. 

Section 923—Defense Clandestine Service 

This section would prohibit the use of 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available to 

the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014 for the Defense 

Clandestine Service to be obligated or expended for the Defense 

Clandestine Service until such time as the Secretary of Defense 

certifies to the congressional defense committees, the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, 

and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate that the 

Defense Clandestine Service is designed primarily to fulfill priorities of the Department of Defense that are unique to the Department of Defense or otherwise unmet; and provide unique capabilities to the intelligence community (as defined in section 3(4) of the 

National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)). 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to: design metrics that will be used to ensure that the Defense Clandestine Service is employed in the manner certified; provide annual 

assessments for 5-years based on the metrics established; submit 

prompt notifications of any significant changes; and provide quarterly briefings on deployments and collection activities. 

Section 924—Prohibition on National Intelligence Program 

Consolidation 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

any of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense to be used during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to execute: the separation of the portion of the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
213 

Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National 

Intelligence Program from the rest of the Department of Defense 

budget; the consolidation of the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense budget; or the establishment of a new appropriations account or appropriations account 

structure for such funds. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense and the 

Director of National Intelligence to jointly brief the congressional 

defense and intelligence committees not later than 30 days after 

enactment of this Act on any planning relating to future execution 

that has occurred during the past two years and any anticipated 

future planning and related efforts. 

The committee is concerned that the executive branch has failed 

to notify the appropriate congressional committees about its continuing efforts to pursue consolidation of the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence Program. 

SUBTITLE D—CYBERSPACE-RELATED MATTERS

Section 931—Modification of Requirement for Inventory of 

Department of Defense Tactical Data Link Systems 

This section would modify the current requirement for an inventory of Department of Defense tactical data link systems to include 

an assessment of vulnerabilities that the systems may encounter in 

anti-access or area-denial environments. 

Section 932—Defense Science Board assessment of United States 

Cyber Command 

This section would require the Defense Science Board to conduct 

an independent assessment of the organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command. 

Section 933—Mission Analysis for Cyber Operations of Department 

of Defense 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

mission analysis of Department of Defense cyber operations and to 

provide a report on the results of the mission analysis to the congressional defense committees. It would also require the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to provide an assessment of the role of 

the National Guard in supporting Department of Defense cyber 

missions. 

The committee notes that the Defense Science Board recently 

completed a report titled Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat. In particular, the committee recognizes the 

need to address a key recommendation in the report that would require the Department to determine the mix of cyber, protected-conventional, and nuclear capabilities necessary for assured operation 

in the face of a full-spectrum adversary by designating a mix of 

forces necessary to conduct assured operations, including systems 

such as penetrating bombers, submarines with long range cruise 

missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), and survivVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
214 

able senior leadership command and control. The committee believes the Department will need to address this recommendation as 

it conducts the mission analysis required by this section. 

In addition, the committee is aware that there is interest from 

the Department as well as Congress on how best to leverage the 

Reserve Component, including the National Guard, in the Department’s organizing construct for cyber operations. While the committee supports these considerations, it is also concerned that current legislative proposals to dictate National Guard units for each 

of the states and territories is premature and may be detrimental 

to the overall national effort. In addition to the hefty price tag, 

which is estimated to be about $400.0 million per year, current proposals only address National Guard participation and do not include the Reserve Component. Whereas only the Army and the Air 

Force have National Guard units, all of the military services have 

Reserve Components that have unique authorities and capabilities 

that should be addressed by the national effort. The committee believes that more time is needed to evaluate full participation of the 

Reserve Components, including the implications and limitations of 

using National Guard forces in a ‘‘title 32’’ capacity, before broader 

action is taken. The committee encourages the Department to examine these issues in the course of the mission analysis required 

by this section. 

Section 934—Notification of Investigations Related to Compromise 

of Critical Program Information 

This section would require that the Secretary of Defense provide 

written notification to the congressional defense committees within 

30 days of the initiation of any investigations carried out related 

to the potential compromise of Department of Defense critical program information related to weapon systems and other developmental activities, and within 30 days of the completion of any such 

investigations. Additionally, this section would require a report to 

be submitted to the congressional defense committees within 60 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on all of the 

known network cyber intrusions from January 1, 2000, until August 1, 2013, resulting in compromise of critical program information. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee would require the Secretary to provide a briefing on related information. 

Section 935—Additional Requirements Relating to the Software 

Licenses of the Department of Defense 

This section would require the Chief Information Officer of the 

Department of Defense to revise the reporting requirements of section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239; 10 U.S.C. 223 note) to include new elements that 

would verify that the format of the process was verified by an independent third party, implement processes for validating and reporting registration and deregistration of new software, and update the 

timeline for implementation based on these new requirements. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
215 

SUBTITLE E—TOTAL FORCE MANAGEMENT

Section 941—Requirement to Ensure Sufficient Levels of Government Oversight of Functions Closely Associated with Inherently 

Governmental Functions 

This section would amend sections 129a and 2330a of title 10, 

United States Code, to ensure that sufficient levels of government 

oversight are in place for contracted services and aligns current Department of Defense policies related to Total Force Management. 

Section 942—Five-Year Requirement for Certification of 

Appropriate Manpower Performance 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to certify 

that all contractor positions performing inherently governmental 

functions have been eliminated. 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Counternarcotics Strategy in Central America 

The committee acknowledges the rise of crime and instability in 

Central America. In particular, countries such as the Republic of 

Honduras and the Republic of Guatemala are experiencing the 

brunt of a ‘‘balloon effect’’ of illicit trafficking and networking 

caused by both the stabilizing of the Republic of Colombia and the 

ongoing security issues in the United Mexican States. Central 

America now has the highest murder rates in the world, and is 

faced with constant violence and government instability. 

The committee recognizes the significant budget constraints 

throughout the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the committee also 

recognizes the national security implications of turmoil within the 

Western Hemisphere. Therefore, the committee supports the efforts 

in the region of the Department of Defense and the Department of 

State, and more specifically U.S. Southern Command. An ongoing 

strategy and vision for partnership with Central American nations 

is vital to securing regional safety and security. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the 

House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Foreign Affairs by October 1, 2013, on the Department of Defense’s 

strategy for combating the corruption, illicit trafficking, and violence in the Central American region that could affect U.S. national security. This briefing should outline partnership opportunities with neighboring nations, current intelligence, and future 

metrics of success in the region. 

Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command 

The committee again notes the absence of a hospital ship deployment to the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility for the 

second consecutive year. The committee also recognizes the difficult 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
216 

budget environment facing the U.S. Navy and all military services. 

As the Department of the Navy weighs its priorities, the committee 

notes the vital presence the USNS Comfort or USNS Mercy bring 

to nations all over the Western Hemisphere. Humanitarian missions carried out by hospital ships are a key tool in developing relationships and partnerships with the neighbors of the United States. 

As a result of the vacuum the lack of humanitarian presence has 

created, other nations have stepped in to fill the need, including 

the deployment of a Chinese hospital ship in the Caribbean sea in 

the fall of 2011. The committee continues to encourage the Department of the Navy to consider an ongoing presence in the Caribbean, including a scheduled humanitarian deployment to the region. 

National Guard Bureau Counter-drug Mission 

The committee acknowledges the importance of the National 

Guard counter-drug mission as a part of ensuring the security of 

the U.S. homeland. The National Guard counter-drug mission is 

vital to successfully protecting the Nation’s borders; however, the 

committee is aware of the budget constraints the National Guard 

Bureau faces in fully funding and operating its counter-drug mission. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, regarding the operational capabilities and future 

counter-drug mission set of the National Guard. The briefing 

should include information on the available resources and missions 

of the state partnership programs, border security initiatives, and 

counter-drug schools, including any anticipated gaps in resources. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the committee, by not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the capabilities and policy issues 

associated with the counter-drug mission of the National Guard on 

the southwestern border of the United States. 

Operation Martillo 

The committee recognizes that the U.S. Southern Command mission Operation Martillo has been under way since January 2012. 

Initially a 6-month operation, Martillo has been extended indefinitely to combat illicit traffickers by focusing on the littoral waterways from South America to Central America as a way to transport 

narcotics. In the year since the operation began, confiscation of 

narcotics and prosecutions of criminals have risen. 

The committee also recognizes the support and partnership of the 

18 partner-nations in making Operation Martillo successful. As the 

operation moves forward, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by October 1, 2013, on Operation Martillo. The briefing 

should outline: 

(1) The assets being used specifically for the mission by both 

U.S. Armed Forces and each partner nation; 

(2) Each partner nation’s contributions to the mission in the 

form of assets, capabilities, funding, and manpower; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
217 

(3) The mission’s future goals in terms of manpower, funding, and focus and any challenges in meeting such goals; and 

(4) The metrics in place to determine the effectiveness of the 

mission over the course of the next fiscal year. 

The committee supports U.S. Southern Command’s efforts and 

remains committed to the safety and security of the Nation and the 

Western Hemisphere. 

Transition of Tethered Aerostat Radar System Program 

The committee is aware of the transition of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program from the U.S. Air Force to the 

Department of Homeland Security. This transition is under way 

only after the U.S. Air Force sent a statement of program cancellation to the contractor in January 2013. While the transition to the 

Department of Homeland Security has been delayed, the committee 

notes that the TARS program, which is in place along the southern 

border of the continental United States and the Caribbean, is an 

important tool in fighting illicit trafficking across the U.S. border. 

The committee encourages both the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Homeland Security to continue to facilitate a smooth 

transition of the TARS program, with the goal of preventing any 

gaps in service or capability in the eight locations. Furthermore, 

the committee acknowledges the gaps in maintenance of several of 

the aerostats. As the Department of Homeland Security takes over 

the program by October 1, 2013, the committee encourages both 

the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to mitigate these maintenance issues and ensure all eight 

aerostats are fully functional. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2013, on the status of the 

transition of the TARS program, including steps being taken by 

both departments to support continuation of coverage. 

U.S. Southern Command Assets 

The committee recognizes the ongoing budget crisis facing the 

Nation’s military. As this crisis continues, U.S. Southern Command, along with all other combatant commands, must prioritize 

its missions. In light of the decision by the Department of the Navy 

to establish a zero-ship presence in the Caribbean, other military 

services will also have to consider realigning their assets. As U.S. 

Southern Command moves forward in its mission set, the committee acknowledges the possibility of current assets being insufficient to meet the needs of the mission. 

Nevertheless, the committee believes that stability in the Western Hemisphere is a national security imperative. The committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide the House Committee on Armed Services with information on any resultant capability gaps for U.S. Southern Command against the full spectrum 

of the command’s missions, including the allocation of forces and 

assets within the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility 

for the past 5 years, and the projected availability of forces and assets for fiscal year 2014 within the region. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
218 

OTHER MATTERS

Assessment of Military Construction Project 

The Department of the Air Force is the executive agent respon- sible for the design and construction of a $285.0 million development at the Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom. This development proposes to provide worldwide communications to the 

warfighter across a wide spectrum of operations. The initial phase 

of this development is a $12.0 million main gate complex that is 

designed to improve traffic congestion and support the segregation 

of large vehicles during their inspection process. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has not completed an assessment of the wide range of options available to accommodate the mission proposed at the Royal Air Force Croughton, 

United Kingdom. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

by September 30, 2013, with the following information: 

(1) Analysis of alternatives, including the strategic imperative of intelligence functions being performed in the United 

Kingdom versus co-locating with the combatant command 

headquarters or in the United States; 

(2) Analysis of the cost-benefits and efficiencies of co-locating 

the intelligence functions of U.S. Africa Command 

(USAFRICOM) and European Command (USEUCOM); 

(3) Description of direct, indirect, and burden-sharing contributions by the host nation in the construction of the new facilities at Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom; 

(4) Description of the method in which the current requirement is presently being met; why the current facilities are not 

sufficient to meet the current requirement; and how the new 

proposed facilities will fully meet the current requirement 

without requiring an expansion of either the mission or the 

newly constructed facility; 

(5) Description of the political, economic, military and legal 

requirements that require the functions to be completed in the 

current host-nation instead of the United States or the Federal 

Republic of Germany; 

(6) Description of the current organizational structure of intelligence components of USAFRICOM and USEUCOM, including division of labor between United Kingdom-based staffs and 

the Germany-based headquarters and an evaluation of the current mission and staffing in order to better understand the 

needed requirements and resources to accomplish the mission; 

and 

(7) Description of how USEUCOM and USAFRICOM are implementing and enforcing the appropriate U.S. Government 

policies and regulations, including identification of exceptions, 

to ensure Royal Air Force Molesworth-based Department of 

Defense civilians are not exceeding the 5-year overseas requirement and are in compliance with the Living Quarters Allowance regulations. 

Furthermore, the committee recommends no funding, a reduction 

of $12 million, for the initial phase of development at the Royal Air 

Force Croughton, United Kingdom. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
219 

Combatant Command Headquarters Personnel and Resources 

Requirements 

The committee is concerned with the results of the Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent report on five of the six geographic combatant commands. The results of the report show that 

the authorized military and civilian positions and mission support 

costs for the combatant commands and their subordinate commands have grown considerably over the last decade. The GAO report found that the authorized military and civilian positions increased by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001–12, to approximately 10,100 authorized positions. Additionally, the report 

found the mission and headquarters support costs more than doubled from fiscal years 2007–12, to over $1.1 billion. While the committee recognizes these figures include the establishment of two 

new geographic combatant commands (U.S. Northern Command 

and U.S. Africa Command), today’s fiscal environment requires 

stronger oversight of the combatant commands’ resources. 

The committee is concerned about the four primary weaknesses 

that challenge the Department of Defense’s ability to effectively 

manage and oversee these combatant commands. First, the committee is concerned that the Department does not thoroughly and 

periodically evaluate the commands’ overall mission and personnel 

requirements to ensure the commands are effectively managing 

their personnel resources to meet their assigned missions. The committee believes the Department should conduct periodic evaluations 

of the combatant commands and supporting commands, including 

whether their existing size and structure is effectively positioned to 

meet current missions. Second, the committee is also concerned 

that the Department cannot track all the personnel assigned to the 

combatant commands and their subordinate commands. The committee believes the Department should integrate existing systems 

to identify, manage, and track all assigned personnel. Third, the 

committee is concerned about the lack of visibility and oversight of 

the Joint Staff and the combatant commands over the service component commands. This lack of visibility into personnel and resources makes it difficult for the Department to determine whether 

functions and tasks at the combatant commands are being duplicated or overlap with the component commands. The committee believes the Department should develop and implement a formal 

process to gather information on the service component commands 

to gain better transparency and oversight of these organizations. 

Fourth, the committee believes that the services and combatant 

commands should provide greater detailed information on authorized positions and mission funding totals in their annual operation 

and budget documents for submission to Congress. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 

1, 2013, on any changes to processes and procedures to address 

each weakness identified above, including any suggested changes to 

law that they believe may be required. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
220 

Comptroller General Review of Functional Combatant Commands 

The committee again notes that as the challenges to national security have expanded, the Department of Defense faces missions of 

increasing scope, variety, and complexity around the world. To support these missions, the Department of Defense has established 

three functional combatant commands, each with thousands of personnel, which provide unique capabilities in support of the Department’s other components. These functional combatant commands 

are responsible for specific types of operational support, specifically: U.S. Transportation Command is responsible for air, land, 

and sea transport; U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for strategic nuclear, space, and other operations, to include cyberspace; 

and U.S. Special Operations Command is responsible for organizing, training, and equipping special operations forces. In May 

2013, the Government Accountability Office reported that the authorized military and civilian positions and mission support costs 

devoted to five of the Department’s geographic combatant commands had grown considerably and that there were weaknesses in 

its processes to size and oversee the combatant commands, to include the functional combatant commands. At a time of growing 

economic and fiscal constraints, the committee believes it is important that the Department of Defense ensure the functional combatant commands have the appropriate levels of personnel and resources to effectively meet mission requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of the personnel and resources 

of the functional combatant commands, supporting military service 

component commands, and other assigned task forces, and to submit a report on the findings to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by January 31, 2014. The review should address the following: 

(1) What are the trends in the resources (authorized positions and mission support costs) devoted to the functional combatant commands and their service component commands between fiscal years 2001–12? 

(2) To what extent has the Department of Defense examined 

the size and structure of the functional combatant commands 

for efficiencies? 

(3) What, if any, challenges does the Department of Defense 

face in appropriately sizing the functional combatant and their 

components given their unique capabilities and global responsibilities? 

Comptroller General Review of Medical Countermeasures Against 

Genetically Engineered Bio-Terror Agents 

The committee recognizes that development and deployment of 

safe, effective medical countermeasures against biological weapons 

and agents of concern remain an urgent priority for the U.S. Government. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services, is working 

with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 

Defense (DOD), as well as other agencies, to shape and execute an 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
221 

aggressive research program to develop more effective medical 

countermeasures. 

The committee notes that since 2007, the Department of Defense 

has initiated efforts to strengthen homeland defense and homeland 

security by developing broad-spectrum medical countermeasures 

against the threat of genetically engineered bio-terror agents. Additional initiatives that the Department of Defense is planning include the development of advanced detection and deterrent technologies and initiatives to facilitate full-scale civil-military exercises. While the Department of Defense planned to spend over $1.0 

billion on these initiatives between fiscal years 2007–12, it remains 

unclear how it has coordinated its programs to complement those 

of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health 

and Human Services. The degree to which the Department of Defense has met program goals to improve interagency planning for 

complex homeland security contingencies also remains unclear. 

The committee remains committed to a robust medical research 

and development program focused on military health issues, including medical, biological, and chemical defense. However, to assist 

the committee in conducting its oversight of DOD’s initiatives to 

develop medical countermeasures, coordinate programs, and improve interagency contingency planning, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of medical countermeasures against genetically engineered bio-terror agents, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014, on the findings and 

any recommendations. The report should include, but not be limited to: 

(1) The status of DOD’s initiatives to develop countermeasures for genetically engineered bio-terror agents and advanced detection and deterrent technologies; 

(2) The extent to which the National Institutes of Health and 

the Department of Defense have coordinated their research 

programs to ensure efforts are complementary and not duplicative; 

(3) The extent to which the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have planned and executed full-scale 

civil-military exercises to improve interagency coordination; 

(4) The cost basis for DOD’s various programs and initiatives 

to develop countermeasures for genetically engineered bio-terror agents and related detection and deterrent technologies; 

and 

(5) The nature and extent of potential program overlap and 

duplication with programs of other Federal agencies that could 

benefit from consolidations or improved coordination to achieve 

cost savings. 

Comptroller General Review of Planning and Preparedness for 

Threats Posed by Non-Traditional Chemical Agents 

The committee notes a growing awareness of the threat posed by 

novel chemical weapon agents or toxicants known as Non-Traditional Agents (NTAs). The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) states that the globalization of the world’s chemical indusVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
222 

try, coupled with scientific breakthroughs, increases the possibility 

of NTAs being used against U.S. and allied forces. Furthermore, 

the QDR states that the Department of Defense (DOD) has increased its resources for research and development of technologies 

to meet and defeat these emerging threats. NTAs are allegedly binary nerve agents significantly more lethal than third-generation 

chemical weapons, such as VX nerve gas. 

The current international agreements regarding chemical warfare do not adequately control the relatively simple formulas for 

NTAs that have been published. Consequently, the risk of illicit 

NTA production by various state and non-state actors is heightened 

compared to traditional chemical agents. NTAs could pose a significant threat to DOD personnel as they may be capable of defeating 

protective equipment, such as Mission Oriented Protective Posture 

masks and suits as well as evading chemical weapon detection 

tools. In the past, the Government Accountability Office has reported that most U.S. Army units tasked with providing chemical 

and biological defense support are not adequately staffed, equipped, 

or trained to perform their missions against traditional chemical 

agents. The Deparment’s preparedness for NTAs may be even more 

important given the unique nature of this emerging threat. 

To assist the committee in conducting its oversight of the Department of Defense’s increased resources for research and development of technologies to meet and defeat emerging threats posed by 

NTAs, novel chemical weapon agents, or similar toxicants, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the Department of Defense’s planning and preparedness for threats posed by non-traditional chemical agents, 

and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 31, 2014, with the findings and any recommendations. The 

report should include, but not be limited to: 

(1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has conducted an analysis of the threat NTAs pose to DOD personnel, 

including the risk posed by bioregulators capable of inducing 

profound physiologic effects, and developed countermeasures, 

defenses, and mitigation strategies to address the threat posed 

by NTAs; 

(2) The extent to which DOD’s chemical and biological defense units that are tasked with chemical and biological defense support to combat units and commands are adequately 

staffed, equipped, and trained to deal with NTAs; 

(3) The extent to which DOD’s chemical and biological defense units that are tasked with a homeland defense mission, 

especially National Guard and Reserve units, are adequately 

staffed, equipped, and trained to deal with NTAs; 

(4) How much the Department is planning to spend in fiscal 

year 2014 on research and development of technologies to address the threat of NTAs, and how much of an increase in resources this represents over fiscal year 2013 levels; 

(5) The nature and extent of potential counter-NTA research 

and development program overlap and duplication between, for 

example, defense agencies, the military services, and national 

laboratories/federally funded research and development centers; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
223 

(6) Which counter-NTA programs or efforts could benefit 

from consolidations, improved coordination, or other actions to 

achieve financial or other benefits, such as increased efficiencies. 

Comptroller General Review of Role of the Army and the Marine 

Corps in Access-denied Areas 

As U.S. forces draw down from operations in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Department of Defense is focusing on anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges 

posed by potential adversaries elsewhere around the globe. The 

committee believes the Air Sea Battle concept and other recent 

publications highlight air, maritime, space, and cyberspace operations, and appear to rely heavily on Navy and Air Force assets 

and capabilities. However, the committee is concerned that less attention has been paid to the role of the Army and the Marine Corps 

in an A2/AD environment. The committee believes the Army and 

the Marine Corps, like each of the services, must be trained, 

manned, and equipped to respond to a full spectrum of challenges, 

consistent with the roles and missions of each service. However, 

given the uncertainty surrounding the role of the Army and the 

Marine Corps in an A2/AD environment, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an independent review that evaluates: 

(1) Missions envisioned for the Army and the Marine Corps 

in an A2/AD environment; 

(2) Alternatives being considered by the Department for 

meeting such missions; 

(3) The operational, cost, and other assumptions underlying 

the Department’s analyses; and 

(4) Steps being taken to align Army and Marine Corps force 

structure with emerging A2/AD missions, the cost implications 

of the planned actions, and the extent to which such actions 

potentially duplicate the capabilities of other services or limit 

the ability of the Army and the Marine Corps to fulfill other 

missions. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit the results of the review to the congressional defense committees by 

April 15, 2014. 

Comptroller General Review of U.S. Central Command 

Headquarters 

The committee notes that since fiscal year 2001, the resources 

provided to U.S. Central Command and its supporting service components have grown dramatically to manage wars in both the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, including 

directing U.S. operational forces, supporting counterinsurgency operations, and assisting host nation security forces in providing for 

their own defense. According to Department of Defense reports provided to Congress, military and civilian manpower at U.S. Central 

Command has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001, not including the contractors who support the headquarters. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
224 

With the drawdown of operational forces in Iraq and the impending drawdown in Afghanistan, the committee believes it is important to reexamine the levels of headquarters manpower and mission support costs needed by U.S. Central Command. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to conduct as assessment of the following: 

(1) The trends in manpower and mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of U.S. Central Command and its 

supporting service component commands since fiscal year 2001; 

(2) The steps the Department of Defense has taken to date 

to reexamine the size and structure of the headquarters of U.S. 

Central Command and its service component commands in 

light of the drawdown of forces in its area of responsibility and 

changing U.S. military strategy; and 

(3) The future plans for U.S. Central Command and its service component commands, including any plans to maintain 

headquarters in forward locations such as the State of Kuwait 

and the State of Qatar. 

The Comptroller General may provide additional information 

deemed appropriate to provide the committee insight into the Department of Defense’s plans for the headquarters functions of the 

U.S Central Command. The Comptroller General should provide 

the preliminary results of the study to the congressional defense 

committees by April 15, 2014, with the final report to follow as 

soon as practicable thereafter. 

Defense Forensic Enterprise 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 

used expeditionary forensics successfully to identify, target and disrupt terrorists and enemy combatants in the Republic of Iraq and 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee is also aware 

that the Department has taken multiple steps towards establishing 

an enduring capability in this impactful area. The Department 

issued directive 5205.15E in 2011 to establish a policy regarding 

the Defense Forensic Enterprise (DFE), which assigned to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) a number of responsibilities including the development of a strategic plan to guide the activities of the DFE. However, given the important impact of the use of expeditionary 

forensics for U.S. counter-terrorism activities, the committee is concerned that two years after the issuance of directive 5205.15E, the 

required strategic plan is not yet finalized. The committee notes 

that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently 

completed a study on defense forensics, in which it made several 

recommendations to facilitate the establishment of the DFE. Therefore, the committee directs the USD(AT&L) to set a date by August 

30, 2013 to finalize and publish the strategic plan for the Defense 

Forensic Enterprise. Furthermore, the committee directs the 

USD(AT&L) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 

1, 2014 which describes the actions being taken to address the recommendations made within the GAO report on Defense Forensics. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
225 

Detailed Report on Defense Efficiencies 

The committee notes that over the last 3 fiscal years, the previous Secretaries of the Department of Defense have developed 

budget submissions that contained directed efficiencies for the Department. However, the policies and procedures on the implementation of these efficiencies have not been detailed to Congress. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 

2013, on the following: 

(1) A detailed accounting of how departmental fiscal policies, 

dating from fiscal year 2012 to the present, support compliance 

with the discretionary spending limit applied to the security 

category in fiscal year 2013 by section 251(c)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177); and 

(2) A detailed accounting of how departmental fiscal policies 

will support compliance with the discretionary spending limit 

applied to the security category for each of fiscal years 2014– 

21 by section 251(c)(2) of Public Law 99–177. 

Energy Security Assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is required 

every four years to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 

pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code. The QDR 

is intended to provide a strategic defense review of plans necessary 

to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the 

national defense strategy. The committee believes an essential element of any defense plan is the importance of energy security as 

a fundamental component of the Department of Defense’s ability to 

project power and enable combat capability for operations. In the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81), energy security was defined as ‘‘having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential requirements.’’ 

Noting that the committee report (H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 urged 

the Secretary to conduct a more comprehensive QDR review, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the final 

assessment includes details regarding the importance of, and funding necessary to achieve, energy security. 

Humanitarian Mine Action and Counter-Improvised Explosive 

Device Technologies 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program is under-utilized 

and under-resourced, to include research, development, testing, and 

evaluation efforts. The committee notes that while the committee 

has authorized $10.0 million per fiscal year for this program in the 

past, the Department of Defense routinely commits less than $3.0 

million per year towards global HMA requirements. Because of 

these shortfalls, the committee notes that HMA programs and 

projects are unable or unlikely to contribute to Geographic Combatant Commander theater security cooperation strategies in a subVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
226 

stantive and enduring way, and that the efforts of the Department 

of Defense are potentially out of balance with larger U.S. Government HMA and security force assistance goals. Furthermore, the 

Department of Defense and commercial industry have invested 

heavily in improvised explosive device defeating technology over 

the past decade, and the committee believes that this technology 

should be better utilized within the HMA program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, that outlines the strategic direction of 

the Department of Defense’s HMA program, to include efforts to 

improve research, development, test, and evaluation, and ways to 

ensure coordination mechanisms exist to determine whether 

counter-improvised explosive technology could be applicable to 

HMA. In addition, the report should outline ways to improve interagency coordination with similar programs under way in the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Hybrid Airship Technology 

The committee is aware that hybrid airship technology has the 

potential to provide much needed capability for the Department of 

Defense, particularly with regards to cargo lift and logistics. In the 

past, the committee has supported the development and demonstration of hybrid airship technology, and continues to monitor 

developments with interest. The committee is aware of recent developments that have demonstrated innovative capabilities in airship design and lift. 

The committee is also aware, however, that airship technology 

still requires additional, more rigorous development and demonstration. As noted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, ‘‘current conventional airships are capable 

of accommodating payloads of only a few thousand pounds. In order 

to achieve the massive payloads envisioned by air-logistic theorists, 

significant technical advances and resource investments must be 

made.’’ 

The committee continues to support efforts to transition from rudimentary technology demonstrators to operational prototypes in 

relevant environments. The committee encourages the Air Force 

and Transportation Command to work with industry to more fully 

develop the capability requirements and mission analysis needed to 

pursue such an operational prototype. 

Nuclear Deterrence Education in the Armed Forces 

The committee is aware that the military departments and the 

Joint Staff have invested considerable time and attention into overhauling and improving the instruction provided to officers and enlisted personnel concerning the U.S. nuclear deterrent mission. 

Following the Minot and Taiwan incidents involving the improper and unauthorized handling by Air Force personnel of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon components, and the termination by then-Defense Secretary Gates of the Chief of Staff of the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
227 

Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force, former Secretary of 

Energy and Defense James Schlesinger undertook a comprehensive 

two-phase report on Nuclear Weapons Management in the Armed 

Forces. 

In announcing the Phase I findings, Secretary Schlesinger stated 

that, ‘‘Over the years . . . what has been the long-time practice 

during the Cold War and subsequent years of developing the theory 

and doctrine of deterrence has more or less disappeared not only 

from the Air Force schools, more generally from military schools 

. . . the doctrine of deterrence has, to a large extent, been forgotten.’’ 

The committee has reviewed internal professional military education reviews of the status of improvements to instruction in the 

‘‘doctrine of deterrence.’’ The committee notes that the services, 

particularly the Navy, have determined that there are ongoing 

challenges and weaknesses in instruction in this subject matter. 

The committee also notes that challenges remain in educating airmen on their role in safeguarding national security. Educating the 

warfighters who execute the daily mission of nuclear deterrence remains a critical element to ensuring the level of excellence required 

for the mission. 

The committee encourages the services and the Joint Staff to 

keep the same level of focus on this subject matter that was 

brought to bear by then-Secretary Gates in 2008. 

Nuclear Weapons Council and Commonality in Nuclear Forces and 

Nuclear Warheads 

The committee understands that the Nuclear Weapons Council 

has approved a long-term plan to increase the use of common components and systems across U.S. nuclear delivery systems and the 

nuclear stockpile. In the long-term, this approach is expected to 

yield significant cost savings, may enable novel approaches to mitigating risks through deployment of interoperable warheads that 

can be utilized on multiple delivery systems, and may facilitate reductions in the number of nuclear weapons held in reserve. However, the committee urges the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration to use caution in implementing this approach to ensure that commonality does not lead to 

unacceptable risk of widespread impacts to the deterrent force, 

should a technical risk cause a common component or subsystem 

to fail. 

To better understand the Nuclear Weapons Council’s long-term 

plan for interoperability and commonality, the committee directs 

the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, in coordination 

with appropriate Members of the Council, to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees by October 31, 2013, on the 

feasibility, cost savings, benefits, risks, timelines, impacts on the 

size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and impacts to stockpile 

stewardship and any potential need for underground testing associated with the long-term plan for interoperability and commonality. 

Specifically, the briefing should describe: 

(1) The Nuclear Weapons Council’s approach for understanding and managing risks associated with commonality in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
228 

nuclear delivery systems, nuclear warheads, and their components; 

(2) The Council’s methods for evaluating trade-offs between 

the risk versus the cost savings of commonality; 

(3) The potential for streamlining the maintenance of nuclear weapons through interoperability and commonality; and 

(4) The long-term plan for interoperability and commonality 

across delivery systems and warheads, including impacts to 

workload and capacity in the nuclear security enterprise. 

Personnel Growth at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint 

Staff, and the Service Secretariats 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is supported 

by vast headquarters organizations that have grown over time, consisting of thousands of personnel in multiple layers of management. At a time of growing economic and fiscal constraints, the 

committee believes it is important that the Department of Defense 

ensures that its headquarters personnel are efficiently aligned with 

the missions. The committee believes that the Department must 

continue to reduce overhead and improve its business operations, 

particularly within its headquarters organizations. Moreover, the 

committee believes that this multi-layered structure breeds duplication and impedes timely decision-making at the Department as 

well as responsiveness to Congress. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) assists the Secretary in performing his duties and responsibilities for oversight, 

policy development, planning, resource management, and fiscal and 

program evaluation at the Department. OSD staff currently includes more than 2,600 military and civilian personnel, with an unknown number of supporting contractors, and these numbers appear to have grown nearly 40 percent since 2001. In addition, the 

Secretary is supported by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

whose staff creates and distributes guidance for combatant forces’ 

unified strategic direction, among other functions. The Joint Staff 

now includes more than 4,200 personnel and has nearly tripled 

since 2001. This growth is due, in part, to absorbing some functions 

from the now-defunct U.S. Joint Forces Command, but the ‘‘joint 

community’’ appears to be growing overall. In May 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that, even excluding U.S. Central Command, the geographic combatant commands have grown 

by nearly 50 percent since 2001. Outside the joint community, each 

of the Secretaries of the military departments has hundreds of 

military and civilian staff as well as numerous and proliferating offices supporting them and assisting the oversight of each of the 

military services. However, reliable information about the size of 

these service organizations is not readily available, limiting congressional oversight. 

Given the need to minimize overhead at the Department of Defense, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of the resources devoted to the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military department’s secretariats and military staffs. The Comptroller General should provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
229 

Services by April 15, 2014, on the results of the review. The review 

should cover the following: 

(1) What are the trends in the resources (authorized positions and mission support costs) devoted to the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military department’s secretariats and military staffs for fiscal years 2001–13? 

(2) To what extent does the Department have processes in 

place to manage and oversee the resources of these headquarters organizations, including examining resources being 

devoted to contractor support staff? 

(3) To what extent has the Department reviewed these organizations to determine whether overlap or duplication exists in 

the types of support being provided to the Secretary of Defense 

within or across these various headquarters organizations and 

whether there are opportunities for efficiencies? 

Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment Sales 

The committee notes that offsets are illegal under many international trade agreements and generally considered a violation of 

the principles of the European Union treaty, with the exception of 

certain defense procurements. The committee believes that any free 

trade agreement negotiations between the United States and the 

European Union should include the issue of prohibiting offset 

agreements with respect to the sale of defense equipment by U.S. 

companies to European Union member states that would require 

U.S. companies to reinvest a percentage of the value of any resulting contract in the importing country. 

Replacement Plan for E–4B 

The Air Force’s fleet of E–4B aircraft serve as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the President, the Secretary 

of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other 

senior leaders. According to a 2012 Air Force fact-sheet, ‘‘in case of 

national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a highly survivable command, control, 

and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency 

war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities.’’ 

The E–4 fleet first entered service in 1974, and as the aircraft 

continues to age, sustainment efforts grow increasingly difficult 

and costly. Sustaining the fleet into the 2020s may become progressively difficult or unmanageable as commercial airlines continue to 

retire their fleet of 747–200 aircraft and spare parts and maintenance providers become unavailable. The committee is also aware 

of the significant potential cost of replacing the E–4B aircraft. The 

Air Force has not yet developed a plan to replace these critical 

command and control aircraft or a sustainable life-extension option. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

consultation with the commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 

30, 2014, on the Air Force’s plan to replace or sustainably extend 

the E–4B fleet and its associated capabilities. The report should 

contain an assessment of various potential options, costs, and a 

schedule for a replacement program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
230 

Report on Implementation of Acquisition Strategy To Minimize 

Costs for Defense Base Act Insurance 

Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) required that the Secretary of Defense adopt an acquisition strategy for Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance that minimizes the cost of such insurance for both the Department and its contractors. It also required the Department to 

submit a report to Congress, within 270 days of the law’s enactment, on the acquisition strategy adopted. The committee is aware 

that the Department, after having submitted in September 2009 

the report required by section 843, has been working through the 

steps to implement its acquisition strategy. The committee notes 

that several years have now passed since 2009, and therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2015 on its progress 

towards implementing the lower-cost acquisition strategy required 

by section 843. 

Report on Security Exemptions and Waivers for U.S. Nuclear 

Forces 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its sustained commitment to ensuring the security of U.S. nuclear weapons. In particular, the committee recognizes the efforts undertaken 

by the Air Force and the Department of Defense to bring renewed 

focus, leadership, and resources to nuclear weapons security following the grave security incidents seen in the Air Force in 2006 

and 2007. The committee encourages the Department to sustain 

continual efforts to improve nuclear weapons security (operational 

excellence and a culture of continual improvement are required). To 

better understand the Department’s efforts to improve nuclear 

weapons security, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2013, on efforts to improve nuclear weapons security in 

the Department of Defense. In particular, the report should list any 

current exemptions or waivers to nuclear weapons security requirements or guidance, as well as the Department’s plans and 

timelines for mitigating the risk from, and eventually eliminating 

the need for, such exemptions or waivers. 

Reporting Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses oversight of 

sensitive military operations. The committee notes that its oversight of military operations is in addition to all reporting pursuant 

to, or consistent with, section 4 of the War Powers Resolution (50 

U.S.C. 1541 et seq.). 

Secure Internet Protocol Router Network for the Congressional 

Defense Committees 

The Department of Defense maintains a classified Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) to provide secure networking among Department of Defense components, as well as with 

selected interagency partners. The committee is aware that access 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
231 

to the network is available to much of the executive branch, but to 

virtually none of the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. 

The committee believes that having access to SIPRNET would improve its ability to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense, 

as well as help save funds by eliminating printing, travel, shipping, 

and courier costs of required communications. The committee notes 

that it is supplied with the means for secure telephony and believes 

this provides a suitable precedent to expand into other methods of 

secure collaboration between the Department and Congress. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014, on extending SIPRNET access to the aforementioned 

committees by December 1, 2014. The briefing should include an 

assessment of the operational policies for implementing SIPRNET, 

as well as the costs, logistics, security considerations, and other 

matters the Secretary deems pertinent. 

Sustainment of Sociocultural Understanding Capabilities 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has invested in a number of programs over the past 10 years to provide 

increased sociocultural understanding at tactical, operational and 

strategic levels. The committee has been supportive of many of 

these capabilities, such as the Army’s Human Terrain System, the 

Secretary of Defense’s Minerva Initiative, and the cross-service 

Human, Social, Cultural, Behavioral Modeling program. Each program has served an important role in filling capability gaps for the 

Department, especially with regards to understanding the human 

dimensions of the counterinsurgency fights in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

However, the committee is concerned that with the drawdown of 

forces in Afghanistan and the refocus to the Asia-Pacific region, 

there may be a growing sense that some of the capabilities that 

proved so useful in the Middle East will be of little or no value in 

potential contingencies rooted in the Asia Pacific region. The committee firmly believes that sociocultural understanding will remain 

important in the Middle East as it grows in importance in Africa 

and Asia, though needs will be somewhat different and may require slightly different instantiations based on the differences in 

the operational environment. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the Department’s plans for maintaining and adapting existing sociocultural 

capabilities, as well as development for new capabilities to meet 

the current strategic guidance. The report should identify the programs either in development or that have been deployed that support sociocultural understanding, and whether they will be sustained across the Future Years Defense Program. Elements of the 

report should also identify any capability gaps that exist based on 

the recent guidance shifting the Department’s focus to the Asia-Pacific region. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
232 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 2014 in 

division A of this Act. This section would limit the total amount 

transferred under this authority to $3.5 billion. This section would 

also require prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made. 

Section 1002—Budgetary Effects of This Act 

This section would specify that the budgetary effects of this Act 

for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–139) will be determined by reference to a statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chairman of 

the House Committee on the Budget. 

Section 1003—Audit of Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2018 

Financial Statements 

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the 

Department of Defense’s ongoing Financial Improvement and Audit 

Readiness process and support the goal of audit readiness across 

the Department by 2017. This section would also require that a full 

and complete audit takes place for fiscal year 2018. 

Section 1004—Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority 

to transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear weapons program of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration if the amount authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for that 

program is less than $8.4 billion (the amount specified for fiscal 

year 2014 in the report required by section 1251 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84)). 

SUBTITLE B—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1011—Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counterdrug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia 

This section would extend, by 1 year, the unified counter-drug 

and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia originally authorized by section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108– 

375), and most recently amended by section 1013 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
233 

Section 1012—Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism Activities 

This section would extend, by 1 year, the support for joint task 

forces to support law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities, as originally authorized by section 1022(b) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–136), and most recently amended by section 1014 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239). 

Section 1013—Two-Year Extension of Authority to Provide Additional Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign 

Governments 

This section would extend, by 2 years, the authority to provide 

support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments, 

originally authorized by subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 

105–85), and most recently amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81). 

Section 1014—Sense of Congress Regarding the National Guard 

Counter-narcotic Program 

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the 

importance of the National Guard Counter Narcotics Program as a 

tool in combating drug trafficking into the United States and the 

need for continued support and funding of such programs, especially along the Southwest border. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1021—Clarification of Sole Ownership Resulting from Ship 

Donations at No Cost to the Navy 

This section would clarify the current ship donation statute, section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to donate any vessel stricken from the Naval 

Vessel Register. 

Section 1022—Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation 

of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships 

This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds 

authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal 

year 2014 for the retirement, inactivation, or storage of a cruiser 

or dock landing ship. This section would provide an exception for 

the retirement of the U.S.S. Denver (LPD 9). 

This section would further provide for transfer authority for the 

purpose of providing sufficient appropriations to support the modernization of seven cruisers. If requested by the Secretary of Defense, the committee believes the following transfers should be included: OPN Line 0960, $662.7 million; OPN Line 2312, $1.8 million; OPN Line 2360, $6.6 million; OPN Line 2915, $13.7 million; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
234 

OPN Line 3050, $13.4 million; OPN Line 3216, $20.8 million; OPN 

Line 5530, $4.6 million; WPN Line 4223, $91.1 million; and RDTE 

Line 1447, $100.0 million. The total transfer authority is $914.7 

million. 

Section 1023—Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards 

This section would amend subsection (a) of section 7310 of title 

10, United States Code, to designate naval vessels that do not have 

a homeport to be treated as being homeported in the United States 

or Guam with regards to repair and maintenance of those vessels. 

Additionally, this section would define the term voyage repair. 

Section 1024—Sense of Congress Regarding a Balanced Future 

Naval Force 

This section would provide the Sense of Congress that additional 

funding should be prioritized toward shipbuilding efforts and that 

Department of Navy budget projections should realistically anticipate the true investment to meet force structure goals. 

Section 1025—Authority for Short-term Extension or Renewal of 

Leases for Vessels Supporting the Transit Protection System Escort Program 

This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to extend or 

renew the lease of not more than four blocking vessels supporting 

the Transit Protection System Escort Program. This section would 

also require the Secretary, prior to extending or renewing such a 

lease, to submit to the congressional defense committees a notification of the proposed extension or renewal, along with a detailed description of the term of the proposed contract and a justification for 

extending or renewing the lease, as opposed to obtaining the capability through purchase of such vessels. 

The committee notes that the requirement for the vessels appears to be an enduring requirement and is aware that the Secretary is conducting a business case analysis to determine the most 

cost-effective manner to obtain the capability provided by the vessels. The committee awaits the outcome of this analysis, and it encourages the Secretary to appropriately address funding for this requirement in the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget request. 

SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM

Section 1030—Clarification of Procedures for Use of Alternate 

Members on Military Commissions 

This section would clarify procedures for use of alternate members of military commissions. 

Section 1031—Modification of Regional Defense Combating 

Terrorism Fellowship Program Reporting Requirement 

This section would modify the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to require additional annual reporting 

requirements. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
235 

Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify 

Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred 

from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

any of the funds available to the Department of Defense during the 

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to modify or construct any facility in the 

United States, its territories, or possessions to house any detainee 

transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for 

the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under 

the effective control of the Department of Defense. 

Section 1033—Requirements for Certifications Relating to the 

Transfer of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

any of the funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

transfer or release, beginning on the date of the enactment of this 

Act and ending on December 31, 2014, individuals detained at U.S. 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within a foreign country or any other foreign entity. This prohibition would apply unless 

the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, provides a written certification to Congress addressing several requirements at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such 

individual. 

This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 

using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any other foreign 

entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred 

from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same 

country or entity who engaged in terrorist activity subsequent to 

their transfer. 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 

general prohibition against transfers to a foreign country where 

there has been a confirmed case of recidivism as well as two of the 

requirements for other transfers. In these instances, the Secretary 

of Defense must determine that alternative actions will be taken, 

that it is not possible to certify the risks have been completely 

eliminated, and that actions taken will substantially mitigate the 

risk of recidivism. 

This section would require, in the event the Secretary of Defense 

uses the waiver, that he provide a report that includes a copy of 

the waiver, determination, a statement of the basis for the determination, a summary of the alternative actions to be taken, and information on the detainee’s record of cooperation while in DOD custody and any agreements in place to provide for the detainee’s continuing cooperation after transfer. 

This section would also authorize the Secretary, for purposes of 

assessing the risk that a detainee will engage in terrorist activity 

if released for either a certification or national security waiver, to 

give favorable consideration to any detainee who has cooperated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
236 

with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities pursuant to 

a pre-trial agreement while in DOD custody, and for whom appropriate agreements and mechanisms are in place to provide for continued cooperation with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities following transfer. 

Section 1034—Prohibition on the Use Of Funds for the Transfer or 

Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized 

to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

of Defense to be used during the period beginning on the date of 

the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, to 

transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions. 

Section 1035—Unclassified Summary of Information Relating to 

Individuals Detained at Parwan, Afghanistan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to make publicly available an unclassified summary relating to individuals detained by the Department of Defense at the Detention Facility at 

Parwan, Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) at any time 

during the past 2 years who have been determined to represent an 

‘‘enduring security threat’’ to the United States. 

Section 1036—Assessment of Affiliates and Adherents of Al-Qaeda 

Outside the United States 

This section would require an assessment to be conducted by the 

President, acting through the Secretary of Defense, of: any group 

operating outside the United States that is an affiliate or adherent 

of, or otherwise related to, Al Qaeda; a summary of relevant information relating to each such group; an assessment of whether each 

group is part of or substantially supporting Al Qaeda or the 

Taliban, or constitutes an associated force that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; and the 

criteria used to determine the nature and extent of each group’s relationship to Al Qaeda. The assessment would be required to be 

submitted to the congressional defense committees within 120 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 1037—Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official for Facilitating the Transfer of Individuals Detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later 

than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to designate a senior Department of Defense official as the official with 

principal responsibility for coordination and management of the 

transfer of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Secretary of Defense would also set 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
237 

forth the responsibilities of that senior official with respect to such 

transfers. 

Section 1038—Rank of Chief Prosecutor and Chief Defense Counsel 

in Military Commissions Established to Try Individuals Detained 

at Guantanamo 

This section would require the chief defense counsel and chief 

prosecutor of any military commission established to try an alien 

unprivileged enemy belligerent who is detained at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to have the same rank. 

Section 1039—Report on Capability of Yemeni Government to Detain, Rehabilitate, and Prosecute Individuals Detained at Guantanamo who are Transferred to Yemen 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a report on the capability of the Republic of Yemen to detain, 

rehabilitate, and prosecute individuals transferred there from the 

Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. This section would require 

such a report to be submitted not later than 120 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 1040—Report on Attachment of Rights to Individuals 

Detained at Guantanamo if Transferred to the United States 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to jointly submit to the congressional defense 

committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, a report on whether detainees, if transferred to the United States from 

the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, would become eligible for 

certain immigration-related relief or additional constitutional 

rights. 

Section 1040A—Summary of Information Relating to Individuals 

Detained at Guantanamo who Became Leaders of Foreign Terrorist Groups 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to, not later 

than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, make publicly available a summary of information relating to individuals 

who were formerly detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have, since being transferred or released 

from such detention, become leaders or involved in the leadership 

structure of a foreign terrorist group. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
238 

SUBTITLE E—SENSITIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS

Section 1041—Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military 

Operations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to promptly 

submit to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of 

any sensitive military operation following such operation. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act for providing such notice in a manner consistent with the national security of the United States and the protection of operational integrity. 

The term ‘‘sensitive military operation’’ would include lethal and 

capture operations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces outside of 

the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military 

Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or any other authority except a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization for the use of force other than the 2001 authorization. 

This section is not intended to create or alter reporting requirements of any other agency or department outside of the Department of Defense. 

Section 1042—Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal 

Operations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act 

containing an explanation of the legal and policy considerations 

and approval processes used in determining whether an individual 

or group of individuals could be the target of a lethal operation or 

capture operation conducted by the Armed Forces of the United 

States outside the United States. 

Section 1043—Counterterrorism Operational Briefings 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

quarterly briefings to the congressional defense committees outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities. Each briefing would include: a global update on activity within each geographic combatant command; an overview of 

authorities and legal issues including limitations; an outline of 

interagency activities and initiatives; and any other matters the 

Secretary considers appropriate. 

SUBTITLE F—NUCLEAR FORCES

Section 1051—Prohibition on Elimination of the Nuclear Triad 

This section would prohibit any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 

2014 for the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended to reduce, convert, or decommission any strategic delivery 

system of the United States if such reduction, conversion, or decommissioning would eliminate a leg of the nuclear triad. This section defines ‘‘nuclear triad’’ to be composed of: (1) land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles; (2) submarine-launched ballistic misVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
239 

siles and their associated ballistic missile submarines; and (3) nuclear-certified strategic bombers. 

Section 1052—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction of 

Nuclear Forces 

This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to 

be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 

year 2014 for the Department of Defense or the National Nuclear 

Security Administration may be obligated or expended to carry out 

reductions to the nuclear forces of the United States required by 

the New START Treaty until the Secretary of Defense provides the 

plan required by section 1042(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) and the President 

certifies that any reductions to U.S. nuclear forces below the level 

required by the New START Treaty will be carried out only pursuant to a treaty or international agreement approved according to 

the Treaty Clause of the Constitution of the United States or an 

affirmative Act of Congress. This section would except those funds 

required to carry out inspections pursuant to the New START 

Treaty or reductions made to ensure the safety, security, reliability, 

and credibility of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems. 

Section 1053—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Reduction or 

Consolidation of Dual-Capable Aircraft Based in Europe 

This section would provide that funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available may not be used 

to reduce or consolidate United States Dual-Capable Aircraft in Europe until 90 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 

congressional defense committees that the Russian Federation has 

carried out similar actions; the Secretary has consulted with the 

member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

about the proposed action with respect to United States Dual Capable Aircraft; and, there is a consensus among NATO member states 

in support of such action. 

Section 1054—Statement of Policy on Implementation of Any 

Agreement for Further Arms Reduction Below the Levels of the 

New START Treaty; Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement 

of Strategic Delivery Systems 

This section would provide a Statement of Policy that reductions 

of United States nuclear forces that would rely on the verification 

regime of the New START Treaty can only be made pursuant to 

the treaty-making power of the President as set forth in the Treaty 

Clause of the Constitution of the United States or by Act of Congress. 

This section would also provide that reductions below 800 strategic delivery vehicles, as defined by the New START Treaty, may 

not be made unless the President certifies a treaty has entered into 

force or an international agreement made pursuant to an affirmative Act of Congress has entered into force and such agreement includes significant and proportional reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation; the President certifies the 

Russian Federation is in compliance with its nuclear arms control 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
240 

obligations to the United States; and, the President has ‘‘high confidence’’ in intelligence community judgments on the nuclear forces 

of the People’s Republic of China. 

Section 1055—Sense of Congress on Compliance with Nuclear 

Arms Control Agreements 

This section would state the sense of Congress that the President 

should consider not seeking to further limit or reduce the nuclear 

forces of the United States, including by negotiation, with a foreign 

country that remains in active noncompliance with existing nuclear 

arms control obligations, such as the Russian Federation. 

This section would also require the President, if he determines 

that a foreign country is not in compliance with its nuclear arms 

control obligations, to immediately consult with the Congress on 

the implications of such noncompliance; to submit to Congress a 

plan concerning the diplomatic strategy of the President to engage 

such foreign country to bring it into full compliance with such obligations; and, at the earliest date, to submit a report to Congress 

detailing whether adherence to such agreement remains in the national security interest of the United States and how the United 

States will redress the effect of such noncompliance. 

Section 1056—Retention of Capability to Redeploy Multiple 

Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the Air Force is capable of deploying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) to Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and any ground-based strategic deterrent follow-on to such missiles. This section would require the Secretary to ensure that the Air Force is capable of commencing such deployment not later than 270 days after the date on 

which the President determines such deployment is necessary. 

This section would also require the Nuclear Weapons Council to 

ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile contains a sufficient number of warheads that are capable of being deployed as 

MIRVs on Minuteman III and any ground-based strategic deterrent 

follow on to such missiles and that such deployment is capable of 

being commenced not later than 270 days after the date on which 

the President determines such deployment is necessary. 

The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that, ‘‘the 

United States will ‘deMIRV’ all deployed ICBMs, so that each Minuteman III ICBM has only one nuclear warhead.’’ The committee 

believes that the capability to ‘‘reMIRV’’ the Nation’s ICBMs must 

be retained to mitigate the risk of a widespread technical failure 

in another leg of the nuclear triad or changes in the geopolitical environment that requires a more robust U.S. nuclear force posture. 

The committee’s intent is to mandate retention of the capability 

to reMIRV ICBMs, but it does not intend to impose undue costs by 

an unreasonable timeframe for initiating ‘‘reMIRVing.’’ The committee is also aware that the commander, U.S. Strategic Command 

is assessing the requirements related to reMIRVing capabilities. 

The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to provide a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
241 

briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 

2013, on the current and expected future requirements, costs, and 

timelines for beginning to reMIRV the Nation’s ICBMs. 

Section 1057—Assessment of Nuclear Weapons Program of the 

People’s Republic of China 

This section would amend section 1045(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) 

to extend the date of the required assessment until August 15, 

2014. 

This section would also provide not more than 75 percent of the 

funds made available to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

travel may be obligated or expended until 30 days after the Secretary notifies the appropriate congressional committees that the 

assessment has begun. 

Section 1058—Cost Estimates for Nuclear Weapons 

This section would amend section 1043(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) 

to include in the annual report required by such section a detailed 

estimate of the personnel costs associated with sustaining and 

modernizing the nuclear deterrent and nuclear weapons stockpile 

of the United States. The report required by section 1043(a) of Public Law 112–81 would also be required to describe how and which 

locations were included with the cost estimate provided by the report. 

Section 1059—Report on New START Treaty 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations 

of the Senate on whether the New START Treaty is in the national 

security interests of the United States. 

SUBTITLE G—MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES AND LIMITATIONS

Section 1061—Enhancement of Capacity of the United States 

Government to Analyze Captured Records 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish a 

Conflict Records Research Center to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile, to the United States. 

The committee recognizes that there are significant records available to the U.S. Government that could be useful for academic and 

policy research once immediate, tactical exploitation and dissemination has occurred. The committee believes that research and 

analysis of such captured records would increase the understanding 

of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism, conventional and unconventional warfare and, ultimately, enhance national security. 

The committee notes that such a center currently exists, but additional statutory authorization would allow the Center to be fundVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
242 

ed collectively by the Department of Defense and the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence, and other departments and agencies, rather than rely on discrete partner funding for each activity. 

This would also allow the Center to receive funding from other 

agencies, states, or other foreign and domestic entities. 

The committee also understands that there exists procedures by 

which the intelligence community works with this Center to ensure 

that the intelligence value of specific documents is exhausted before releasing them to the academic community, as well as ensure 

the protection of classified information, sources and methods, and 

personally identifiable information. The committee expects the 

Center to ensure such procedures continue to be implemented in a 

manner to protect such information and encourages the Department to continue working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to refine and improve those procedures. 

Section 1062—Extension of Authority to Provide Military Transportation Services to Certain Other Agencies at the Department of 

Defense Reimbursement Rate 

This section would amend section 2642 of title 10, United States 

Code, to extend the authority to provide other Federal agencies 

transportation at the same rate the Department of Defense charges 

its own units for similar transportation. This section would also expand the authority to allow the use of the extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the military for transportation provided in support of foreign military sales. 

Section 1063—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Modification 

of Force Structure of the Army 

This section would prevent the Department of the Army from 

spending any fiscal year 2014 funds to modify the force structure 

or basing strategy of the Army until the Secretary of the Army submits to Congress the report on force structure required by section 

1066 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1943). 

Section 1064—Limitation on Use of Funds for Public-Private 

Cooperation Activities 

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from obligating or expending any funds for public-private cooperation (PPC) 

activities undertaken by a combatant command until the Secretary 

of Defense submits the report on the conclusions of the Defense 

Business Board as directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112– 

479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 

The committee is aware that the Defense Business Board completed its report on the Department’s public-private cooperation activities in July 2012. The Defense Business Board report found ‘‘the 

single most frequently cited issue preventing the advancement of 

PPCs is the absence (actual or perceived) of legal authority.’’ The 

committee is concerned about the lack of guidance for planning, 

supporting, or executing a PPC activity. The committee recognizes 

the value of PPC activities, particularly if they can effectively and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
243 

efficiently leverage the resources of civil society and private entities 

to maximize Department of Defense activities. However, the committee believes it is important that the Department work with Congress to provide supporting doctrine, clear policy, and the proper 

authorities for the successful planning and execution of PPC activities. 

SUBTITLE H—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Section 1071—Oversight of Combat Support Agencies 

This section would require that assessments of combat support 

agencies undertaken pursuant to section 193(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, be submitted to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 1072—Inclusion in Annual Report of Description of Interagency Coordination Relating to Humanitarian Demining Technology 

This section would modify current reporting requirements for humanitarian demining as defined within section 407(d) of title 10, 

United States Code, to include interagency, research and development activities. 

Section 1073—Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report on Assignment of Civilian Employees of the Department of 

Defense as Advisors to Foreign Ministries of Defense 

This section would modify section 1081 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), to extend the deadline for the required report of the Comptroller General of the United States from December 30, 2013, to December 30, 

2014. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense will 

not deploy its first global Ministry of Defense Advisor (MODA) 

until June 2013. Therefore, the committee believes additional time 

is needed for the Government Accountability Office to thoroughly 

review and report on the effectiveness of the MODA program. 

Section 1074—Repeal of Requirement for Comptroller General 

Assessment of Department of Defense Efficiencies 

This section would repeal section 1054 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), relating to the implementation of the efficiencies undertaken in 2010 by 

then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 

The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the United 

States recommended that Government Accountability Office resources might be better used to address other congressional priorities, as any future reports on 2011 and 2012 efficiencies implementation would provide little additive information to the data that has 

already been reported. Moreover, the committee believes that while 

there was merit in ensuring that the efficiencies identified in 2010 

were actually generating the savings projected, the effort has been 

overtaken by events, including the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(Public Law 112–25) and the implementation of sequestration 

starting in March 2013, which would make it difficult to ascertain 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
244 

whether savings were the result of the 2010 effort or some other 

cause. 

Section 1075—Matters for Inclusion in the Assessment of the 2013 

Quadrennial Defense Review 

This section would require the National Defense Panel (NDP) established pursuant to subsection 118(f) of title 10, United States 

Code, to review a recommendation of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel (QDRIP), which conducted an assessment 

of the 2009 quadrennial defense review. The members of the 

QDRIP found that there was insufficient top down guidance on priorities, roles, and missions to allow the Department of Defense to 

effectively plan its missions, structure, or resources, or to develop 

integration and coordination with other departments and agencies. 

Appendix 4 of the report of the QDRIP recommended the establishment of an independent strategic review panel to review the national security strategic environment of the next 20 years and provide prioritized goal and risk assessment guidance for use by the 

U.S. Government. The committee believes the concerns of the 

QDRIP are well founded, but seeks the advice of the current NDP 

regarding this recommendation, in light of the release of several 

strategic planning documents since the conclusion of the QDRIP. 

In addition, this section would require the NDP to incorporate 

the assumptions and the findings of the Strategic Choices and 

Management Review (SCMR), directed by the Secretary of Defense 

during calendar year 2013, into its assessment of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review conducted during calendar year 2013. Furthermore, this section would require the Secretary to make information 

about both the 2013 quadrennial defense review and the SCMR 

available to the NDP in the conduct of its assessment. 

Finally, although the committee commends the effort underway 

in the SCMR, elsewhere in this report, the committee notes that 

such an effort may be duplicative of reviews mandated within title 

10, United States Code. The committee encourages the Secretary to 

ensure that the SCMR, or any other self-initiated, short-term review, does not replace the thorough, long-term strategic assessment 

that should be conducted as part of the 2013 quadrennial defense 

review. Likewise, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense 

would benefit from the independent counsel of the NDP. However, 

the committee is disappointed that the Secretary has not appointed 

the remaining members of the NDP, as required, by February 1, 

2013, and encourages the Secretary to appoint the remaining members of the NDP. 

Section 1076—Review and Assessment of United States Special 

Operations Forces and United States Special Operations Command 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense of the United 

States to review and assess the organization, missions, and authorities related to U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Special 

Operations Command and to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
245 

Section 1077—Reports on Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, on behalf of the Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) Executive Committee, to jointly submit a report on 

unmanned aircraft system collaboration, demonstration, use cases 

and data sharing to the appropriate committees of Congress within 

90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the UAS 

Executive Committee, to submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress setting forth the resource requirements needed 

to meet the milestones for unmanned aircraft systems integration 

described in the 5-year roadmap under section 332(a)(5) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act (Public Law 112–95). 

Section 1078—Online Availability of Reports Submitted to 

Congress 

This section would amend section 122a of title 10, United States 

Code, to require certain unclassified reports be made available on 

a publicly accessible website of the Department of Defense. 

Section 1079—Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and 

Contingency Operation Plan Information to Congress 

This section would amend section 113(g) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than 120 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, and at the time of the budget 

submission by the President for each fiscal year thereafter, an annual report containing summaries of the guidance developed in accordance with the requirements of such section. Additionally, this 

section would provide a limitation on the obligation or expenditure 

of 25 percent of the funds, authorized to be appropriated by this 

Act for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, until 15 days after the date on which the 

Secretary of Defense submits the first report required by this section. 

SUBTITLE I—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1081—Technical and Clerical Amendments 

This section would make a number of technical and clerical 

amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law. 

Section 1082—Transportation of Supplies for the United States by 

Aircraft Operated by United States Air Carriers 

This section would modify section 2631a, chapter 157 of title 10, 

United States Code, to provide a preference for Civil Reserve Air 

Fleet aircraft for the transportation of Department of Defense supplies. This section would also require the Department of Defense to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees regarding 

outsize and oversize cargo. Finally, this section would amend chapVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
246 

ter 401 of title 49, United States Code, to direct at least 50 percent 

of the gross tonnage of the equipment, materials, or commodities 

that are procured, contracted or subcontracted for by the U.S. Government, be transported by the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. An exception to the 50 percent requirement is provided for the use of military services of the United States or to respond to a humanitarian 

disaster. Additionally, a temporary waiver to the gross tonnage requirement is provided for the President, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary 

of Defense, as appropriate, under certain conditions. 

Section 1083—Reduction in Costs to Report Critical Changes to 

Major Automated Information System Programs 

This section would give Department of Defense senior officials responsible for major automated information system programs the 

option of submitting to the congressional defense committees either 

a critical change report when required, or a streamlined notification when the official further concludes that the critical change occurred primarily due to congressional action, such as a reduction 

in program funding. 

Section 1084—Extension of Authority of Secretary of 

Transportation to Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance 

This section would amend section 44310 of title 49, United States 

Code, relating to the expiration of non-premium insurance under 

chapter 443 of that title to extend the authority of the Secretary 

of Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance. 

Section 1085—Revision of Compensation of Members of the 

National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 

This section would enable parity for compensation and ethics 

workday computations by decreasing and making optional the annual compensation rate for commissioners appointed to the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that was established in subtitle G of title III of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

Section 1086—Protection of Tier One Task Critical Assets from 

Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to certify to 

the congressional defense committees that defense critical assets 

designated as tier one task critical assets (TCAs) are protected 

from the adverse effects of electromagnetic pulses and high-powered microwave systems. For tier one TCAs not certified, the Department shall submit a plan on how to mitigate any risks to mission assurance, including any steps that may be needed for remediation. 

Section 1087—Strategy for Future Military Information Operations 

Capabilities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

and implement a strategy for developing and sustaining military 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
247 

information operations capabilities for future contingencies. This 

strategy would be delivered to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014. 

Section 1088—Compliance of Military Departments with Minimum 

Safe Staffing Standards 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that all military departments comply with Department of Defense 

Fire and Emergency Services Program policy requirements on safe 

staffing. 

Section 1089—Determination and Disclosure of Transportation 

Costs Incurred by Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips 

Outside the United States 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to disclose 

the transportation cost incurred by the Department of Defense for 

certain congressional travel. 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

National Research Council Report on Chemical Biological Defense 

Programs Capabilities 

The committee is aware that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Chemical Biological Defense (DASD (CBD)) requested 

a study from the National Research Council (NRC) of the National 

Academy of Sciences to identify the core capabilities in science and 

technology that the Chemical Biological Defense Program must 

sustain for the successful completion of Chemical Biological Defense Program’s mission. The committee notes that the NRC report 

contained multiple findings and recommendations for the DASD 

(CBD). The committee also notes recent efforts by the DASD (CBD) 

to implement programmatic changes to address these recommendations and is encouraged by the improvements being made to the 

program. The committee encourages the DASD (CBD) to continue 

these efforts, in particular in regards to finding ways to more effectively utilize academic and industrial facilities that focus on developing capabilities in basic science and technology research, including those facilities related to bioforensics and biosecurity. 

Wage Grade Pay Parity at Joint Installations 

The committee continues to be concerned about pay parity for 

Department of Defense employees at joint bases and is disappointed that it has not received the required follow up from the 

Office of Personnel Management regarding the actions being taken 

to address the Federal Prevailing Wage System area within the 

same General Schedule (GS) locality pay area, as directed in the 

committee report (H. Rpt. 112–78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Since October 2010, 

the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee has consistently 

recommended consolidation of the Federal Wage System area withVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
248 

in the same GS locality pay area; however, no further action has 

been taken. As previously noted, an example of pay disparity is 

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, where the former 

McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix are in the Philadelphia costof-living area, and the former Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering 

Station is in the New York cost-of-living area. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to brief the committee not later than January 31, 2014, on actions planned or previously undertaken to correct the disparities between GS and Federal Wage System employees employed at joint military installations. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1101—One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual 

Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for 

Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas 

This section would extend, for 1 year, the authority to waive the 

limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a 

Federal civilian employee who performs certain work in an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of U.S. Central 

Command, an overseas location that falls under the responsibility 

of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military operation, or in 

response to an emergency declared by the President. The payment 

may not exceed the annual rate of salary payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3, United States Code. 

Section 1102—One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority to 

Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone 

This section would authorize temporary discretionary authority 

to Federal agencies to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities 

comparable to those provided to members of the foreign service to 

an agency’s civilian employees on official duty in a combat zone. 

Section 1103—Extension of Voluntary Reduction-In-Force 

Authority for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense 

This section would amend 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States 

Code, to extend existing reduction in force authority from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2015. 

Section 1104—Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum 

Severance Payments to Department of Defense Employees 

This section would extend by 4 years the authority for the Secretary of Defense or a service secretary to allow eligible Department of Defense employees scheduled to be involuntarily separated 

from Federal service to request a lump sum severance payment in 

lieu of biweekly payments. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
249 

Section 1105—Revision to Amount of Financial Assistance under 

Department of Defense Science, Mathematics, and Research for 

Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program 

This section would remove the specific items for which financial 

assistance may be provided under the Science, Mathematics, and 

Research for Transformation (SMART) program. Such revisions 

would increase the flexibility that the Secretary of Defense would 

have in exercising discretion in administration of the SMART Program and will lessen the administrative burden in SMART Program operations. It would also allow the Secretary to make SMART 

Program stipend costs more consistent with other Federal scholarship-for-service educational programs. 

Section 1106—Extension of Program for Exchange of InformationTechnology Personnel 

This section would authorize the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) for the Department of Defense until 2023. 

The committee is aware that ITEP was established in order to 

allow employees from the private sector or academia to temporarily 

work for the Department of Defense, as well as Department of Defense employees to work in the private sector. The committee believes that this kind of technical exchange of ideas is helpful in fostering the sharing of industry, federal cultures, and technical expertise in ways that will help modernize the Department of Defense by exposing its employees to best practices from the constantly changing and evolving informational technology sector, especially in key areas like cloud computing, cyber security, information technology (IT) consolidation, network services, IT project and 

data management, and enterprise architecture. The committee also 

believes industry would benefit from learning how the Department 

of Defense operates and how it can better serve the Department’s 

needs. 

Section 1107—Defense Science Initiative for Personnel 

This section would establish new authorities for personnel hiring 

and management of Department of Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories. 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to conduct oversight of ongoing operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, and those steps the Department of Defense must take to be 

prepared for an increasingly uncertain global security environment. 

In particular, the committee focuses on three core areas in this title 

directly connected to current U.S. national security interests and 

emerging threats facing our country. First, the committee resources 

the mission to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while concurrently providing oversight of the 

transition in Afghanistan. Second, the committee strengthens its 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
250 

oversight of security force assistance and military-to-military interactions throughout the world, including authorizing resources to 

combat transnational terrorism. Third, the committee works to enhance its oversight, and the resourcing, of efforts to deal with 

emerging and evolving threats around the world, including Al 

Qaeda and associated forces, the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic 

Republic of Iran, the conflict in Syria, and military developments 

in the Asia-Pacific. 

The committee maintains its oversight of the campaign in Afghanistan, especially as the current mission concludes in 2014, as 

well as the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security 

Forces who are moving into the lead for security in Afghanistan. 

The committee continues to resource key authorities to support the 

gains made in Afghanistan. However, the committee believes that 

a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between the United States 

and the Government of Afghanistan remains a critical element of 

the ongoing transition in Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee includes a provision that would prohibit the use of a significant portion of the funds for Afghanistan development and reconstruction 

until the Secretary of Defense certifies that a BSA is signed and 

includes critical protections for U.S. service members and U.S. interests. The committee also recognizes the strategic value of the 

United States’ relationship with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as well as the challenges that accompany it, especially as the U.S. continues to rely upon Pakistan to target al 

Qaeda and associated forces operating within its borders and to 

transship supplies and equipment to and from Afghanistan. 

The committee also has taken several steps to resource key security assistance programs and activities which are critical to addressing other security challenges. The committee would expand 

the types of assistance that could be provided by the global train 

and equip authority originally provided by section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163). The committee will maintain close scrutiny of the use of 

this more flexible authority to ensure projects are executed consistent with congressional intent, other provisions of law, and policy. At the same time, the committee remains concerned about the 

progress of the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), originally authorized by section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). The committee believes that if the Department of Defense and the Department of State cannot successfully establish GSCF with full operational capability, including planning, executing, and assessing 

GSCF activities, then it may be necessary to terminate or allow 

this authority to expire. 

The committee continues to applaud the success of the United 

States military in its global pursuit of al Qaeda. However, the committee remains concerned that al Qaeda and its affiliated and associated forces, though diminished in capacity in Afghanistan since 

2001, would attack the United States if able and continue to 

threaten United States interests. Ungoverned spaces and the turmoil of the Arab Spring have enabled extremists to emerge in new 

countries within the greater Middle East, Africa, and throughout 

the world. Some of these groups have demonstrated the ability to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
251 

conduct lethal attacks—akin to that which occurred in Benghazi, 

Libya on September 11, 2012. Consequently, the committee believes that the Department of Defense must review its posture, 

alert status, and enabler support to deploy and respond to such attacks. 

The committee also supports the efforts of the Department of Defense to prepare and position itself in preparation for other threats. 

Iran continues to defy the international community and appears to 

be committed to developing nuclear weapons. The committee believes the development of such weapons would destabilize the region as well as threaten U.S. national security interests. Thus, the 

committee believes that it is critical that the United States military 

is appropriately postured, and agreements are in place, to defend 

the Arabian Gulf or take military action, if necessary. 

The committee continues its rigorous oversight of the conflict in 

the Syrian Arab Republic. The committee would express a sense of 

Congress that all courses of action should be fully considered to enforce the President’s stated red lines concerning the use of weapons 

of mass destruction. Likewise, the committee believes the Department of Defense needs to develop and refine various military options to respond to the conflict in Syria to inform the President’s 

decision making and to keep Congress informed of the risks of all 

courses of action or inaction. Finally, the committee would provide 

the Secretary of Defense the authority to train and equip military 

and civilian partners in the region of Syria for Weapons of Mass 

Destruction consequence management in Syria and the region. 

Finally, the committee has taken steps to ensure that the United 

States military is well positioned to address challenges in the AsiaPacific region. The committee continues to monitor the modernization of the military of the People’s Republic of China and their participation in regional, multinational exercises. The committee remains resolved that the rogue actions of the Government of the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are unacceptable and contrary to international peace and stability. In order to maintain a 

clear understanding of the potential military threat posed by North 

Korea, the committee would extend the reporting requirement regarding North Korea’s military capabilities through 2017. The committee also recommends other forms of partnership that could have 

a force-multiplying effect in the region, such as a Japanese and 

South Korean information sharing agreement, in addition to advocating for sufficient investments in modernization to respond to the 

challenges in the Asia-Pacific. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Assistance to Civilians in Locations where U.S. Combat Operations 

Occur 

The committee notes military commander support for providing 

recognition and assistance to civilians who suffer harm as a result 

of U.S. combat operations. This assistance can help address harm 

before it creates anger and resentment, and it can reduce local opposition to the presence or activities of U.S. military personnel. The 

committee encourages military commanders to utilize the authoriVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
252 

ties available to provide assistance, as appropriate, to civilians who 

suffer harm in a combat zone. These include: 

(1) The Foreign Claims Act (FCA), which authorizes the payment of claims in connection with non-combat activities of U.S. 

military forces outside the United States. The FCA does not 

authorize compensation for losses resulting directly or indirectly from combat activities; 

(2) Solatia payments under section 2242 of title 10, United 

States Code, which authorizes payments to a victim or a victim’s family to express sympathy for an injury or loss suffered 

when such payments are consistent with the local custom. 

These payments are not claim payments and are not based on 

any acceptance of legal liability by the United States. However, 

for these payments to be made, the relevant combatant commander must approve them for a particular theater; and 

(3) The Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP), 

which allows commanders in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to make ex gratia condolence or 

battle damage payments for harm caused by U.S. or coalition 

forces. Payments under CERP are provided as sympathy payments or to provide humanitarian relief to the victim or the 

victim’s family. The committee notes that CERP will not endure as a tool for our commanders in future conflicts, as it is 

theater specific. 

These authorities have contributed greatly to promoting goodwill 

with the local populace in combat zones. The committee encourages 

the Secretary of Defense to consider adopting a standing policy so 

that commanders know how and when to make amends for the 

harm they may cause as a result of their lawful combat operations 

rather than create new ad hoc programs in each new theater. This 

policy should be included in the planning for future operations and 

should include, as appropriate, guidance on the authorities for, and 

utilization of, assistance to foreign civilians that are harmed incident to U.S. combat operations overseas. 

Congressional Notifications Relating To Status of Forces 

Agreements 

The committee believes that it must have a comprehensive understanding of forthcoming and on-going Status of Forces Agreement negotiations that the United States is preparing to enter into, 

or has entered into, with other countries. Elsewhere in this Act, the 

committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary of 

Defense to notify the congressional defense committees not later 

than 15 days after the date on which a Status of Forces Agreement 

between the United States and a foreign nation is signed, renewed, 

amended or otherwise revised, or terminated. However, this requirement does not ensure that the committee has a comprehensive 

understanding of forthcoming and on-going Status of Forces Agreement negotiations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not 

later than September 30, 2013, to provide a briefing on the status 

of any Status of Forces Agreements that: (1) expire, which the 

United States intends to renew in the next calendar year; (2) the 

United States intends to enter into in the next calendar year; or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
253 

(3) contain amendments that the Secretary of Defense deems as 

substantial that are likely to be negotiated in the next calendar 

year. 

The briefing should also include the status of on-going Status of 

Force Agreement negotiations. 

Governance in Afghanistan and the Afghan Presidential Elections 

The committee believes that credible governance and leadership 

that is perceived as legitimate by the Afghan people continues to 

be, and will remain, a critical condition for enduring, long-term stability of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the region. Therefore, the United States must help the Afghans achieve a democratic, transparent, and legitimate election for their next president 

in 2014, as such an election will be essential for Afghans to believe 

in the future of Afghanistan. Moreover, a credible election process 

and a legitimate election outcome will contribute to stability in the 

region, which is fundamental to the United States’ enduring interests. 

Importance of International Security Assistance Force Retrograde 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Role of U.S. 

European Command 

The committee believes the International Security Assistance 

Force (ISAF) retrograde from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

is important to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

and its partners. The committee recognizes U.S. European Command’s (USEUCOM) support role in coordinating with other U.S. 

combatant commands, military services, NATO allies, and NATO 

partners for the successful recovery of an estimated $28.0 billion in 

U.S. equipment and materiel, and billions more in allied and partner materiel, from the sustained operations in Afghanistan. Several 

important northern routes, which compliment the southern route 

through the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in U.S. Central Command’s area, are within USEUCOM’s area of operations. The committee recognizes the Northern Distribution Network provides multiple options to move tens of thousands of containers and vehicles 

and extends opportunities to work with key allies and partners in 

NATO. USEUCOM’s assistance to, and collaboration with, these 

NATO allies and partners in recovering their assets while they, in 

turn, provide strategic access in their nations to conduct critical 

intermodal transportation access to move U.S. materiel home, provides a unique opportunity to enhance logistical interoperability 

and capabilities across the alliance. 

Missile Defense Discussions between the United States and the 

Russian Federation 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the Department of State have provided several briefings on U.S. Government discussions with the Russian Federation regarding missile 

defense. The committee commends both agencies for keeping it informed of the many developments in the U.S.-Russia dialogue on 

missile defense. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
254 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense 

committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 

by June 30, 2013, copies of all information, including presentations 

and documents, on U.S. missile defenses provided to the Russian 

Federation by the United States since January 1, 2007. This information should not be limited to ‘‘publicly releasable’’ information, 

as has been suggested by the Department of Defense. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to brief the aforementioned 

committees, every 6 months beginning June 30, 2013, and extending for 5 years, on discussions about missile defense between the 

United States and Russia; these briefings should include copies of 

any documents or presentations provided to Russia by the United 

States. 

Missile Defense Programs of the Russian Federation and the 

People’s Republic of China 

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on 

April 18, 2013, the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency stated 

that, ‘‘China is also developing a tiered ballistic missile defense system and has successfully tested the upper-tier capability on two occasions.’’ The committee is also aware that the Russian Federation 

announced late last year that it was reactivating a missile defense 

system around Moscow as part of its defense modernization program and that this defense system could include nuclear armed 

anti-missile defense warhead. Press reports indicate that Russia 

plans to test this system in 2013, and that Russia is pursuing the 

development of other missile defense systems, including the S–500 

system. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of National Intelligence, to assess the capability, intent, and drivers of the missile defense development and 

deployment activity by Russia and China. The assessment should 

address the following: 

(1) Whether these missile defense deployments are intended 

to be used against U.S. nuclear and conventional capabilities 

and, if so, the attrition capable against U.S. nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities and the implications for U.S. deterrence 

and extended deterrence; 

(2) A statement of the deterrence objectives of the United 

States against Russia and China; and 

(3) The impact of U.S. missile defense plans on Russian and 

Chinese nuclear weapons acquisition plans, force posture, and 

policy; this information should be based on specific intelligence. 

The committee further directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

and the congressional intelligence committees on the findings of the 

assessment by November 30, 2013. The report should be in unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
255 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commitment to International 

Security Assistance Force Mission 

The committee recognizes the important contribution of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and partners to 

the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. NATO assumed command of the 

International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan beginning 

in 2003. ISAF is NATO’s first-ever operational deployment outside 

Europe. The committee applauds all 28 NATO member nations 

that have provided troops to ISAF, and believes the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan is a key provider of training and equipment to the Afghan National Security Forces. The committee also 

recognizes NATO allies and partners’ commitment to Afghanistan 

after 2014. The committee believes that the ISAF mission has provided important lessons learned for the alliance’s capabilities and 

capacity to conduct extended military operations. However, the 

committee remains concerned about the ongoing fiscal constraints 

to the military budgets of NATO allies. The committee encourages 

NATO allies to retain necessary military capabilities and capacity 

to conduct key missions and operations so that the combat and 

interoperability gains and lessons learned from ISAF are not lost 

once the combat mission ends. 

Semi-Annual Reporting on Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon 

Deployments 

The committee is aware that the Russian Federation is investing 

considerable resources to develop a new generation of long-range, 

sea-launched, land-attack cruise missiles capable of deploying nuclear or conventional warheads. Press reports indicate certain systems have ranges of as much as 2,500 kilometers. Press reports 

further indicate these systems may have already been deployed on 

attack and ballistic missile submarines of the Russian Federation. 

The committee is concerned that such cruise missiles may pose a 

threat to the United States, but are not limited under any arms 

control treaty. The committee believes there is little practical difference between so-called ‘‘strategic’’ and ‘‘non-strategic’’ nuclear 

weapons if used against the United States or its allies, yet one 

class is limited by treaty and the other class is completely unregulated. 

The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency 

to provide unclassified semi-annual reports, with a classified annex 

if necessary, detailing the status of the development and deployment by the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and associated 

delivery systems not subject to strategic arms control treaties. Such 

reports shall include status of deployment, numbers of deployed 

systems, expected employment doctrine, and status of training in 

the employment of such systems by the military forces of the Russian Federation. The committee directs the first such report to be 

provided not later than September 15, 2013, and not later than 

every 90 days thereafter until September 2016. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
256 

Report and Briefings on Declassification of Certain Missile Defense 

Information 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of State, to make available to the congressional 

defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate, a summary of the deliberations of the National Disclosure 

Policy Committee related to the release of classified, Official Use 

Only, or For Official Use Only information on U.S. missile defenses 

to the Russian Federation since at least January 1, 2007, by not 

later than November 30, 2013. Such summary should include, at a 

minimum, the reason for the proposed release, the outcome of the 

deliberation of the National Disclosure Policy Committee, and a 

risk assessment of the potential use or misuse of the information, 

including whether the information could be transferred to another 

party, if the National Disclosure Policy Committee determined to 

release information to Russia on U.S. missile defenses. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, or a designee, to provide the aforementioned congressional committees with regular briefings, beginning November 30, 2013, and every 6 months thereafter until November 20, 2018, if there are additional disclosures, on additional 

releases and associated deliberations of the National Disclosure 

Policy Committee. 

Report on Operation Observant Compass 

The committee continues to support Operation Observant Compass, the U.S. Africa Command mission to provide advisory support 

to the Ugandan People’s Defense Force’s efforts to counter the Lord 

Resistance Army (LRA) and kill or apprehend Joseph Kony. However, the committee is concerned that this mission is open-ended in 

nature and that precise metrics have not been established to: (1) 

measure progress; and (2) determine if or when the mission has 

evolved toward a point of diminishing returns for the resources applied. This issue is particularly pressing since the requirements for 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets remain 

high in other regions of the Continent of Africa, particularly in 

North and East Africa, due to Al Qaeda-affiliated and oriented terrorist groups. Yet, the requirements for ISR in these other locations are competing with the ‘‘Counter-LRA’’ campaign. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 

30, 2013, that outlines, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) The specific goals of the ‘‘Counter-LRA’’ campaign; 

(2) The precise metrics used to measure progress in the campaign; and 

(3) The required steps that will be taken to transition the 

‘‘Counter-LRA’’ campaign if it is determined that it is no longer 

necessary for the United States to support the current mission. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
257 

Report on Terms and Agreements for Retrograde of U.S. Equipment and Supplies Through the Northern Distribution Network 

and Pakistan 

As the United States executes its retrograde of equipment and 

supplies out of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in preparation 

for the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission on 

December 31, 2014, and the United States’ post-2014 residual military presence to conduct counterterrorism and security assistance 

operations, the committee lacks a detailed understanding of the 

terms, conditions, or caveats on the movement of U.S. equipment 

and supplies through the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) 

and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 2, 2013, that includes 

the following: 

(1) A description of the terms and agreements, including any 

conditions or caveats, between the United States and the Government of Pakistan relating to the use of the Ground Lines 

of Communication (GLOC) through Pakistan in support of U.S. 

forces in the Afghanistan or for the retrograde of U.S. equipment out of Afghanistan; and 

(2) A description of the terms and agreements, including any 

conditions or caveats, between the United States and those 

countries associated with the NDN, for support of U.S. forces 

in Afghanistan or for the retrograde of U.S. equipment and 

supplies from Afghanistan through the NDN. 

Report on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan Post-2014 

The long-term U.S. strategy and approach to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remains critical to U.S. national security goals 

and interests. Afghanistan possesses a distinctive geographic and 

ethno-linguistic landscape that has unique importance and resonance to both the jihadist, whose narrative and ideology are bolstered by Afghanistan’s history, but also the regional actors, whose 

national interests have driven them toward maintaining their influence within Afghanistan. The U.S. strategy and long-term commitment to Afghanistan is critical to setting the dynamics and the 

assumptions of the regional actors and the terrorist threats in the 

region. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a report to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 

Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and 

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, by January 15, 2014, on 

the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan following the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission on December 31, 2014. Specifically, the report should include, but is not limited to, a discussion 

of: 

(1) The core U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the region; 

(2) The U.S. goals post-2014 and how the United States will 

achieve these goals; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
258 

(3) The assumptions underpinning the strategy in Afghanistan and the length of the broader U.S. commitment to Afghanistan; 

(4) The military mission sets that are required to support the 

strategy; 

(5) The specific efforts, which are currently being conducted 

by the International Security and Assistance Force, that will 

be handed over to other U.S. Federal agencies or the Government of Afghanistan; and 

(6) The long-term plan for sustainment of the infrastructure 

and equipment for the Afghan National Security Forces. 

Report on U.S. Support to Advising Mission in Afghanistan 

In June 2011, the President announced that the U.S. mission in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan would be moving from combat 

to support by December 31, 2014. A central element of the transfer 

of lead security responsibility to Afghanistan is the development of 

the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). To that end, the Department of Defense has used a variety of approaches to advise and 

assist the ANSF, such as the use of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine 

Corps Security Force Assistance Advisor Teams and, more recently, 

the U.S. Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigades. The future of 

these efforts depends on the post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan. 

In February 2013, the President announced that U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan would be reduced by half to 34,000 U.S. troops 

by February 2014, with additional reductions to follow. At the same 

time, the President announced that beyond 2014, the U.S. commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the 

nature of the commitment will focus on training and equipping Afghan forces as well as continued counterterrorism efforts. The committee understands that the specific nature of troop reductions and 

the mission of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will continue to be refined, but is concerned about the impact that these reductions may 

have on the Department’s ability to support the remaining forces 

engaged in the advising mission. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives by January 10, 2014, that reviews the Department of Defense’s efforts to support the advising mission through 

December 2014, including: 

(1) To what extent the Department has identified the composition and missions of U.S. forces as it makes its troop reductions over the next year; 

(2) To what extent the Department has identified the support and security requirements for the remaining forces that 

will be engaged in the advising mission as force reductions 

occur; 

(3) What challenges, if any, the Department faces in providing support and security for the advising mission, and what 

steps has it taken to mitigate any challenges; and 

(4) To what extent the Department has defined the intended 

missions and related requirements for conducting the post2014 training mission. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
259 

Resource Requirements For and Posture of Fleet Anti-Terrorism 

Security Teams and Commanders’ In-Extremis Forces 

Stemming from the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, and the subsequent congressional oversight into 

the event, the committee is concerned that U.S. crisis response elements such as the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams (FAST) 

and the Commanders’ In-Extremis Force (CIF) may not be sufficiently postured, fully capable, or adequately resourced to respond 

to future crises in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and 

U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) areas of responsibility. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives by September 2, 2013, that outlines the following: 

(1) The operational requirements for FAST and CIF in the 

USCENTCOM and USAFRICOM areas of responsibility; 

(2) The assumptions underpinning such requirements; 

(3) The intelligence threat picture and the risk assessment(s) 

that drive the planning for such requirements; 

(4) The gap(s), if any, between such requirements and current resourcing; and 

(5) The required posture of the enabling capabilities to support FAST and CIF within the USCENTCOM and 

USAFRICOM areas of responsibility. 

Resource Requirements to Support U.S. Policy Objectives in Syria 

The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic continues to grow more 

lethal over time. The regime of President Bashar al-Assad is utilizing conventional and unconventional weapons, including chemical weapons, to defeat the opposition fighting against the regime. 

Events in Syria threaten the vital national security interests of the 

United States; however, the committee remains concerned that it 

does not have a comprehensive understanding of the resources required for certain courses of action that could shape the outcome 

of the conflict in Syria. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by September 1, 2013, that includes an assessment 

of the resources required for the following courses of actions: 

(1) Conducting limited air strikes against runways and other 

infrastructure that would prevent the regime of President 

Bashar al-Assad from deploying fixed wing aircraft or resupply 

via the air; 

(2) Establishing a no-fly zone over western Syria, enforced 

from the sea, that would prevent fixed or rotary wing aircraft 

from deploying or resupply via the air in that area; 

(3) Creating safe zones sufficient to allow the Syrian opposition to change the military balance on the ground; 

(4) Arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy military equipment to change the military balance on the ground; and 

(5) Providing additional aid to Jordan and other regional allies to assist in securing all or some of the Syrian chemical 

weapons stockpile should it be required. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
260 

Additionally, the assessment should identify where U.S. capabilities likely would be required for each of these courses of action and 

the effects that such courses of action would have in supporting a 

range of U.S. policy objectives in Syria and the region. 

RIMPAC 2014 Oversight 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercises, one of the world’s largest international 

maritime warfare exercises. The committee is aware that the People’s Republic of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) 

has accepted an invitation by the United States to participate in 

the 2014 RIMPAC Exercise. 

Because of the unique nature of the exercise and the diverse 

group of participants, the committee deems it important to better 

comprehend PLAN participation in RIMPAC 2014. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the congressional defense committees, no less than 30 days after the date of 

the enactment of the Act to the Committee on the Armed Services 

of the House, on the intended scope of PLAN participation in 

RIMPAC 2014 and the compliance of PLAN participation in 

RIPMAC 2014 with the 12 operational areas that were prohibited 

for mil-to-mil contact between the Department of Defense and PLA 

consistent with section 1201(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). 

Security Assistance and the Leahy Law 

The committee supports the intent of the Limitation on Assistance to Security Forces as set forth in section 2378d of title 22, 

United States Code, and section 8058 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74) collectively and commonly 

known as the ‘‘Leahy Law.’’ The committee notes that the Leahy 

Law, through its prohibition on security assistance to foreign forces 

that have been implicated in gross violations of human rights, promotes respect for human rights abroad. Further, the committee believes that the law can assist in professionalizing foreign military 

and security forces by linking the resumption of security assistance 

to action to correct human rights abuses. 

The committee notes that the Department of State conducts the 

human rights vetting process on behalf of the Department of Defense. In keeping with these laws, current policies require the vetting of unit commanders and their units when full-unit training is 

requested, and the vetting of individual security force members and 

their respective units when individual training is requested. 

While the committee supports the intent of the law and the coordination processes between the Department of Defense and the 

Department of State, the committee is concerned about the implementation of the law. Two recent committee hearings have highlighted a potential divergence between the intent of the law and its 

application to certain Department of Defense security assistance 

activities planned with full Chief of Mission concurrence. At those 

hearings, geographic combatant commanders testified before the 

committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 

Threats and Capabilities that the law, ‘‘is at times stopping us perVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
261 

haps more broadly than was the congressional intent,’’ and that the 

law, ‘‘has restricted us in a number of countries across the globe 

in our ability to train units that we think need to be trained, that 

the U.S. Ambassador in many cases thinks needs to be trained, 

that those nations think need to be trained, and yet because of 

some of the restrictions of the Leahy amendment, we are prohibited from doing that.’’ 

The committee additionally notes a difference in language between section 2378d of title 22, United States Code, and section 

8058 of Public Law 112–74 that may create a potential for misinterpretation. While section 2378d of title 22 notes that a prohibition shall remain in effect until ‘‘the Government of such country 

is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice,’’ the concomitant section 8058 of Public 

Law 112–74 makes no funds available, ‘‘unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken.’’ The committee believes that amended 

and clarifying language may be required to address any potential 

divergence between the intent of the law and its application. 

The committee expects to remain engaged on this issue and to 

work with the Departments of Defense and State, the relevant congressional defense committees, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate to ensure that Department of Defense 

needs and requirements are fully addressed, while continually complying with the intent of the Leahy Law. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, on the implementation of the Leahy Law 

with respect to Department of Defense security assistance programs. The briefing should outline current implementation policies, 

limitations and recommendations for improvements. 

Support for Military Information Sharing Agreement Between the 

Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and Related 

Initiatives 

The committee continues to monitor the rebalancing to the AsiaPacific region, as outlined in the defense strategic guidance released in January 2012. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112– 

479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee noted the importance of the Asia-Pacific region and the importance of the military having sufficient capability and capacity to effectively operate in the region. The committee seeks to ensure that investment and operation and maintenance accounts are adequately funded to conduct the rebalance, 

while meeting operational demands elsewhere around the globe. In 

addition, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

support initiatives that could increase cooperation and capabilities 

among allies. In particular, the committee notes that a military information sharing agreement has been a topic of negotiation between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Korea. The committee commends this effort, and recognizes 

that improved coordination and communication among allies could 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
262 

conserve U.S. resources in responding to various theater security 

events and improve response outcomes. 

U.S. Extended Deterrence in Asia 

The committee notes the importance of on-going dialogues and 

assurances of a reliable and credible extended deterrent for U.S. allies in Asia, in the context of the nuclear weapons program and developing missile threat from the Democratic People’s Republic of 

Korea and other security threats. The committee is aware of ongoing dialogues regarding extended deterrence between the United 

States and Japan and the United States and the Republic of Korea. 

The committee is also aware of goals to create a unified trilateral 

extended deterrence dialogue between the United States, Japan, 

and South Korea, and the committee supports this goal and encourages the Nation’s allies to take steps to make its creation a reality. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Chairman, 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, to brief the congressional defense committees, 

the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives by October 1, 2013, on bilateral and multilateral dialogues with U.S. allies 

in Asia, including Japan and South Korea, to maintain credible and 

reliable extended deterrence assurances. The briefing should include transmission to the aforementioned committees of the terms 

of reference agreed to between the United States and South Korea 

in its discussions concerning the counter-provocation plan and tailored extended deterrence through the Extended Deterrence Policy 

Committee, as well as a detailed discussion of the United States 

and South Korea agreements and disagreements through that entity. The briefing should also provide an update on U.S. efforts to 

create the trilateral extended deterrence dialogue between the 

United States, Japan, and South Korea. 

U.S. Military Engagement with Burma 

The committee encourages advancement of democracy and respect for human rights in Southeast Asia, including the development of democratic institutions within the Union of Burma. The 

committee believes that the United States can play a constructive 

role in supporting democratic progress in Burma, even as the 

United States continues to verify and monitor the extent of recent 

reforms. As the President noted following the first visit by a president of Burma to the United States in 50 years, ‘‘his is a long journey and there is still much work to be done.’’ 

As cornerstones of further reform, the committee supports efforts 

to enhance military professionalism, accountability, civilian control, 

and transparency in Burma, to improve governmental responsiveness to the people of Burma, and to reduce the risk of human 

rights violations. The committee intends to closely oversee any proposals regarding military-to-military engagements between the 

United States and Burma. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to thoroughly evaluate the potential for developing military-to-military relations between the United States and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
263 

Burma and to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 

September 30, 2013, on the findings and recommendations. 

U.S. Policy and Interagency Strategy in Iraq 

The committee remains concerned that the United States has not 

established a comprehensive policy that preserves U.S. interests in 

the Republic of Iraq. Moreover, the ambiguity and disjointedness 

associated with the U.S. policy and approach in Iraq has been evident through the bureaucratic infighting and the often disparate 

activities being conducted by the Office of Security CooperationIraq (OSC–I) and the U.S. Embassy. The implications of the United 

States’ ambiguous policy and approach is that the Government of 

Iraq has hedged its interests and future towards regional actors at 

the expense of U.S. interests. 

The committee believes that the U.S. interagency should devise 

and implement a comprehensive policy and strategy in Iraq. Given 

the investment that the United States has made in Iraq and the 

importance of Iraq within an increasingly unstable region, it is imperative that the interagency conducts a fulsome policy analysis 

and applies the required resources to ensuring that Iraq sufficiently contemplates U.S. interests in Iraq and the region. 

Moreover, the Department of Defense must work in concert with 

the Department of State to both normalize OSC–I within the U.S. 

Embassy in Iraq and to devise a long-term, sustainable structure 

and approach for OSC–I that supports the U.S. Embassy efforts 

and broader U.S. policy. 

U.S. Strategic Partnership with Pakistan 

The committee continues to be concerned about the direction of 

the United States’ strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic 

of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan continues to allow the 

Haqqani Network to operate in Pakistan and attack U.S. troops in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda continues to enjoy 

sanctuary in, and operate from, the territory of Pakistan. Moreover, 

the Government of Pakistan has not allowed U.S. trainers to work 

with Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, which has led the committee, in 

consultation with the Department of Defense, to not renew the 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund in this Act. The committee does 

acknowledge that the Government of Pakistan has reversed its antagonistic course in some areas, including re-opening the Ground 

Lines of Communication, and has constructively worked with the 

International Security and Assistance Force on critical cross-border 

issues. However, more must be done in order for the committee to 

be confident that the Government of Pakistan is willing to engage 

in a comprehensive strategic partnership with the United States. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense, in conjunction 

with the Department of State, to continue to take prudent steps in 

fostering a constructive strategic relationship with the Government 

of Pakistan. Additionally, the committee cautions that it will remain skeptical of furthering pre-existing programs, and creating 

new programs, to engage with the military of the Government of 

Pakistan until there are meaningful steps by the Government of 

Pakistan to fully support U.S. goals and interests in the region. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
264 

U.S. Security Sector Assistance 

The committee commends the new Presidential Policy Directive 

(PPD) on Security Sector Assistance as a positive step to establish 

an overarching strategy and implementation plan for U.S. Government security sector assistance (SSA). SSA is necessary to help 

partner nations build a sustainable capacity to address common defense and security threats. Furthermore, the committee believes 

that this interagency collaboration is an important step in recognizing that many national security functions reside across a broad 

spectrum of U.S. Government activity. The committee recommends 

that the interagency, in executing the effort outlined in the PPD, 

prioritize security sector assistance and also review current authorities to identify potential ineffective, duplicative, and/or overlapping authorities. Additionally, the committee recognizes the essential role stability and good governance play in regional security 

development and therefore expects that an annual review of the 

impact of this assistance on human rights standards, rule of law, 

and good governance for each recipient country will be included as 

part of the implementation plan for this PPD. While the committee 

recognizes the implementation plan is still in development, the 

committee urges the executive branch to keep the appropriate congressional committees informed on the progress of the implementation plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs by October 1, 2013, on the status of 

the implementation plan. 

Use of Missile Defense Declassification Authority by Director, 

Missile Defense Agency 

The committee is aware that, pursuant to the Ballistic Missile 

Defense System Security Classification Guide, the Director, Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) is given the authority by the Secretary of 

Defense to exercise Original Classification Authority and Foreign 

Disclosure Authority to establish security classification policy and 

guidance over MDA funded technology, development, and acquisition programs. This authority is delegated to the Director because 

of his expertise of MDA technology and the risks of its disclosure. 

The committee continues to be concerned about the potential 

risks of disclosure of sensitive missile defense technologies to foreign parties. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile 

Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, 

and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives by August 16, 2013, that lists each example of a request for 

an exception made by the Director, or submitted to the Director, for 

use of the Foreign Disclosure Authority related to the Russian Federation covering the period between January 1, 2007 through April 

1, 2013. The report should include a brief summary of each example, including the Russian entity receiving the information and the 

specific information or MDA technology involved. 

The committee directs the Director to provide an interim briefing 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
265 

of Representatives by July 15, 2013, regarding the expected scale 

of this report. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Section 1201—Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating 

to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces 

This section would modify subsection 1206(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), 

as most recently amended by section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417), regarding the program to build the capacity of foreign military forces. This section would broaden the authority to include support of the theater security priorities of a geographic combatant commander. The committee expects that the additional activities under this new authority will be directly tied to a combatant command’s Theater Security Cooperation Plan and should be 

narrowly defined to key theater security priorities that are directly 

linked to U.S. national security interests. The committee will closely consider the strength of this linkage during the congressional notification process. 

This section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense, with 

the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to build the capacity of 

a foreign country’s security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations. The committee recognizes that in certain countries, the 

counterterrorism unit is not located with the Ministry of Defense. 

However, the committee expects this authority to be used sparingly 

when it is clear that these forces are the most suitable for the task. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit as part of the budget justification materials, beginning with the 

fiscal year 2016 budget submission, a detailed description of how 

the Department of Defense intends to spend not less than 50 percent of the funds authorized for that fiscal year. This description 

may take the form of the current congressional notification for individual projects. The committee believes that this would provide improved congressional oversight and public notice of the combatant 

command proposed programs, insight into how the programs support the combatant commanders’ theater security plans, and balance both predictability for the combatant commands and flexibility 

for the Secretary of Defense to respond to emerging requirements. 

This section would raise the limit of funds available from operation and maintenance accounts from $350.0 million per fiscal year 

to $425.0 million per fiscal year, and extend the termination of the 

program from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2016. 

The committee believes the expansion of this authority meets the 

current and emerging needs of the combatant commanders. As 

stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 

committee remains ‘‘concerned that the proliferation of similar, 

overlapping and/or competing building partner capacity authorities 

creates unnecessary confusion and friction.’’ Therefore, this section 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
266 

would also repeal section 1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

Section 1202—Three-Year Extension of Authorization for NonConventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities 

This section would authorize the Department of Defense a 3-year 

extension to continue to develop, manage, and execute a Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery personnel recovery program for isolated Department of Defense, U.S. Government, and other designated personnel supporting U.S. national interests globally. This 

section would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds through 

fiscal year 2017. 

Section 1203—Global Security Contingency Fund 

This section would modify the notification requirements of the 

Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), including the required 

process and guidance notification. 

The committee is aware of a legislative proposal submitted by 

the Department of Defense requesting that ‘‘professional guidance 

and advice’’ be added as an authorized type of assistance. The committee believes that ‘‘professional guidance and advice’’ are logical 

supporting components of the provision of equipment, supplies, and 

training, and therefore covered under current authorized types of 

assistance. 

The committee remains concerned about the progress of the 

GSCF, including the development of what appears to be a burdensome bureaucratic process. The committee notes the GSCF authority expires on September 30, 2015. The committee believes that if 

the Department of Defense and the Department of State cannot 

successfully establish GSCF with full operational capability, including planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may 

be necessary to terminate or allow this authority to expire. 

Section 1204—Codification of National Guard State Partnership 

Program 

This section would codify the National Guard State Partnership 

Program in chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code. 

Section 1205—Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Certain Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria and the Region 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance to the 

military and civilian response organizations of the Hashemite 

Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Kuwait, the Kingdom of Bahrain, 

the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Iraq, the Republic of 

Turkey, and other countries in the region of the Syrian Arab Republic in order for such countries to respond effectively to incidents 

involving weapons of mass destruction in Syria and the region. The 

Secretary may use up to $4.0 million of the funds made available 

to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance to 

carry out this program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
267 

This section would also require, not later than 60 days after the 

date on which this authority is first exercised and annually thereafter through December 31, 2015, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit: 

(1) A detailed description by country of assistance provided. 

(2) An overview of how such assistance fits into, and is coordinated with, other United States efforts to build the capability and capacity of countries in the region of Syria to counter 

the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Syria and the region. 

(3) A listing of equipment and supplies provided to countries 

in the region of Syria. 

(4) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State determine appropriate. 

The authority provided by this section would expire on September 30, 2015. 

Section 1206—One-Year Extension of Authority to Support Foreign 

Forces Participating in Operations to Disarm the Lord’s Resistance Army 

This section would modify section 1206 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) to extend the Counter Lord’s Resistance Army authority and funding, 

which supports Operation Observant Compass, for 1 year through 

the end of fiscal year 2014. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would require the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a report on metrics and objectives associated 

with Operation Observant Compass, and recommends $50.0 million 

in intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) support for 

the operation. In addition, the committee includes a provision in 

title XV of this Act that would limit the obligation or expenditure 

of amounts authorized to be appropriated for the ISR support for 

Operation Observant Compass until the committee receives the 

specified report. 

SUBTITLE B—MATTERS RELATING TO IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND

PAKISTAN

Section 1211—One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority 

for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations 

This section would amend section 1233 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

most recently amended by section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition nations for 

support provided to the United States for military operations 

through fiscal year 2014, and making certain technical amendments. This section would limit the amounts available for fiscal 

year 2014 to $1.5 billion. 

Additionally, this section would prohibit the reimbursement of 

support provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan until such time as the Secretary of Defense certifies to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
268 

the congressional defense committees that Pakistan is maintaining 

security and is not, through its actions or inaction at any level of 

government, limiting or otherwise restricting the movement of U.S. 

equipment and supplies along the Ground Lines of Communication 

through Pakistan, and that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps 

to (1) support counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, 

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and other militant groups such as the 

Haqqani Network and the Quetta Shura Taliban; (2) disrupt the 

conduct of cross-border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan 

security forces; (3) counter the threat of improvised explosive device 

networks; and (4) conduct cross-border coordination and communication with Afghan security forces and U.S. Armed Forces. 

Section 1212—One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Funds for 

Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan 

This section would amend section 1216 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383), as most recently amended by section 1218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239), by extending the authority to use funds for reintegration 

activities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and authorizing 

$25.0 million for fiscal year 2014. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 

none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this section can 

be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the 

congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the 

United States and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a 

bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. 

Section 1213—Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response 

Program in Afghanistan 

This section would amend section 1201 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), as 

amended by section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by extending for 1 year 

the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and authorizing $60.0 million for fiscal year 2014. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 

would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of $45.0 million of 

CERP funding until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional 

defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and 

the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States 

and the Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified 

requirements. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
269 

Section 1214—Extension of Authority to Support Operations and 

Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq 

This section would amend section 1215 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), as 

amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by specifying that the 

Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of State, 

may use funds provided to the Office of Security Cooperation in 

Iraq (OSC–I) to conduct non-operational training of Iraqi Ministry 

of Defense personnel in an institutional environment to address capability gaps and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security forces. This section would preclude training of Counter Terrorism Service personnel. This section would also limit the total 

funding authorized for operations and activities for OSC–I to 

$209.0 million in fiscal year 2014. 

Section 1215—One-Year Extension and Modification of Authority 

for Program to Develop and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in 

Afghanistan 

This section would amend subsection (f) of section 1217 of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(Public Law 111–383), as most recently amended by section 1219 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239), by extending the authority for a program to 

develop and carry out infrastructure projects in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for 1 year and authorizing $279.0 million for fiscal year 2014. This section also includes an additional element 

which would require an assessment of the capability of the Afghan 

National Security Forces to provide security for projects funded by 

this authority after January 1, 2015. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 

would none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this section can be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary 

of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies to 

the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

that the United States and the Government of Afghanistan have 

signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. 

Section 1216—Special Immigrant Visas for Certain Iraqi and 

Afghan Allies 

This section would amend section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies 

Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) by requiring that a 

principal alien seeking special immigrant status must apply for approval from the appropriate Chief of Mission, or the designee of the 

appropriate Chief of Mission, by not later than September 30, 2015. 

Also, the total number of principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant status under this section may not exceed 435 for 

each of fiscal years 2014–18. 

Additionally, this section would amend section 1244(a)(1) of the 

Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (8 U.S.C. 1157 note) by authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, or, notwithstanding any 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
270 

other provision of law, the Secretary of State, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide an alien described 

in section 1244(b) with the status of a special immigrant under section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(27)), if the alien or an agent acting on behalf of the alien 

submits a petition for classification under section 203(b)(4) of such 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)) on or before the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

Section 1217—Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense 

Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 100 Percent 

of All Taxes Assessed By Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are 

Not Reimbursed By Afghanistan 

This section would require that an amount equivalent to 100 percent of the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 2013 by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on all Department 

of Defense assistance must be withheld by the Secretary of Defense 

for such assistance for fiscal year 2014 to the extent that the Secretary of Defense certifies and reports in writing to the Committee 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

that such taxes have not been reimbursed by the Government of 

Afghanistan to the Department of Defense or the grantee, contractor, or subcontractor that are affected. The Secretary of Defense 

would be able to waive this requirement if the Secretary determines that such waiver is necessary to achieve U.S. goals in Afghanistan. Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the total taxes 

assessed during fiscal year 2013 by the Government of Afghanistan 

on all Department of Defense assistance. 

SUBTITLE C—MATTERS RELATING TO AFGHANISTAN POST 2014 

Section 1221—Modification of Report on Progress Toward Security 

and Stability in Afghanistan 

This section would amend the report required by section 1230 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as most recently amended by section 1214 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239), to require the Secretary of Defense, in all future reports, to provide information on the redeployment of U.S. personnel, redeployment of U.S. military vehicles and equipment, and 

the closure of U.S. bases in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Additionally, this section would require a summary of tasks and 

functions conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces or the Department 

of Defense that have been transferred to other U.S. Government 

departments and agencies, Afghan Government ministries and 

agencies, other foreign governments, or nongovernmental organizations; or tasks that have been discontinued during the reporting period. The summary shall include a discussion of the formal and informal arrangements and working groups that have been estabVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
271 

lished to coordinate and execute the transfer of such tasks and 

functions. 

Section 1222—Sense of Congress on United States Military 

Support in Afghanistan 

This section would express the sense of Congress on U.S. military support in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including that 

a stable and secure Afghanistan is in the long-term interests of the 

United States; the United States should continue to assist the Afghan National Security Forces; the United States should continue 

to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda following the duration 

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s mission on December 

31, 2014; the United States should provide assistance for the operational requirements of the Afghan Security Forces to maintain the 

security of Afghanistan; the transition to counterterrorism and advise and assist missions should occur consistent with agreements 

between the United States, Afghanistan, and international partners; and the bilateral security agreement between the United 

States and the Government of Afghanistan is critical to the longterm stability of Afghanistan as well as U.S. interests. Additionally, this section would express the sense of Congress that the 

President, consistent with U.S. interests, should: 

(1) Publicly support a residual U.S. military presence in Afghanistan; 

(2) Publicly define the mission sets and support the United 

States will provide to the Afghan National Security Forces; and 

(3) Publicly support sufficient funding for the Afghan National Security Forces. 

Section 1223—Defense Intelligence Plan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees a Department of Defense plan regarding covered defense intelligence assets in relation to the drawdown of U.S. 

forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This section would 

require the plan to include: 

(1) A description of the covered defense intelligence assets; 

(2) A description of any such assets to remain in Afghanistan 

after December 31, 2014; 

(3) A description of any such assets that will be, or have 

been, reallocated to other locations outside of the United 

States; 

(4) The defense intelligence priorities that will be, or have 

been, addressed with the reallocation of such assets; 

(5) The necessary logistics, operations, and maintenance 

plans to operate in the locations where such assets, including 

personnel, basing, and any host country agreements, will be, or 

have been, reallocated; and 

(6) A description of any such assets that will be, or have 

been, returned to the United States. 

Further discussion is contained in the classified annex accompanying this report. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
272 

Section 1224—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain 

Authorities for Afghanistan 

This section would require that none of the funds authorized to 

be appropriated for the Authority for the Program to Develop and 

Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan and the Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan be obligated or expended until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense, 

in coordination with the Secretary of State, transmits to the specified committees a certification regarding the Bilateral Security 

Agreement (BSA) between the United States and the Government 

of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Additionally, this section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of $45.0 million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for 

the Commander’s Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 

and $2.6 billion of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, respectively, until 15 days after 

the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 

State, transmits to the specified committees the certification regarding the BSA between the United States and Afghanistan. 

This section would require that such certification include a confirmation that the United States and Afghanistan have signed a 

BSA that: 

(1) Protects the Department of Defense, its military and civilian personnel, and contractors from liability to pay any tax, 

or similar charge, associated with efforts to carry out missions 

in the territory of Afghanistan that have been agreed to by 

both the Government of the United States and the Government 

of Afghanistan; 

(2) Ensures exclusive jurisdiction for the United States over 

U.S. Armed Forces located in Afghanistan; 

(3) Ensures that there is no infringement on the right of selfdefense of the U.S. military mission or U.S. military personnel 

in Afghanistan; 

(4) Ensures that the U.S. military in Afghanistan is permitted to take the efforts deemed necessary to protect other 

U.S. Government offices and personnel in Afghanistan as may 

be required; 

(5) Ensures that the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan 

has sufficient access to bases and basing rights as may be necessary to carry out the activities in Afghanistan that the President has assigned to the military; and 

(6) Ensures that the United States has the freedom of movement to carry out those military missions as may be required 

to continue the effort to defeat Al Qaeda and its associated 

forces. 

The committee reiterates its concerns about illegal taxation of 

U.S. assistance in Afghanistan, as reflected in the committee report 

(H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and notes that U.S. law forbids the 

taxing of U.S. Government assistance. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
273 

SUBTITLE D—MATTERS RELATING TO IRAN

Section 1231—Report on United States Military Partnership with 

Gulf Cooperation Council Countries 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees, within 90 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the United States 

military partnership with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. 

Section 1232—Additional Elements in Annual Report on Military 

Power of Iran 

This section would amend section 1245 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), as 

amended by section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide information on the global Iranian 

Threat Network and how the Iranian Threat Network reinforces 

the grand strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Additionally, 

this section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a list 

of gaps in intelligence and to prioritize those gaps by operational 

need. 

Section 1233—Sense of Congress on the Defense of the Arabian 

Gulf 

This section would express the sense of Congress with respect to 

the United States’ operational posture and capacity to defend the 

Arabian Gulf, including the risk of maintaining only 1 aircraft carrier battle group in the Arabian Gulf to deter the Government of 

the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the limitations on maintaining a 

2 aircraft carrier battle group presence in the Arabian Gulf, stemming in part from not constructing and sustaining a fleet of at 

least 11 aircraft carriers. Additionally, this section would express 

the sense of Congress that the United States should finalize bilateral security agreements with key Gulf Cooperation Council countries that support the Defense of the Arabian Gulf requirements at 

the earliest possible date. 

SUBTITLE E—REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS

Section 1241—Report on Posture and Readiness of United States 

Armed Forces to Respond to Future Terrorist Attacks in Africa 

and the Middle East 

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the 

terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 

2012, and the alert status, readiness, and posture of the U.S. 

Armed Forces to respond to future terrorist attacks in Africa and 

the Middle East. 

This section also would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Relations, that asVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
274 

sesses the terrorist groups that threaten the United States in Africa and a description of the readiness, posture, and alert status of 

relevant U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, 

and the United States; and any changes implemented since the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Additionally, this section would 

require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary 

of State, to include in this report a description of any new or modified requirements of the Department of State for U.S. Marine Security Guard Detachments, any other Department of Defense assets 

to provide enhanced security at Department of State facilities, and 

an explanation of how any new requirements for U.S. Marine Security Detachments or other Department of Defense assets affect the 

capacity of the U.S. Armed Forces to fulfill Department of Defense 

operational requirements. 

Section 1242—Role of the Government of Egypt to United States 

National Security 

This section would express the sense of Congress on the role of 

the Government of Egypt to U.S. national security. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State, to submit a report, not later than 180 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, that contains a comprehensive plan 

for U.S. military assistance and cooperation with the Government 

of Egypt. 

Section 1243—Sense of Congress on Military Developments on the 

Korean Peninsula 

This section would express certain findings and the sense of the 

Congress regarding the military developments on the Korean peninsula. 

Section 1244—Sense of Congress on Defense Cooperation with 

Georgia 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the United 

States should enhance its defense cooperation efforts with the 

country of Georgia and support the efforts of the Government of 

Georgia to provide for the defense of its government, people, and 

sovereign territory. 

Section 1245—Limitation on Establishment of Regional Special 

Operations Forces Coordination Centers 

This section would limit the expenditure of funds for the establishment of ‘‘Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers’’ or similar regional entities. This section would also require a 

joint report by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State 

to be submitted to the congressional defense committees and the 

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
275 

Section 1246—Additional Reports on Military and Security 

Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

This section would amend the report on Military and Security 

Developments Involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 

as originally required by section 1236 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), to require the Secretary of Defense to submit the report every 2 years 

beginning on November 1, 2013, through November 1, 2017. The 

section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an 

update to the report if, in the Secretary of Defense’s estimation, interim events or developments occurring during the 2-year period 

between reports require an update. 

Section 1247—Amendments to Annual Report Under Arms Control 

and Disarmament Act 

This section would amend the Arms Control and Disarmament 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2593a) to add as recipients of the annual report on 

Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, 

and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, also known as 

the ‘‘Compliance Report’’, the following congressional committees: 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, the congressional intelligence committees, and the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

This section would also add a requirement that if the annual report is not provided by the statutory deadline of April 15, the Administration shall provide a briefing on the draft report to the appropriate committees not later than May 15 of each year. 

Section 1248—Limitation On Funds to Provide the Russian 

Federation with Access to Certain Missile Defense Technology 

This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized for fiscal 

years 2014 through 2018 for the Department of Defense to provide 

the Russian Federation with access to hit-to-kill missile defense 

technology of the United States or its telemetry data. 

The committee is aware that in a December 13, 2011 letter, Assistant to the President Rob Nabors wrote that, ‘‘hit-to-kill technology and interceptor telemetry will under no circumstances be 

provided to Russia.’’ Further Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Brad Roberts testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

during its March 6, 2012, hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National 

Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense that, 

‘‘hit-to-kill is our technology, and it serves our interests well to 

keep it in our hands.’’ 

Section 1249—Reports On Actions to Reduce Support of Ballistic 

Missile Programs of China, Syria, Iran, and North Korea 

This section would require the President to encourage the Russian Federation to disclose past support by it or Russian entities 

for the ballistic missile programs of certain states. This section 

would also require the President to submit a semi-annual report to 

the congressional defense committees on any disclosure by the Government of the Russian Federation. This section would require an 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
276 

initial report to cover disclosures made for the period preceding the 

date of enactment by 10 years. 

This section would also require the development of a plan by the 

Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, 

to seek and secure the cooperation of the Russian Federation and 

the People’s Republic of China to verifiably reduce the spread of 

technology and expertise that supports the ballistic missile programs of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, 

and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 

Section 1250—Congressional Notifications Relating to Status of 

Forces Agreements 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to notify the congressional defense 

committees, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not later than 15 days 

after the date on which a Status of Forces Agreement between the 

United States and a foreign nation is signed, renewed, amended or 

otherwise revised, or terminated. This section would apply to such 

agreements that are signed on or after the date of the enactment 

of this Act. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense, not later than September 30, 2013, to provide a briefing 

on the status of any forthcoming or on-going Status of Forces 

Agreement negotiations. 

Section 1251—Sense of Congress on the Conflict in Syria 

This section would set forth certain findings and express the 

sense of Congress on the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, including that President Obama should have a comprehensive policy 

and should ensure robust contingency planning to secure United 

States’ interests in Syria; the President of the United States should 

fully consider all courses of action to remove President Bashar alAssad from power; the conflict in Syria threatens the vital national 

security interests of Israel, which should be sufficiently weighed by 

the President when considering policy approaches towards the conflict in Syria; the President of the United States should fully consider all courses of action to reinforce his stated ‘‘redline’’ regarding 

the use of chemical weapons; the United States should continue to 

conduct rigorous planning and operational preparation to secure 

the chemical stockpiles and associated weapons in Syria; the 

United States should continue to support the opposition as necessary; and the United States should have a policy that supports 

the stability of countries in the region of Syria. 

Section 1252—Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO 

Support Organizations and Related NATO Agreements 

This section would revise two statutes to reflect the new North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization organizational structure, which became effective in July 2012. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
277 

Section 1253—Limitation on Funds to Implement Executive 

Agreements Relating to United States Missile Defense Capabilities 

This section includes a Statement of Policy that executive agreements related to U.S. missile defense capabilities have no legally 

binding effect if not made pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the 

Constitution of the United States or an affirmative Act of Congress. 

This section would also limit funds authorized to be appropriated 

in fiscal year 2014 or any fiscal year thereafter to implement an 

executive agreement with respect to U.S. missile defense capabilities or to implement Guidance for Employment of Force relating to 

such agreements. This section includes a statutory Rule of Construction that the limitation does not apply to executive agreements made with a U.S. ally or a state with which the U.S. maintains a security guarantee. 

Section 1254—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Threat Reduction Engagement Activities and United States Contributions 

to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization 

This section would provide that none of the funds made available 

for fiscal year 2014 for Threat Reduction Engagement activities 

may be obligated or expended until the President certifies to Congress that no state party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban 

Treaty (CTBT) has undertaken nuclear weapons test activities in 

fiscal year 2013 that are inconsistent with United States interpretations regarding obligations under such Treaty. 

This section would also provide that none of the funds made 

available for fiscal year 2014 for contributions to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization may be used for lobbying or advocacy in the United States relating to the CTBT. 

Section 1255—Sense of Congress on Military-to-Military 

Cooperation Between the United States and Burma 

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the 

Union of Burma. 

Section 1256—Sense of Congress on the Stationing of United States 

Forces in Europe 

This section would express certain findings and the sense of the 

Congress regarding the stationing of United States Forces in Europe. 

Section 1257—Sense of Congress on Military Capabilities of the 

People’s Republic of China 

This section would express certain findings and the sense of the 

Congress regarding the military developments of the People’s Republic of China. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
278 

Section 1258—Rule of Construction 

This section would set forth that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against the Syrian Arab Republic. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $528.5 million for fiscal year 2014, representing an increase of $9.3 million from the 

amount requested and authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 

2013. Following the initial submission of the budget request, the 

Department of Defense proposed to alter the allocation of funding 

within the CTR program, requesting that the following amounts be 

authorized to be appropriated for the CTR program: $5.7 million 

for Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination, $13.0 million for Chemical Weapons Destruction, $32.8 million for Global Nuclear Security, $293.1 million for Cooperative Biological Engagement, $149.3 

million for Proliferation Prevention, $6.4 million for Threat Reduction Engagement, and $28.2 million for Other Assessments/Administrative support. 

The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR program and believes that the program is important to United States 

national security. In past years, the committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, as well 

as programmatic and funding constraints, has sometimes limited 

progress of the CTR program. The committee notes, however, that 

the CTR program has made significant achievements, and that 

much work remains to be done as new threats emerge. 

Congress has addressed these concerns by: repealing limitations 

on the use of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the 

former Soviet Union; increasing CTR funding; including funding for 

new CTR initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of 

Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new 

CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the Secretary of 

Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at Schuch’ye; requiring 

increased reporting from the Secretary of Defense on CTR defense 

and military contacts; providing CTR programs with authority for 

urgent threat reduction activities; authorizing the CTR program to 

accept international contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological 

weapons and weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. 

The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) now encompasses two-thirds of the CTR 

budget request. The committee reaffirms its view, stated in the 

committee report (H. Rept. 111–491) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and reaffirmed in 

the committee report (H. Rept. 112–78) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, that biological 

threat reduction and engagement ‘should be guided by a comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
279 

prehensive long-term interagency engagement and coordination; 

rigorous Department management and oversight; coordination and 

integration with other Department programs and activities; and 

concrete metrics for measuring progress.’ The committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a whole should ‘maintain 

a strong focus’ on the full range of threat reduction challenges. 

Lastly, the committee continues to believe that concrete metrics remain important for measuring the impact and effectiveness of 

CBEP activities. The committee welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to actively consult with the committee and keep 

the committee fully informed of efforts and developments in these 

areas. 

The committee authorizes $528.5 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Focus 

The committee recognizes that one of the Department of Defense’s primary missions is to counter weapons of mass destruction 

(WMD). The committee believes the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR) program has been one of the Department’s most effective activities in strengthening non-proliferation regimes and building 

partner capacity to counter WMD and increase U.S. and international security. However, the committee recognizes the threat of 

WMD has shifted since the CTR program was initially established 

more than 20 years ago with the purpose of securing and dismantling WMD and the supporting infrastructure in the former Soviet 

Union states. The committee believes the CTR program must be 

flexible and adaptable to the evolving nature, location, and threat 

of WMD. The changing security situation in the Middle East and 

North Africa requires the Department to shift its resources and attention to the WMD threat in these regions, including building 

partner capacity with regional allies and partners to prevent the 

spread of WMD to terrorist regimes and organizations. The committee believes that in an era of fiscal austerity resources must be 

directed toward the most significant threats in order to maximize 

the Department’s ability to counter the proliferation of WMD. 

Cooperative Biological Engagement Program 

The committee notes the growth of the Cooperative Biological 

Engagement Program (CBEP) of the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR) program’s fiscal year 2014 President’s budget request. The 

committee finds that the CBEP budget has grown as a percentage 

of the CTR budget from 40 percent in fiscal year 2011 to more than 

60 percent of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee 

is concerned about the infrastructure projects the CBEP is funding, 

with approximately $180.0 million of the requested budget projected to be spent on laboratory construction and renovation in the 

former Soviet Union republics. The committee is aware of the program’s plan to phase out funding for these infrastructure projects 

in the next few years as these projects are completed. The committee will continue to exercise its oversight of these projects to enVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
280 

sure the CBEP is properly positioned to meet the evolving biological threats, both in the region and around the world. While the 

committee is supportive of the CBEP’s mission to build the capabilities and capacities of key partners to rapidly detect, investigate, 

report, and secure dangerous biological pathogens, the committee is 

concerned about the CBEP’s current activities in building and renovating laboratories. The committee believes the current fiscal environment requires the Department of Defense to focus on more efficient and effective means of building partnership capacities to 

counter biological weapons of mass destruction. 

U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement Negotiations 

The committee is aware the current U.S.-Russia Umbrella Agreement expires in June 2013, and that there are ongoing negotiations 

for a new agreement to continue the bilateral work with the Russian Federation to secure and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The committee recognizes the significant progress made in securing nuclear weapons since the establishment of the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Program more than 20 years ago. The committee 

also believes a new agreement should reflect the progress made, including consideration of an equal partnership and burden-sharing 

arrangement, and opportunities for further cooperation to strengthen security. However, the committee believes privileges and immunities, and liability protections, must be required components of 

any new agreement. The committee encourages the Department of 

State and the Department of Defense to continue to inform the appropriate congressional committees of the progress of negotiations. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Programs and Funds 

This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and specify 

that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation for 3 fiscal 

years. 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations 

This section would allocate specific amounts for each program 

under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR) program from within the overall $528.5 million that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. The allocation under 

this section reflects the amount of the budget request for fiscal year 

2014. This section would also require notifications to Congress 15 

days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 

year 2014 funds for purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition, this section would provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a program element under the CTR program in 

excess of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
281 

Section 1303—Extension for Use of Contributions to the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 

This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to accept contributions from any person, including any foreign government or 

entity, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, through December 30, 2018. 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Working Capital Fund Cash Balance Concerns 

The committee remains concerned about the failure of the Department of Defense to address the levels of cash necessary within 

working capital funds to maintain both solvency and an adequate 

reserve. Further, the committee notes that the Department has 

been unable to hold rates at a single level throughout a fiscal year 

without reprogramming funds. While the lower level of the working 

capital fund cash corpus (7 days) might be sufficient to satisfy fiscal liability concerns, the artificially constrained size of the cash 

corpus (from 7 to 10 days) cannot absorb the market fluctuations 

associated with commodities related to fuel and transportation. As 

such, managers of the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) and 

the Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) continue to 

struggle to maintain a steady rate throughout a single fiscal year. 

Since 2005, the standard composite fuel price charged to Department customers has changed at least once every year during the 

year of execution, with up to five price changes in 2009. These continuously changing prices destabilize budget execution throughout 

the Department, most notably within the operation and maintenance accounts. The working capital funds were created and designed to absorb market fluctuations and maintain stability in appropriated accounts, but the committee observes that has not been 

the case. 

Therefore, for working capital funds subject to significant market 

fluctuations, namely the DWCF and the TWCF, the committee recommends expanding the cash corpus metric required from 7–10 

days to 7–20 days. This new metric should be the basis for the development of the fiscal year 2015 budget request for these working 

capital funds. The committee believes that this adjustment, along 

with revised budget practices related to fuel rate determination addressed elsewhere in this report, should improve the Department’s 

ability to stabilize working capital fund rates during the year of 

execution. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
282 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY PROGRAMS

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize appropriations for Defense Working 

Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 

of this Act. 

Section 1402—National Defense Sealift Fund 

This section would authorize appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the level identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

Section 1403—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 

Defense 

This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1404—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 

Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize appropriations for Drug Interdiction 

and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the level identified 

in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1405—Defense Inspector General 

This section would authorize appropriations for the Office of the 

Inspector General at the level identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

Section 1406—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense 

Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Section 1411—Use of National Defense Stockpile for the 

Conservation of a Strategic and Critical Materials Supply 

This section would modify certain provisions of the President’s 

authority to maintain and manage a national defense stockpile to 

allow the Defense Logistics Agency to more proactively engage in 

the market. These changes would grant the President the authority 

to conserve strategic and critical materials. 

Section 1412—Authority to Acquire Additional Materials for the 

National Defense Stockpile 

This section would provide authority to acquire certain additional 

strategic and critical materials for the National Defense Stockpile. 

The materials anticipated to be acquired have been identified to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
283 

meet the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the 

United States. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1421—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department 

of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint Department 

of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 1422—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces 

Retirement Home 

This section would authorize $67.8 million to be appropriated for 

the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal 

year 2014. 

Section 1423—Cemeterial Expenses 

This section would authorize $45.8 million to be appropriated for 

the Army for cemeterial expenses for Arlington National Cemetery, 

Virginia. 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) requires the budget submission to Congress for each fiscal year to include: 

(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; 

(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in that 

fiscal year for operations; and 

(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to be 

available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas contingency operations principally associated with Operation Enduring 

Freedom. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund 

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
284 

equipment. Elsewhere in this Act, the budget request contained 

$4.2 billion for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment. 

The specific amount of resources, including equipment, needed to 

adequately sustain the National Guard and Reserve Component’s 

operational reserve status remains a concern because of the fiscal 

environment, especially given the dual mission responsibility of the 

National Guard and Reserve Components, particularly the National Guard. The committee recognizes the National Guard and 

Reserve Components continue to report significant equipment 

shortages in modernized equipment, specifically in rotorcraft and 

tactical wheeled vehicles. Over the past 8 years, annual National 

Guard and Reserve Component equipment procurement averaged 

$7.0 billion. The committee is concerned that modernization funding across the Future Years Defense Program is only expected to 

average $3.8 billion annually, a significant reduction from prior 

year requests. The committee also notes that National Guard and 

Reserve Component equipment modernization is not funded to 100 

percent of what the National Guard and Reserve Components believe their requirements to be and that they are expected to have 

unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2014. 

The committee believes additional funds would help eliminate 

identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-use equipment. The 

committee expects these funds to be used for the purposes of, but 

not limited to, the procurement of: aircraft, missiles, wheeled and 

tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, 

small arms, tactical radios, non-system training devices, logistics 

automation systems, remote weapon stations, chemical/biological 

protective shelters, internal and external fuel tanks for CH–47 and 

AH–64 rotorcraft, F–15 F100 engines, special mission propellers for 

C–130 aircraft, and other critical dual-use procurement items for 

the National Guard and Reserve Components. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make every effort to identify 

the most critical National Guard and Reserve Component modernization programs and expedite funding for those programs. The committee recommends $400.0 million for National Guard 

and Reserve Component equipment within the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends $4.2 billion, full funding of the request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support for U.S. 

Special Operations Forces and Partner Nation Forces 

The committee is aware of a $163.0 million operational requirement to provide additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities in support of U.S. and partner nation Special Operations Forces (SOF) within U.S. Central Command, U.S. 

Africa Command, and U.S. Southern Command. The requirement 

calls for the deployment of Buckeye Arrow Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and distributed command nodes to assist with mission 

support, mission planning, and terrain mapping, and to more effectively enable U.S. and partner nation special operations elements 

with collection management and ISR training. Buckeye UAV systems have successfully deployed to the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan, and U.S. Africa Command. These systems 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
285 

have provided more than 400,000 square kilometers of unclassified 

high-resolution and high-accuracy color imagery and elevation data 

in support of U.S. Special Operations Forces and partner nation 

forces. Given the importance of the U.S. government’s partnership 

strategies, the committee believes that this validated ISR requirement for U.S. and partner nation SOF should be rapidly addressed 

by U.S. Army Geospatial Center and other supporting commands 

out of funds made available to Army, Operation and Maintenance, 

Overseas Contingency Operations funding. Therefore the committee encourages the immediate and full resourcing of this $163.0 

million operational ISR requirement to enable U.S. Special Operations Forces and partner nation forces. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

Section 1501—Purpose 

This section would establish this title and make authorization of 

appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts otherwise authorized in 

this Act, to provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency 

operations. 

Section 1502—Procurement 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of division D of 

this Act. 

Section 1503—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in 

section 4202 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1504—Operation and Maintenance 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in section 

4302 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1505—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D 

of this Act. 

Section 1506—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
286 

Section 1507—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 

Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for Drug 

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the level 

identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1508—Defense Inspector General 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for the 

Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 

Section 1509—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for the 

Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of 

division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1521—Treatment as Additional Authorizations 

This section would state that amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Section 1522—Special Transfer Authority 

This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of 

additional war-related funding authorizations in this title among 

the accounts in this title. 

SUBTITLE C—LIMITATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS

Section 1531—Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

This section would amend section 1513 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

amended by subsection 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), as 

most recently amended by section 1531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), by extending the existing limitations on the availability of funds for the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) through fiscal year 2014. 

This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to revise 

the plan required by section 1531(e) of Public Law 112–239 to ensure that an office or official of the Department of Defense is identified as responsible for each program or activity supported by 

ASFF, using funds available to the Department of Defense. Additionally, this section would require that of the funds available to 

the Department of Defense for ASFF for fiscal year 2014, at least 

$47.3 million shall be used for the recruitment and retention of 

women in the Afghanistan National Security Forces within planned 

ASFF programs and activities. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would require that of the 

funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan Security 

Forces Fund, $2.61 billion may not be obligated or expended until 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
287 

15 days after the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Senate 

Committee on Foreign Relations that the United States and the 

Government of Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security agreement and that such agreement includes certain specified requirements. 

Section 1532—Future Role of Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

plan for the future role of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and to provide this plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 1533—Limitation on Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Support for Operation Observant Compass 

This section would require that none of the amounts authorized 

to be appropriated for operation and maintenance by section 1504, 

as specified in the funding table in section 4302 of this Act, may 

be obligated or expended for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support for Operation Observant Compass until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees 

a report, required elsewhere in this Act, on Operation Observant 

Compass, including the specific goals of the campaign to counter 

the Lord’s Resistance Army, the precise metrics used to measure 

progress in such campaign, and the required steps that will be 

taken to transition such campaign if it is determined that it is no 

longer necessary for the United States to support the mission of 

such campaign. 

Section 1534—Report on United States Force Levels and Costs of 

Military Operations in Afghanistan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report, not later than January 15, 2014, to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on: 

(1) The estimated United States force levels in Afghanistan 

for each of the years 2015 through 2020. 

(2) The estimated costs of United States military operations 

in Afghanistan for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2020. 

TITLE XVI—INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Apportionment of Small Business Funds under Continuing 

Resolutions 

The committee is concerned that the majority of Department of 

Defense programs receiving Small Business Innovative Research 

(SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funding are 

yet to receive fiscal year 2013 funding. The committee understands 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
288 

that the delay may be due to a continuing budget resolution (CR), 

even though it is now more than half-way through the fiscal year. 

Under such a CR, Federal agencies remain responsible for assessing the SBIR and STTR set-asides, and executing program support 

for small business technology innovation. The committee believes 

that SBIR/STTR awardees should not be deprived of funds legitimately competed and vitally needed for business stability, especially during this period of extreme economic uncertainty. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that future SBIR/STTR funding 

availability may also be delayed, causing significant hardships for 

these small businesses. The committee also believes that it is imperative that Department of Defense comptrollers move expeditiously to calculate the SBIR/STTR assessments and make those 

funds available to military service and agency SBIR/STTR programs commensurate with those assessments, as well as to those 

small businesses who have been deprived of SBIR/STTR awards 

and related funds. The committee encourages the Department, in 

circumstances when a CR extends past three months, to release 75 

percent of CR funding for SBIR/STTR by the beginning of the 

fourth month of that CR. 

Carbon Nanotube Devices 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is pursuing carbon nanotube based technologies to support the development of microelectronics to enhance the processing and radiationhardening capabilities of satellite electronic systems. The committee supports development of carbon nanotube applications for 

random access memory and electronically erasable read only memory, including the development of domestic, commercial manufacturing sources for such microelectronics. The committee believes 

that these applications will provide substantially greater capability 

for radiation-hardened microelectronics, and the domestic commercial capability will ensure both trusted sources, as well as economies of scale that can potentially drive down unit costs. The committee encourages the Department to examine ways to support the 

development and expansion of this industrial base sector through 

means such as, but not limited to, the Industrial Base Innovation 

Fund or Defense Production Act Title III. 

Communication between the Department of Defense and Industry 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DoD) 

must collaborate and contract with various information technology 

vendors to help ensure that the Department has the most effective 

and innovative technologies available to achieve its mission. The 

committee recognizes that these contracts are only as effective as 

the collaboration, information sharing, open dialogue, and unfettered access between the government customer and the commercial 

vendor. These companies regularly communicate with the Department on planning, certification, deployment of products and services, resolution of service issues, product innovation, resource planning and utilization, and maintenance of the product and service 

security. However, the committee is concerned that the Department 

has curtailed communication between technology providers and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
289 

their customers throughout the Army, Air Force, and the Defense 

Information Systems Agency. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these restrictions of access would appear to violate the 

implied term of good faith cooperation that is contained within 

every government contract. The committee understands that communication restrictions are in place on both the Department and 

potential business partners during the contracting process, and are 

appropriate at that stage of the acquisition process. However, the 

committee believes that open dialogue outside that direct acquisition process should be regularly maintained and encouraged by the 

Department in order for the Government to realize the full value 

of information technology products and services and best support 

the warfighter. The committee believes that both the Department 

and the commercial vendors need timely and consistent access in 

order to: 

(1) Answer questions quickly about the scope and capabilities 

of the software to solve problems quickly and efficiently; 

(2) Provide mission support to the end-user operational 

forces; 

(3) Disseminate information on the features and upgrades 

purchased in order to fully utilize available contracts and avoid 

procuring duplicative solutions; and 

(4) Work with the Department on designs and requirements 

that can be incorporated into ongoing research and development efforts so that the Department receives the most innovative, efficient, and effective products and services. 

Contracting for Textiles and Clothing 

The committee supports maintaining the integrity of section 

2533a of title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘Berry Amendment,’’ which requires 100 percent U.S. content for 

certain products sourced for the Armed Forces. The committee is 

concerned with protecting the supply chain and domestic production base for components and weapon systems that are vital to the 

Armed Forces. In addition, the practice of sourcing certain products 

and materials from foreign entities in violation of the Berry 

Amendment may harm the domestic industrial base, as well as result in U.S. job losses. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to periodically review the Department’s compliance with established restrictions. 

Defense Security Service Access to Information in Conducting the 

National Industrial Security Program 

The committee is aware that the Defense Security Service (DSS) 

supports national security by securing the Nation’s technology base 

and overseeing the protection of sensitive and classified information and technology in the hands of industry. According to its mission statement, DSS is ‘‘responsible for clearing industrial facilities, 

personnel, and associated information systems; collecting, analyzing, and providing threat information to industry and government partners; managing foreign ownership control and influence 

in cleared industry; providing advice and oversight to industry; deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
290 

livering security education and training; and, providing information 

technology services that support the industrial security mission of 

the Department of Defense and its partner agencies.’’ 

According to the 2012 DSS report, ‘‘Targeting Technology: A 

Trend Analysis of Reporting from Defense Industry’’, aggressive 

cyber collection activities increasingly target cleared contractor networks in attempts to obtain sensitive U.S. information and technologies. Although the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 

5220.22–M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, dated February 28, 2006, requires information systems that 

are used to process or distribute classified information to be properly managed to protect against unauthorized disclosure of classified information and requires cleared contractors to remain vigilant 

and to report suspicious contacts, there is insufficient governance, 

monitoring, and reporting of cyber attacks on the unclassified networks of the cleared contractors. 

The committee believes that intrusions on the unclassified networks of cleared contractors may be the very first indicator that a 

foreign entity is attempting to compromise or exploit cleared personnel, or to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to sensitive information and technology resident in the cleared industrial base. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that such attacks could garner sensitive, but unclassified, information and data that when aggregated could provide the foreign entity with much of the information that is being sought. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to review 

DODI 5220.22M and all other relevant guidance to ensure that the 

ability of DSS to support protection of sensitive and classified information and technology is not being hampered by a lack of access 

to information regarding intrusions on the unclassified networks of 

cleared contractors. Following the review, the Secretary is further 

directed to brief the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2014, on the 

findings of the review, along with any recommendations to 

strengthen the ability of DSS to secure the Nation’s technology 

base. 

Furthermore, as noted elsewhere in this report, the committee 

remains concerned about the potential presence of specific information technology equipment manufactured by firms with known 

links to the government and military of the People’s Republic of 

China, namely, Huawei and ZTE Corporation, in networks that are 

critical to the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned 

that some of this equipment could potentially be resident in the 

networks of cleared defense contractors. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Director of Defense Security Service to develop a plan 

by February 1, 2014, to enhance awareness of the threat posed by 

such technology, to aid cleared contractors in identifying and reporting the presence of such technology in their classified and unclassified networks, and to reduce the likelihood of such technology 

being incorporated into these networks in the future. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
291 

Export Control Reform 

The committee remains strongly supportive of reform of our nation’s export control system. While export controls play a critical 

role in protecting critical technology for our defense systems, a system that makes no distinction between a fighter aircraft or a simple and widely available non-critical component used on that aircraft is not only unwieldy, but threatens the competitiveness of 

American companies. 

On March 8, 2013, in an Executive Order signed by the President, authorities related to the administration of certain export and 

import controls were updated in a significant and far-reaching way. 

The committee looks forward to the completion of this phase of the 

reform and additional efforts to comprehensively modernize and 

update the system. 

The committee supports continued progress towards export control reform that will protect our nation’s security while ensuring 

our nation’s economic competitiveness, including timely and responsive processes for designating control protocols, enhanced information technology systems to aid in accountability, and coordinated enforcement. The committee notes that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign 

Affairs have primary legislative oversight of export control reform 

efforts and the appropriate expertise. The committee believes that 

in order for further export control reform to succeed, the Administration must work hand-in-hand with these committees of jurisdiction. 

Foreign Commercial Satellite Services Review 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense relies on 

many commercial companies to provide satellite services of national security importance, including commercial satellite communications. For instance, on January 24, 2013, the Defense Business 

Board reported that commercial satellite communications account 

for 40 percent of the Department’s satellite communications. 

Over the past year, the committee has conducted oversight of the 

Department’s leases of commercial satellite services, particularly 

relating to satellites owned, operated, or launched by states subject 

to sanctions and laws, such as section 1261(c)(2) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239) and the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public 

Law 106–178). Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision regarding its concerns with what it has learned about several of these leases. 

While the committee has received some information from the Department regarding several leases of satellite services of certain 

foreign providers, the responses to many straight-forward questions 

have changed over time. The committee is disappointed by the Department’s lack of clarity on this issue, and the committee is concerned that the Department has not established effective management controls over commercial satellite leases, and in particular, 

ones regarding certain foreign providers. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to provide a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
292 

briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 

2013, on any Department of Defense commercial services over satellites owned, operated, or launched by states subject to sanctions 

and laws, such as section 1261(c)(2) of Public Law 112–239, and 

the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act. The briefing 

should include: 

(1) The projected period of performance (including any period 

covered by options to extend the contract), the financial terms, 

and a description of the services to be provided under each contract; 

(2) Identification of the satellites that will be used to provide 

the necessary services, including a description of where they 

were launched from and currently operate from; 

(3) Identification, to the extent practical, of foreign government ownership of the foreign providers; 

(4) Identification of risks, and a description of any applicable 

policies and procedures to mitigate the risks, of using certain 

foreign commercial satellite services; and 

(5) A description of why other commercial or U.S. Government providers, including the Operationally Responsive Space 

office, were not available or tasked to fill the requirement. 

Germanium Wafer Defense Industrial Base 

The committee endorses the Department of Defense’s commitment to promote domestic germanium substrate manufacturing capabilities for national security space, as reflected in the Department’s 2012 report, ‘‘Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress.’’ The committee also notes that in the report, the Department modified its germanium upgrade program to emphasize full 

and open competition as a key program for securing materials. The 

committee believes that focusing its efforts on competition, specifically domestic competition, will help the Department accomplish 

two critical objectives: (1) providing best value in contracting for 

germanium substrates; and (2) fostering continued development of 

the germanium substrates manufacturing base. The committee encourages the Department to continue using full and open competition and other competitive best practices in developing domestic 

germanium substrate manufacturing capabilities and capacities. 

Improving Information Technology Acquisition Outcomes 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense continues to face challenges in its efforts to effectively acquire information technology (IT) resources. Even as the importance of such 

IT systems increases, from providing mission critical systems for 

intelligence analysis and fusion to time and cost-savings capabilities for electronic health records and financial auditability, the Department’s success rate in developing, acquiring and implementing 

these systems remains mediocre, at best. This point is underscored 

by the failure of recent IT initiatives by the Department, such as 

the Expeditionary Combat Support System, the Defense Integrated 

Military Human Resources System, or the Net-Enabled Command 

Capability. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
293 

The committee believes that part of the challenge that the Department faces is in its reliance on processes that are too heavily 

focused on the acquisition of militarily-unique hardware systems. 

The committee recognizes that the paradigm for IT acquisition is 

rooted more firmly in the commercial marketplace. As a consumer 

of commercially-developed solutions, rather than a generator of 

unique requirements, the Department follows commercial trends 

more often than it leads them. 

Unfortunately, the committee believes that the Department has 

not done enough to come to terms with this trend, choosing instead 

to act as though it has the same power to influence computing and 

electronics markets as it did for most of the 20th century. Though 

numerous studies have indicated a need to change acquisition processes within the Department to adjust to the reality of 21st century 

commercial IT markets, the Department has made little progress. 

Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 111–84) authorized the Department to implement a new acquisition process for IT systems, but to date, 

there has been little tangible action to take advantage of those new 

authorities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, on the progress of implementing an ITspecific acquisition process, as well as how lessons are being 

learned from recent IT failures in order to improve the outcomes 

for current and future efforts. 

Monitoring and Enforcement of Mitigation Agreements Related to 

Foreign Investment in the United States 

The committee is aware that the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 100–49) requires the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to designate a lead agency to negotiate, modify, monitor and enforce 

agreements to mitigate any threat to national security that could 

result from foreign investment in the U.S. economy. The committee 

notes that during fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense was 

named lead or co-lead of approximately 50 percent of the 121 

CFUIS filings. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Defense 

Security Service (DSS) reviews and responds to every CFUIS filing 

to identity implications of the proposed investment on the National 

Industrial Security Program, and also executes and provides oversight of Foreign Ownership Control or Influence (FOCI) mitigation 

requirements. However, DSS is not currently charged with monitoring implementation of, and compliance with, CFIUS mitigation 

agreements for those cases in which the Department of Defense 

was a lead or co-lead. Instead, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy is performing that function. 

The committee is concerned that the monitoring of CFIUS mitigation agreements is being performed by a policy organization that 

currently lacks the resources, technical expertise, facilities, and relationships with other oversight and investigative agencies to provide reasonable oversight of implementation of, and compliance 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
294 

with, these mitigation agreements. While it is appropriate for the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary to be charged with responsibility for 

recommending actions related to enforcement of such mitigation 

agreements, the Department may benefit from leveraging the capabilities of DSS for monitoring implementation and compliance. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 

the role of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and 

Industrial Base Policy in monitoring CFIUS mitigation agreements 

in which the Department of Defense was the lead or co-lead, and 

to determine if DSS is suited to perform these functions. The committee further directs the Secretary to report the findings of the review to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 

2013. 

National Defense Stockpile Beryllium Upgrade 

The committee is aware the Administrator of Defense Logistics 

Agency Strategic Materials tested a process for upgrading hotpressed beryllium billets in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) 

to high-purity beryllium powders capable of near-net shape processing. Initial results lead the committee to believe the high-purity 

beryllium powder resulting from upgrading hot-pressed billets can 

reduce the amount of time required to integrate stockpiled beryllium into national security programs and can result in more efficient processing with less waste. The committee also notes that 

vacuum cast ingots in the NDS are held for the National Nuclear 

Security Administration and should be retained in that form. 

The committee recognizes that adequate supplies of beryllium for 

both conventional and strategic programs are vital to the defense 

industrial base, and encourages the Administrator to take such 

steps as necessary to ensure the stockpile of hot-pressed beryllium 

billets is upgraded to meet demands without undue lead times and 

in a manner that protects against obsolescence. 

Next Generation Global Positioning System Receiver Equipment 

The committee notes the current schedule for Global Positioning 

System (GPS) III spacecraft, Next Generation Operational Control 

System, and the user equipment is not aligned. The user equipment is scheduled to be fielded at least one year later than the 

other elements of the program. 

The committee recommends the Department of Defense accelerate the fielding of user equipment capable of receiving the legacy 

and modernized military codes from the GPS. Further, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to establish approved security evaluation and certification processes and procedures, as well as to support and ensure sufficient redundancy of 

the GPS user equipment industrial base. 

Regional Commercialization Activities 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense continues to be challenged in commercializing and transitioning technology developed through federally funded research and development. The Department has a number of tools at its disposal to support these activities, such as the Commercialization Readiness ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
295 

gram, the Manufacturing Technology Program and the Mentor-Protege program, but few are focused on tapping into the regional innovation centers across the Nation. 

The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research 

has funded some initiatives that support the regional technology 

commercialization ecosystem. For example, the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research provides some administrative support and subject matter expertise for small and 

emerging businesses in diverse fields such as agriculture, renewable energy and health information systems. Also, the Hawaii 

Technology Development Venture is a project supporting Hawaiibased technology businesses, as well as current and future Department of Navy and Department of Defense programs. 

In addition, the committee notes that section 252 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239) allowed the Secretary of Defense to use the research and engineering network of the Department of Defense to support the regional advanced technology clusters established by the Secretary of 

Commerce to encourage the development of technologies for national security and homeland defense challenges. The committee 

sees such activities as useful means to leverage state and local 

technology investments, and encourages the Department to find 

similar mechanisms for supporting the nation’s industrial base for 

emerging technologies. 

Report on Diversification of Supply Activities Related to Rare 

Earth Elements 

The committee is aware that in response to the report required 

by section 843 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) and based on forecasting demand for fiscal year 2013 only, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics concluded that 

domestic production of rare earth elements could satisfy the level 

of consumption required to meet defense procurement needs by fiscal year 2013, with the exception of yttrium. However, the committee observes that the Future Years Defense Program indicates 

that consumption of rare earth elements is expected to increase 

after 2013. Specifically, the report on the feasibility and desirability of recycling, recovery, and reprocessing of rare earth elements required by the conference report (H. Rept. 112–329) to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012, states that each SSN–774 Virginia-class submarine would require approximately 9,200 pounds of rare earth materials, each 

DDG–51 Aegis destroyer would require approximately 5,200 

pounds of these materials, and each F–35 Lightning II aircraft 

would require approximately 920 pounds of these materials. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense intends 

to pursue a three-pronged strategy to secure supplies of rare earth 

elements, which consists of diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of waste, as part of a larger 

U.S. Government recycling effort. The committee believes that diversification of supply activities related to rare earth elements is 

necessary in order to meet the growing demand for these materials, 

but the committee is concerned that some of these processes may 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
296 

prove to be technically difficult or so expensive that they are 

deemed cost-prohibitive. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014, on the Department’s risk mitigation strategy for rare earth elements, which 

should include, at a minimum, the following elements: 

(1) A list and description of the programs initiated or 

planned to reclaim rare earth elements by the Department, 

along with a description of the materials reclaimed or expected 

to be reclaimed from such programs; 

(2) An assessment of the cost of materials produced by these 

reclamation efforts compared to the cost of newly-mined materials; 

(3) An assessment of availability of reliable suppliers in the 

National Defense Industrial Base for the reclamation and reprocessing of rare earth elements; 

(4) A list of alternative sources of supply, such as mine 

tailings, recycled components, and consumer waste, that the 

Department has investigated or plans to investigate; 

(5) A physical description of alternative sources of supply 

with corresponding geologic characteristics, such as grade, resource size, and the amenability of that feedstock to metallurgical processing; 

(6) A description of the materials that the Department plans 

to obtain via the Defense Priorities and Allocations System; 

and 

(7) Other diversification of supply activities deemed relevant 

by the Under Secretary. 

Report on Export of Night Vision Devices 

The committee is concerned that restrictions on the export of 

night vision devices do not reflect the current state of the global 

marketplace and, as a result, domestic producers of the devices are 

prohibited from marketing products overseas that are commonly 

available from foreign competitors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to examine the export regulations 

and specifications related to the sale or transfer of night vision devices and to inform the House Committee on Armed Services by 

March 1, 2014, of any recommendations for statutory or regulatory 

changes to ensure a robust domestic manufacturing capability of 

these devices. 

Report on the Integrity of the Supply Chain for Nuclear Command 

and Control and Critical Defense Capabilities 

The committee is aware that critical infrastructure is not just 

physical, but also encompasses information and information systems, as well as supports infrastructure. According to the Defense 

Critical Infrastructure Program documents, there is ‘‘no single solution to ensure the protection of information and the associated information infrastructure,’’ and to address these mission assurance 

needs, the Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a ‘‘defenseVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
297 

in-depth’’ strategy which includes a variety of tools to assess the 

robustness and security-readiness of DOD networks. 

The committee is aware of the many threats facing the mission 

assurance of critical aspects of the Department, and in the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee included a requirement for the Secretary of Energy to report on the 

supply chain security and integrity of the nuclear weapons complex. In responding to that reporting requirement, the Secretary of 

Energy found the presence of specific information technology equipment manufactured by the firm Huawei, which has known links to 

the Government and military of the People’s Republic of China, at 

the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The Secretary of Energy informed the committee that, once technology linked to 

Huawei was found within the LANL network, steps were promptly 

taken to remove it from that network. The committee commends 

this action, but is concerned that such technology was incorporated 

into the LANL networks in the first place. 

The committee is also aware of the bipartisan investigative report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

‘‘[t]he U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE.’’ The committee 

notes that the bipartisan recommendations of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence included: 

‘‘(1) The United States should view with suspicion the continued penetration of the U.S. telecommunications market by 

Chinese telecommunications companies; 

(2) Private Sector entities in the United States are strongly 

encouraged to consider the long-term security risks associated 

with doing business with either ZTE or Huawei for equipment 

or services; and, 

(3) Committees of jurisdiction in the U.S. Congress should 

consider potential legislation to better address the risk posed 

by telecommunications companies with nation-state ties or otherwise not clearly trusted to build critical infrastructure.’’ 

In addition, the Defense Security Service reported in its 2012 report, ‘‘Targeting U.S. Technologies’’ that, ‘‘[t]he stakes are high in 

the battle against foreign collection efforts and espionage that target U.S. technology, intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary information.’’ The report went on to state that East Asia and 

the Pacific accounted for 43 percent of the reported foreign attempts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to sensitive (including proprietary information) and or classified information and technology residing in the cleared industrial base. 

These findings only heighten the committee’s concerns about the 

security risks associated with the presence of information technology manufactured by firms with known affiliation to the military and Government of China. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the telecommunications and information technology supply chain of select components of the Department of Defense, including the nuclear command and control infrastructure. Such a review should include an 

inspection of the critical assets, infrastructure, and key resources 

identified by the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program for presVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
298 

ence of Huawei and ZTE telecommunications and information technology equipment. The Secretary should submit a report on the 

findings of the review, along with any recommendations for improving the mission assurance of the Department’s critical information 

and the associated information infrastructure, to the House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2014, with an interim report 

due by February 15, 2014. 

Report on the Implementation of Rare Earth Elements Strategy in 

the Joint Strike Fighter Program 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense intends 

to pursue a three-pronged strategy to secure supplies of rare earth 

elements, which consists of diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of waste as part of a larger 

U.S. Government recycling effort. However, it remains unclear how 

this strategy will be implemented in the Department’s major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). Several high-profile MDAPs, 

including the F–35 Lightening II program, may use significant 

amounts of rare earth elements in full-rate production. The committee is concerned that the introduction of substitute materials 

and components may increase acquisition and sustainment costs 

through the qualification of manufacturers for substitutes, implementation of engineering changes to accommodate substitutes, and 

the long-term costs associated with supplier networks. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, in coordination 

with the Program Executive Officer for the F–35, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, 

on the potential for substitution of components and materials into 

F–35 aircraft to reduce consumption of rare earth materials. The 

report, which may include a classified annex, should include the 

following: 

(1) A list and description of subsystems that contain rare 

earth elements and the approximate quantities of each rare 

earth element by subsystem; 

(2) An assessment of the potential to incorporate substitute 

components or materials in each subsystem based on technical 

acceptability, to include consideration of performance requirements, and engineering changes that may be necessary for integration of the substitute; and 

(3) An assessment of the potential to incorporate substitute 

components or materials in each subsystem based on cost acceptability to include consideration of material costs, qualification and testing costs, and engineering change costs. 

Risks to the Cruise Missile Industrial Base 

The committee is aware that, in the August 2012 ‘‘Annual Industrial Capabilities Base Report to Congress,’’ the Department of Defense noted that the lack of new missile program development, 

along with decreases in Tactical Tomahawk procurement quantities 

and delays to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended 

Range low-rate initial production programs, are combining to 

threaten the viability of the long-range cruise missile propulsion 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
299 

sector. The report states that these factors may lead to the disbandment of highly specialized engineering design teams associated with developing and sustaining cruise missile systems. The 

committee notes that the development of cruise missiles by foreign 

nations has led to higher-speed, longer-range weapons, and advanced air defense capabilities abroad. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has not developed a plan to address the sustainment of the cruise missile industrial base in light of emerging threats abroad, and that, without 

sustainment of the existing cruise missile propulsion capabilities, 

future development of needed advancements may be significantly 

delayed and will likely come at a much higher cost. The committee 

believes that preserving the existing national cruise missile propulsion capability, with an emphasis on sustaining design engineering 

teams, is of utmost importance. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue to closely monitor this 

portion of the industrial base and to take such steps as necessary 

to ensure risks to the viability of this sector are appropriately mitigated. 

Small Business Size Standards 

The committee understands the importance of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) to ensure fair and 

competitive economic activity between Government buying authorities and the small and large businesses that compose the U.S. defense industrial base. The committee is aware that at 5-year intervals U.S. authorities, in conjunction with their counterparts in 

Mexico and Canada, confer on necessary adjustments and realignments to the NAICS codes. The committee also recognizes that the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) has the authority to determine the appropriate size standards associated with each NAICS 

code based on factors concerning business revenue or number of 

employees. However, when the periodic realignment of the NAICS 

codes causes what was previously coded as one industry to now be 

recognized as multiple industries, or what were previously considered separate industries to be consolidated into a single code, it inadvertently affects the assignment of size standards which, in turn, 

has consequences for important segments of the defense industrial 

base. 

For example, under the 2007 iteration of the NAICS code determination, footwear manufacturing was broken into five discrete 

categories with their own individual codes and size standards: Rubber and Plastics Footwear Manufacturing, code 316211, 1,000 employee size standard; House Slipper Manufacturing, code 316212, 

500 employee size standard; Men’s Footwear (except Athletic) Manufacturing, code 361213, 500 employee size standard, Women’s 

Footwear (except Athletic) Manufacturing, code 361214, 500 employee size standard; and Other Footwear Manufacturing, code 

361219, 500 employee size standard. However, under the 2012 

NAICS code determination, these were consolidated into one code 

with one size standard: Footwear Manufacturing, code 361210, 

1000 employees. The result is that businesses that were previously 

considered large are now considered small without SBA having 

made an affirmative decision that the larger size standard is approVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
300 

priate. As a consequence, in at least one of these NAICS codes, all 

but one company doing business with the Federal Government is 

now considered small, which may distort the market and disproportionately harm those businesses with fewer than 500 employees. 

The committee recognizes the effort of the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) to comply with recent realignment of NAICS codes 

and subsequent adjustments to small business size standards related to footwear as it applies Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 

19. However, the committee in concerned that SBA failed to observe the normal rulemaking and public comment process that governs changes to the size standards, thereby not allowing industry 

the ability to register comments. The committee believes that 

SBA’s decision to update size standards without adherence to the 

normal rulemaking process has undermined the sustainability of 

the industrial base, discouraged competitive procurement, creates 

negative effects throughout industrial sectors needed to support 

warfighter, and harmed true small businesses. Although DLA did 

initially respond to the changes to the small business size standards as they relate to footwear and began setting aside contracts 

that were previously available for full and open competition, the 

committee recognizes that DLA has the purchasing authority to appropriately scope procurement requirements and contracting processes in order to ensure appropriate pricing, product quality and 

equipment suitability are achieved from available vendors, and protect the diversity of the industry necessary to meet surge requirements. The committee encourages DLA to exercise this flexibility 

and authority to maximize the buying power for military footwear, 

particularly in light of the fact that the SBA made the changes 

without adherence to standard protocols. 

Furthermore, the committee remains concerned about the harm 

this type of action could cause to legitimate small businesses. When 

the size standards are over-inflated to include large businesses, 

true small businesses lose the protections normally afforded to 

them in the procurement system, which may harm the industrial 

base. The committee looks forward to working with the House 

Committee on Small Business to address these policy concerns. 

Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base 

The committee has long been concerned about the health and 

long-term viability of the large solid rocket motor (SRM) industrial 

base. A number of studies and assessments in the past several 

years have reinforced these concerns. Demand for large SRMs has 

decreased dramatically in recent years, particularly with the decision by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to retire, terminate, or delay certain launch programs, including the 

Constellation program. The Air Force Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program and Navy Trident II/D5 

submarine-launched ballistic missile program rely on this industrial base and now bear the increasing cost of SRMs. The committee believes the industrial base has been diligent in reducing 

overhead costs and excess capacity, and the committee believes 

that significant further cuts may result in the permanent loss of 

key capabilities and skills. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
301 

The committee notes that while the Navy continues low-rate production of D5 solid rocket motors, the Air Force ceased acquisition 

of new SRMs for the Minuteman III ICBM program at the conclusion of the Propulsion Replacement Program in 2009. The committee recognizes that the Air Force will need to acquire additional 

Minuteman III SRMs to extend the life of this system to 2030, as 

currently planned, or potentially beyond. The committee encourages the Air Force to consider the health of the SRM industrial 

base when considering when and how to resume production and, as 

with all major acquisition programs, encourages whenever possible 

the use of full and open competition in executing such an acquisition. 

Finally, the committee notes the potential for greater commonality between Air Force and Navy SRM systems. Initiatives to 

increase commonality between the Services may lead to significant 

cost savings and a more robust industrial base through a smaller 

but more consistently utilized supply chain. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy 

to explore commonality across their respective SRM-based strategic 

weapon systems to increase efficiencies and save costs, but cautions 

that such commonality should be carefully considered so that it 

does not unacceptably increase technical risks from the failure of 

common components. 

Space Surveillance Telescope 

The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) has developed a Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) program in order to demonstrate an advanced groundbased optical system to detect and track faint objects in space. The 

committee understands that DARPA has signed a memorandum of 

agreement with the Air Force to transition SST to Air Force Space 

Command for operational use. Furthermore, the committee understands that SST will be moved to the Commonwealth of Australia 

for further operational demonstrations in a relevant environment 

with a richer and more interesting population of SSA targets in 

geosynchronous orbit. 

However, the committee believes this move presents numerous 

challenges, including logistical and technical communications obstacles resulting from a site that is significantly more remote than 

the current SST location. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air 

Force, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the logistical and 

sustainment strategy for SST. The briefing should address the 

plans for providing the maintenance and spare parts for SST after 

it is moved to Australia. 

Specialty Metals Clause Waiver Processes and Notification 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) issued national security waivers to the specialty metals 

clause under section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) for certain samariumVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
302 

cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies in the F–35 Lightning II 

aircraft. The committee is aware that at least two qualified suppliers in the domestic defense industrial base currently hold contracts directly with the Department for similar magnets and magnet assemblies. Moreover, a third qualifying supplier indirectly provides these materials to the Department through other prime contractors. These qualifying suppliers continue to manufacture samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies for fixed wing, missile, and radar programs. The committee is increasingly concerned 

that this use of national security waivers contravenes the congressional intent of Public Law 110–181, which, among other purposes, 

is to facilitate competition and guarantee a secure supply chain of 

certain materials. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to investigate the issuance of these national security 

waivers for samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies, and 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2014, that includes, at minimum, a description of the following: 

(1) The extent to which distributor-fabricators who supplied 

non-compliant samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies to DOD prime or subcontractors knowingly and/or willfully supplied samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies manufactured by foreign suppliers to subcontractors for 

inclusion in the F–35 program; 

(2) The extent to which distributor-fabricators who supplied 

non-compliant samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies to DOD prime or subcontractors were aware of, or engaged with, qualified sources for samarium-cobalt magnets and 

magnet assemblies on other commercial or defense contracts; 

(3) The extent to which acquisition officials within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the F–35 Joint Program 

Office were aware of, or engaged with, qualified sources for samarium-cobalt magnets and magnet assemblies on other subcontracts; 

(4) The criteria, method, or process utilized by OSD acquisition officials to define and determine ‘‘knowing and willful’’ as 

it pertains to noncompliance with the specialty metals clause; 

(5) Recommendations to improve the criteria, method, or 

process utilized by OSD acquisition officials to define and determine ‘‘knowing and willful’’ as it pertains to noncompliance 

with the specialty metals clause; 

(6) Recommendations for DOD acquisition policy changes, 

such as consideration of previous noncompliance on future contracts, fines by non-compliant lower-tier suppliers, or suspension and debarment, that may adequately deter or dissuade 

lower-tier suppliers from knowingly and/or willingly violating 

acquisition regulations and other rules promulgated in accordance with section 2533b of title 10, United States Code; and 

(7) Recommendations to improve the Department’s supply 

chain management procedures and actions necessary to prevent such lapses in the future. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
303 

Transfer of International Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled 

Missile Defense Technology to the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

The committee received allegations that certain Missile Defense 

Agency technology was involved in the transfer of International 

Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controlled missile defense technology to unauthorized foreign nationals. The committee further understands 

that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), upon investigation 

of this alleged transfer, referred the case to the U.S. Department 

of Justice for prosecution. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the FBI and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Science, Space and Technology Committee of 

the House, and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee of the Senate, not later than August 1, 2013, on the following: 

(1) What U.S. missile defense technology or information, 

classified or export-controlled, NASA had access to prior to 

June 1, 2013, and what was the purpose of NASA’s access to 

such technology or information? What protective measures 

were imposed to insure proper handling of this information 

and technology by NASA? 

(2) The status of any FBI investigation into whether U.S. 

missile defense technology to which NASA had access was allowed to be transferred to persons without lawful authority to 

access said technology. 

(3) If an FBI investigation has determined that missile defense technology was in fact transferred; provide a damage assessment of the consequence of the loss of this technology; and 

how a state, such as the People’s Republic of China, could exploit such technology to improve its offensive or defensive military capabilities or to counter U.S. offensive or defensive military capabilities. 

Trusted Sources of Microelectronics 

The committee remains concerned about the state of defense 

microelectronics, with regards to both the availability of a trusted 

supply chain, as well as the long-term health and vitality of the industrial base. The committee fully recognizes the critical importance to the Department of Defense of sustaining and improving 

the supply of trusted semiconductors, supply chain components and 

inspection tools manufactured in the United States. 

The committee is also concerned that the Department’s recent 

microelectronics strategy lacked depth of detail to comprehensively 

address the areas of sustained investment, as well as new areas of 

emphasis in the future, such as photonics and optoelectronic components. The committee is aware that the Department is revising 

this strategy, but until such time, the Department will be challenged in supporting decisions regarding what course of action may 

be most beneficial to the industrial base. The committee recognizes 

the health of the microelectronics industrial base is a significant 

concern for our national security. The changing nature of the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
304 

microelectronics industrial base, influenced heavily by the significant cost pressures associated with recapitalization and retooling, 

could be determined before the U.S. Government understands the 

changes taking place, or can act swiftly enough to respond effectively. 

The committee is aware that industry is potentially facing a 

major transition to larger sized, 450 mm wafers that will allow the 

manufacture of more advanced semiconductor devices at a lower 

cost. The committee believes that to get there will likely require 

the development of the next generation of manufacturing tools. The 

committee recognizes the value of pursuing technology research for 

other technologies that support fabless and maskless semiconductor 

development as a way to change the paradigm for the microelectronics industrial sector. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously reexamine its defense microelectronics strategy, which should examine ways of supporting further technology 

development for fabless and maskless semiconductor production, as 

well as manufacturing tools for 450 mm wafers. Furthermore, the 

committee encourages the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to examine the challenges to the microelectronics industrial base during its Sector-bySector, Tier-by-Tier analyses. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1601—Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance by 

Inspector General of Department of Defense 

This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of the Department’s compliance with contracting practices and policies related to procurement 

under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, which pertains 

to the requirement to buy certain articles from American sources 

and is frequently referred to as the ‘‘Berry Amendment.’’ This section would also require the Inspector General to include the findings of such periodic audits as part of the semiannual report transmitted to congressional committees as required by the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–452). 

Section 1602—Expansion of the Procurement Technical Assistance 

Program to Advance Small Business Growth 

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to publish, and update annually, a list of capabilities and characteristics recommended to enable a qualified small business concern to become competitive as an 

other-than-small business for future contracts awarded by the Department of Defense. This section would also require any contract 

awarded to a qualified small business concern that would exceed 

the applicable receipt-based small business size standard (or if the 

contract would exceed $70.0 million in an industry with an employee based size standard) to include a contract clause that would 

encourage the small business to develop the capabilities and characteristics identified by the Under Secretary if they desire to remain competitive as other-than-small business in that industry. In 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
305 

addition, this section would amend chapter 142 of title 10, United 

States Code, to enable Procurement Technical Assistance Centers 

(PTAC) to provide additional support to these businesses without 

the funding and cost-share limitations that are otherwise applicable to PTAC support. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit three annual reports to the congressional defense committees beginning on March 1, 2015, on the implementation of the amendments made by this section, along with 

any recommendations for improving the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. 

Section 1603—Amendments Relating to Procurement Technical 

Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program 

This section would amend section 2413 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to defray up to 65 percent 

of the eligible entity’s cost of furnishing assistance under the program and would also amend section 2414 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase limitations on the value of assistance that may 

be provided under the program. 

Section 1604—Strategic Plan for Requirements for War Reserve 

Stocks of Meals Ready-To-Eat 

This section would limit the authority of the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) to alter stockage level requirements for meals readyto-eat (MRE) war reserves until a strategic plan is developed and 

is briefed to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics Agency’s 

potential reduction of its MRE war reserve stockage requirements 

may adversely impact military readiness. The committee commends DLA for initiating action to study the MRE war reserve but 

has concerns over potential reductions that could harm the industrial base and threaten military readiness for possible contingencies. 

Section 1605—Foreign Commercial Satellite Services 

This section would prevent the Secretary of Defense from entering into contracts for satellite services with a foreign entity that a 

covered foreign country has ownership interest or the foreign entity 

plans to or is expected to provide launch or other satellite services, 

including satellite operation, under the contract from a covered foreign country. A covered foreign country is defined as a country described in section 1261(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 

prohibition for a particular contract if the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, submits a national 

security assessment for such contract to the congressional defense 

committees in an unclassified form, including a classified annex if 

necessary. 

The assessment shall include: 

(1) The projected period of performance (including any period 

covered by options to extend the contract), the financial terms, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
306 

and a description of the services to be provided under the contract; 

(2) To the extent practicable, a description of the ownership 

interest that a covered foreign country has in the foreign entity 

providing satellite services to the Department of Defense under 

the contract and the launch or other satellite services (including satellite operation) that will be provided in a covered foreign country under the contract; 

(3) A justification for entering into a contract with such covered foreign entity and a description of the actions necessary 

to eliminate the need to enter into such a contract with such 

covered foreign entity in the future; and 

(4) A risk assessment of entering into a contract with such 

covered foreign entity, including an assessment of mission assurance and security of information and a description of any 

measures necessary to mitigate risks found by such risk assessment. 

The Secretary of Defense may delegate the waiver authority to 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Section 1606—Proof of Concept Commercialization Pilot Program 

This section would allow the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering to establish a 5-year pilot program to accelerate the commercialization of basic research innovations from 

qualifying institutions. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2014. As recommended by the committee, division B would 

authorize appropriations in the amount of $10,055,086,000 for construction in support of the Active Forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2014. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING 

OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense requested $9,017,563,000 for military 

construction, $451,357,000 for Base Closure and Realignment 

(BRAC) activities, and $1,542,713,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of 

$8,645,906,000 for military construction, $451,357,000 for BRAC 

activities, and $1,542,713,000 for family housing in fiscal year 

2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
307 

Section 2001—Short Title 

This section would cite division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.’’ 

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required 

To Be Specified by Law 

This section would ensure that the authorizations provided in titles XXI through XXVII and XXIX shall expire on October 1, 2016, 

or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 

construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Section 2003—Effective Date 

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this Act take effect on October 1, 

2013, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,119,875,000 for Army military 

construction and $556,879,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2014. The committee recommends authorization of $1,099,875,000 

for military construction and $556,879,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2014. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustment 

The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project 

contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. This reduction includes: 

(1) $10.0 million for Command and Control Facility Administrative Areas at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The budget request included $75.0 million to support the command and control requirements of the Army in the Pacific. While the committee 

supports the requirement for this facility, the committee is concerned that the unit cost for this facility is high compared to 

a standard design even when accounting for Area Cost Factors. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $65.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million, for this project. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Army construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed 

on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in 

this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
308 

Section 2102—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2014. 

Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army 

This section would authorize appropriations for Army military 

construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of 

this Act. 

Section 2104—Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 Project 

This section would reauthorize a project initially provided in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108–136) at Picatinny Arsenal, 

New Jersey, for construction of a Loading Facility. This section was 

included in the President’s request. 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2010 Project 

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 

of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(division B of Public Law 111–84) and authorize the Secretary of 

the Army to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously 

authorized construction project. This section was included in the 

President’s request. 

Section 2106—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2011 Project 

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111–383) and authorize the Secretary of the 

Army to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was included in the 

President’s request. 

Section 2107—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2010 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

This section was included in the President’s request. 

Section 2108—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2011 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

This section was included in the President’s request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
309 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,700,269,000 for Navy military 

construction and $463,251,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2014. The committee recommends authorization of $1,700,269,000 

for military construction and $463,251,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2014. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Navy construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed 

on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in 

this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Section 2202—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2014. 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2014. 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy 

This section would authorize appropriations for Navy military 

construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of 

this Act. 

Section 2205—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out 

Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project 

This section would limit the Secretary of the Navy from expending any funds authorized in this title that are associated with the 

land acquisition associated with the Townsend Bombing Range 

near Savannah, Georgia, until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that an agreement with the local 

communities has been concluded that mitigates the loss of the real 

estate tax base. 

Section 2206—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2011 Project 

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 

of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(division B of Public Law 111–383) and authorize the Secretary of 

the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously 

authorized construction project. This section was included in the 

President’s request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
310 

Section 2207—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2012 Project 

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 

of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(division B of Public Law 112–81) and authorize the Secretary of 

the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously 

authorized construction project. This section was included in the 

President’s request. 

Section 2208—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2011 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

This section was included in the President’s request. 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,156,573,000 for Air Force military construction and $464,958,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of 

$1,138,843,000 for military construction and $464,959,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2014. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2302—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2014. 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2014. 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force 

This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division 

D of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
311 

Section 2305—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2013 Project 

This section would increase the construction scope associated 

with a Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar authorization, provided 

in the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(division B of Public Law 112—239), to $128.0 million. The hangar 

is to be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete and will be 

adequately sized to provide repairs, functionality checks, and aircraft inspections in support of the Pacific Airpower Resiliency 

(PAR) mission. 

The committee notes that the Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar 

is required to support a Continuous Bomber Presence, Tanker Task 

Force, Theater Security Packages, and the Global Hawk beddown. 

The lack of this hardened facility would significantly reduce readiness and could result in degradation of operational capabilities. 

The committee supports PAR’s balance of dispersal and hardening, 

and this project is a critical component of that program. 

Section 2306—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out 

Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project 

This section would limit the Secretary of the Air Force from expending any funds authorized by this title that are associated with 

the construction of a maintenance facility, a hazardous cargo pad, 

or an airport storage facility at Saipan, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, until the Secretary certifies that the 

Secretary will purchase the requisite real estate necessary to support these projects. 

Section 2307—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 

2011 Project 

This section would extend the authorization listed until October 

1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

This section was included in the President’s request. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $3,985,000,000 for defense agency 

military construction and $57,625,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of 

$3,708,373,000 for military construction and $57,625,000 for family 

housing for fiscal year 2014. 

The budget request also contained $122,536,000 for chemical demilitarization construction. The committee recommends authorization of $122,536,000 for chemical demilitarization construction for 

fiscal year 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
312 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: (1) $3.6 million for the SOF Boat Docks at Naval Air Station 

Key West, Florida. The budget request included $3.6 million to 

repair and expand the existing boat dock facilities to support 

specialized training conducted by the Special Forces Underwater Operations School. While the committee supports the requirement for this capability, the committee believes the requirement can be met through the use of operation and maintenance funds. Accordingly, the committee recommends no 

funds, a reduction of $3.6 million for this project. (2) $13.0 million for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Replacement Stage I, 

Increment 8 at Fort Detrick, Maryland. The budget request included $13.0 million to construct a replacement high-containment research laboratory and support space for USAMRIID. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense could use 

bid savings to complete this increment of the project. As such, 

the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $13.0 million for this project. (3) $12.4 million for the Ambulatory Care Center, Increment 

2 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. The budget request included $76.2 million for the second increment of an ambulatory 

care center to support the delivery of care in the National Capital Region. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute in the year or the authorization for 

appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that 

the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee 

recommends $63.8 million, a reduction of $12.4 million for this 

project. (4) $100.0 million for the Public Health Command Lab Replacement at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The budget 

request included $210.0 million for a multistory replacement 

laboratory to support the expanding requirements for Public 

Health Command Lab services. The committee supports the 

authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the 

ability of the military department to execute in the year or the 

authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded 

its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As 

such, the committee recommends $110.0 million, a reduction of 

$100.0 million for this project. 

(5) $14.4 million for the SOF Performance Resiliency Center 

at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The budget request included 

$14.4 million to support the Human Performance Initiative for 

East Coast based units assigned to U.S. Marine Corps Forces 

Special Operations Command (MARSOC). The committee is 

concerned that the purpose of this facility is duplicative to exVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
313 

isting physical fitness facilities and in conflict with medical 

care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, 

the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $14.4 million for this project. (6) $100.0 million for the Hospital Replacement Increment 5 at Fort Bliss, Texas. The budget request included $252.1 million for the fifth increment of the Fort Bliss hospital replacement project to provide inpatient and outpatient care to the Ft. 

Bliss beneficiary population. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the 

ability of the military department to execute in the year or the 

authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded 

its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As 

such, the committee recommends $152.1 million, a reduction of 

$100.0 million for this project. (7) $11.147 million for the SOF Human Performance Center 

at Naval Air Station Oceana (Dam Neck Annex), Virginia. The 

budget request included $11.147 million to support the Naval 

Special Warfare Development Group’s High Performance Program. The committee is concerned that the purpose of this facility is duplicative to existing physical fitness facilities and in 

conflict with medical care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, the committee recommends no funds, 

a reduction of $11.147 million for this project. (8) $5.0 million for the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System 

Complex, Increment 2, at Deveselu, Romania. The budget request included $85.0 million for the second increment of a 

project to enhance regional ballistic missile defense against 

short- and medium- range ballistic missile threats. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an 

amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to 

execute in the year or the authorization for appropriations. For 

this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2014. As such, the committee recommends $80.0 million, a reduction of $5.0 million for this project. 

(9) $7.83 million for the SOF Facility Augmentation at Torri 

Station, Japan. The budget request included $71.451 million to 

construct a company operations and support facilities necessary to support the growth of Special Operations Forces. 

While the committee is supportive of the majority of this 

project, the committee is concerned with an element of the 

project to support the tactical human optimization rapid rehabilitation and reconditioning and the resiliency programs. The 

committee is concerned that the purpose of this facility is in 

conflict with medical care provided by the TRICARE Management Activity. As such, the committee recommends $63.621 

million, a reduction of $7.83 million for this project. 

(10) $10.0 million for Contingency Construction. The budget 

request included $10.0 million to support contingency construction requirements in support of projects not previously authorized by law. The committee notes that significant unobligated 

balances remain in this account and other authorities exist to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
314 

construct projects that are in keeping with a national security 

interest. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds, a 

reduction of $10.0 million for this program. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEFENSE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized defense agencies 

construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts 

are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list 

contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects at the amounts authorized by each 

project at a specific location valued at a cost greater than $2.0 million. This section would also authorize the sum total of projects 

across various locations, each project of which is less than $2.0 million. 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies 

This section would authorize appropriations for defense agencies 

military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 

Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize appropriations for chemical demilitarization construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $239,700,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for 

fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends authorization of 

$199,700,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2014. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
315 

Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount 

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act and the amount 

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 

financed by the United States. 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO 

This section would authorize appropriations for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the levels 

identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $693,310,000 for military construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of $676,310,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2014. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: 

(1) $4.0 million for the 175th Network Warfare Squadron Facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. The budget request included 

$4.0 million to support operations and training of an Air National Guard Network Warfare Squadron. The committee is 

concerned that the Commander, Cyber Command has not adequately established the requirements to support the National 

Guard and Reserves and is concerned that this project is earlyto-need. The committee discuses this issue further in title IX. 

Accordingly, recommends no funds, a reduction of $4.0 million 

for this project. 

(2) $8.0 million for the CYBER/ISR Facility at Martin State 

Airport, Maryland. The budget request included $8.0 million to 

support a Network Warfare Group. The committee is concerned 

that the Commander, Cyber Command has not adequately established the requirements to support the National Guard and 

Reserve and therefore believes that this project is early-toneed. The committee discusses this issue further in title IX. 

Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the budget request does not fully support the scope of the military construction project. Accordingly, recommends no funds, a reduction of 

$8.0 million for this project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
316 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Army National 

Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Army Reserve 

construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts 

are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list 

contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

Construction and Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Navy Reserve 

and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 

2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to 

be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Air National 

Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard 

and Reserve 

This section would authorize appropriations for the National 

Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels identified in 

section 4601 of division D of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
317 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2611—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2013 Project 

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2603 

of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(division B of Public Law 112–239) and authorize the Secretary of 

the Navy to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously 

authorized construction project. This section was included in the 

President’s request. 

Section 2612—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 

2011 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

This section was included in the President’s request. 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $451,357,000 for activities related 

to Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities. The committee 

recommends authorization of $451,357,000 for BRAC activities. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 

This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing activities 

that are required to implement the decision of Base Realignment 

and Closure activities at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2711—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round 

This section would prohibit funds, appropriated pursuant to an 

authorization of appropriations contained in this Act, to be use to 

propose, plan for, or execute an additional Base Closure and Realignment round. 

Section 2712—Elimination of Quarterly Certification Requirement 

Regarding Availabilty of Military Health Care in National Capital Region 

This section would repeal a quarterly reporting requirement regarding the capacity of the military health care system in the NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
318 

tional Capital Region. The committee notes that sufficient capacity 

has been obtained in the National Capital Region to replace the 

loss of the former Walter Reed Army Military Medical Center, District of Columbia. 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Air Education and Training Command 

The committee recognizes the important role that Air Education 

and Training Command (AETC) plays in recruiting, training, and 

educating Airmen for the United States Air Force. A key mission 

set filled by AETC is the initial and follow-on flight training for pilots and aircrews. This includes Initial Flight Screening, Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training, Euro-NATO (North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization) Joint Jet Pilot Training, Undergraduate Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Training, and Undergraduate Combat Systems Officer Training among other programs. The committee has been made aware of adverse impacts to aircraft, facilities, equipment, and operations due to flooding and deficiencies in 

infrastructure at AETC installations. The committee encourages 

the Air Force to consider the impact these infrastructure deficiencies have had on AETC’s ability to train Airmen due to damaged aircraft, facilities and equipment when prioritizing investments in the military construction and Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Maintenance programs. 

Air Force Institute of Technology Laboratory Recapitalization 

The committee is aware that a recapitalized research laboratory 

for the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) is required to support their mission. The laboratory is used for graduate engineering 

students to conduct original, defense-directed scientific research in 

cutting-edge national security topics such as stealth technology, nuclear engineering, unmanned aerial vehicles, cyberspace, and directed energy. Currently, most of AFIT’s laboratory space is housed 

in three buildings that lack utility support and stable physical conditions for scientific experiments. As an alternative to traditional 

military construction, the committee encourages AFIT to pursue 

leasing arrangements, particularly those that would offer the Air 

Force cost savings through public partnerships. 

Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense supports 

the inclusion of both Type I and Type III retro-reflective glass 

beads in the Department of Defense construction specifications for 

airport construction and airport marking standards. However, the 

committee also notes that the index of refraction is higher for the 

Type III beads. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to prepare a report by April 1, 2014 to the congressional 

defense committees that provides a business case analysis that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
319 

compares the efficacy of continuing to specify both Type I and Type 

III retroreflective glass beads in the Department of Defense Unified 

Facilities Guide Specification Standards. 

Blast Protection for Forward Military Locations in Contingency 

Operations 

The committee is aware that establishing forward operating 

bases and outposts is required to support military operations, especially during stability or counterinsurgency operations. Such locations allow forces to conduct operations or logistic support activities. Due to the threat environment around these locations, greater 

security measures must be deployed, such as increasing standoff 

distances, hardening access of facilities, and installing blast protection measures where necessary to ensure the safety and security of 

personnel operating from such a location. In continuing to evaluate 

force protection requirements and procedures in contingency locations, the committee encourages the Department to assess current 

policies, procedures, and capabilities for blast protection of facilities 

in forward locations, to include current and appropriate standoff requirements, and new and available technology that could help reduce standoff distance requirements and improve force protection 

and building security. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the requirements and procedures in such contingency locations and to 

provide a briefing on the assessment to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by March 1, 2014. The briefing should include: a 

review of the current design basis threat; changes to security policies that would better protect personnel; and an assessment of current facility methods, to include standoff distances and physical 

barriers to address the design basis threat. The briefing should also 

address the availability of new technologies or procedures that provide a significant improvement against the design basis threat. 

Foreign Materiel Exploitation 

Consistent with the committee report (H. Rept. 112–479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012, the committee notes the importance of the foreign materiel 

exploitation of the Department of Defense. According to Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General Report Number 

98–005, foreign materiel exploitation involves analysis, testing, and 

evaluation of foreign materiel to include testing against U.S. equipment. Foreign materiel exploitation supports Department of Defense acquisition programs, testing, threat simulator and target development, modeling and simulation, and training and tactics. The 

committee encourages the Department to ensure the military services have the necessary facilities and resources to perform this critical mission. 

Dayton Peace Accord Exhibit 

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Accords, negotiated at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, in November 

1995, ended the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and stands as 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
320 

one of the great contributions in our generation to ending armed 

conflict. Moreover, it is a testament to the value Americans place 

on promoting world peace. The committee encourages the Secretary 

of the Air Force to work with the Director of the National Park 

Services to develop appropriate permanent commemorative exhibits 

at or in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to tell the 

story to the American people as well as international visitors of 

America’s contribution to peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina through 

the negotiation of the Dayton Accords. 

Department of Defense Joint Bases 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

realize efficiencies through joint basing, but it is concerned that the 

intent of joint basing, including a consolidation of common services 

across the entirety of the joint base enterprise, has not realized its 

full potential. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the extent to which 

the Department of Defense has achieved joint operations and efficiencies at joint bases. Specifically, the report should address the 

following elements: 

(1) The common elements that are included in the individual 

joint base memoranda of agreements, differences that are 

unique to joint bases, and how the memoranda of agreements 

reflect best practices identified on joint bases on how the services interact and provide for support services; 

(2) The extent to which joint bases have implemented the 

terms of their memoranda of agreement, including adopting 

the joint standards to provide a single source for support services; 

(3) The extent to which the joint bases have reduced duplication of management and similar support services, achieved 

greater efficiencies through economies of scale, and consolidated and optimized existing and future service contract requirements; and 

(4) How the Department of Defense measures the improvement in joint operations from the joint bases and what the Department of Defense has found in measuring joint operations. 

Distributed Generation and Energy Security 

The committee is aware of the dependency of military facilities 

and installations across the globe on outside inputs, such as the 

electrical grid. The committee is also aware of myriad threats 

arrayed against such utilities in the cyber domain. Accordingly, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to evaluate available technologies for distributed power generation, including but 

not limited to fuel cells, microgrids, solar generation, wind turbines, other renewables and trigeneration, as part of its ongoing efforts for installation energy management to increase energy reliability and energy security, as defined in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), with consideration for lifecycle cost savings and return-on-investment associated with such projects. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
321 

European Consolidation Initiative 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is conducting an analysis of infrastructure capacity in Europe to provide 

the basis for reducing expenses through consolidations. The committee is supportive of the Department of Defense’s effort to eliminate excess capacity overseas while ensuring that our infrastructure properly supports the operational and strategic requirements 

of the national security interests of the United States. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2014. The briefing shall address the results of the European Infrastructure Consolidation assessment and include an assessment of military force 

structure and infrastructure requirements overseas, to include an 

assessment of excess infrastructure and infrastructure capacity 

overseas and consideration of the consolidation of overseas infrastructure. 

Industrial Control Systems integration into the Department of 

Defense Networks 

In the development of an energy monitoring and utility control 

system specification for military construction and military family 

housing activities as required by section 2841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

and energy metering requirements directed by section 2827 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239), the committee understands that the commercially 

developed control systems are required to seek compliance certifications to enable them to operate on Department of Defense networks. These compliance certifications are essential for national security, but due to the lengthy and cumbersome process to gain certification to operate on defense networks, the Department of Defense is unable to integrate the latest control energy monitoring 

and utility control systems into its overall physical plant and networking architecture. The committee believes that it is essential to 

expedite the compliance process that will allow for integration of 

needed, next-generation control systems while still ensuring adherence to network security protocols. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination with 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 

Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer, to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014 on steps to 

improve the Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process to more rapidly ensure compliance for energy 

monitoring and utility control systems and to capture and track energy usage. Specifically, this briefing should address any updates 

to the Unified Facilities Guide Specification that are required to 

implement this direction. 

KC–46A Air National Guard Basing Strategy 

The committee understands that the Air Force plans to accept 

delivery of 179 KC–46A aircraft between 2016–28. The current 

strategic basing strategy, as briefed to the committee, proposed to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
322 

base KC–46A aircraft at up to 10 Main Operating Bases (MOB). Of 

these, up to two will be Active Duty-led within the continental 

United States, up to four will be Air National Guard-led, up to two 

will be Air Force Reserve-led, and up to two will be located outside 

the continental United States. While the first Active Duty-led MOB 

will have a primary aircraft authorization (PAA) of 36 aircraft and 

the first Air National Guard-led MOB will have a PAA of 12 aircraft, the committee is aware that the Air Force is currently working to determine the most efficient basing construct for future Air 

National Guard-led MOBs. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force, or a designee, to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on the basing strategy, to include PAA 

construct and basing criteria, for future Air National Guard-led 

MOBs, no later than 30 days before a final basing decision is made. 

Leased Space Assessment 

The committee notes that several of the Department of Defense’s 

base closure and realignment (BRAC) recommendations were designed to relocate certain activities from leased space to Government-owned space. In the justification for some of these recommendations, the Secretary of Defense noted that implementation 

would reduce the Department’s reliance on leased space, which historically has overall higher costs than Government-owned space 

and generally does not meet anti-terrorism/force protection standards. In a June 2012 report (GAO–12–709R), the Government Accountability Office noted that 2 of the recommendations to consolidate from leased space to Government-owned space were among 

the 14 recommendations for increasing the most in one-time costs. 

However, since the conclusion of the BRAC round, the committee 

has become aware that Department is continuing to rely on leased 

space. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by March 1, 2014, on the Department’s reliance on leased 

space to meet its mission requirements and address the following: 

(1) How much space does the Department lease, specifically 

in the National Capital Region? 

(2) To what extent has the Department reduced its reliance 

on leased space since the beginning of BRAC 2005, particularly 

in the National Capital Region? 

(3) How much is the Department spending on such leases? 

(4) To what extent do facilities currently being leased by Department of Defense activities comply with current anti-terrorism/force protection standards? 

(5) To what extent do opportunities exist to further reduce 

the extent to which the Department leases space, particularly 

in the National Capital Region? 

Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization 

As a federally funded research and development center sponsored 

by the Department of Defense, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory conducts research and develops technologies that address critical national security challenges. The comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
323 

mittee notes that Lincoln Laboratory’s facilities at Hanscom Air 

Force Base are in need of improvement and modernization in order 

to carry out their mission. The committee believe that the Secretary of the Air Force has existing authorities under section 2667 

of title 10, United States Code, to carry out improvements and 

modernization of the Lincoln Laboratory complex at Hanscom Air 

Force Base, Massachusetts. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to enter 

into discussions with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to 

carry out such improvements and modernizations as the Secretary 

determines to be appropriate. 

Military Heritage Sites 

The committee is aware of a number of military heritage sites, 

such as museums and exhibits that are dedicated to preserving and 

promoting the history of the United States Armed Forces. In many 

instances, such sites are operated by non-profit organizations and 

may be located on real estate leased from the Department of Defense or the Military Departments. The committee is further aware 

that section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, provides authority 

for the Secretary concerned to lease real property for a term of 

more than 5 years, and for an amount that is less than the fair 

market value of the lease interest, if the Secretary concerned determines that a public interest will be served as a result of the lease. 

The committee believes that the public interest can be well served 

by the operation of military heritage sites that preserve and promote the history of the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Department of Defense and the military 

departments, when in the public interest and when such activity 

does not conflict with military operational requirements, to work 

with military heritage sites under existing real estate authorities 

to allow for the continued operation of such sites. 

Plan for Replacement of MQ–1 Aircraft of the National Guard 

The committee notes that the Air Force is considering a transition strategy for the Predator MQ–1 to the Reaper MQ–9. The committee supports this transition strategy and believes that the Air 

Force should prioritize the replacement of MQ–1s with MQ–9s at 

locations with an existing Formal Training Units schoolhouses, 

which would allow the Air Force to capitalize on existing infrastructure, trained personnel, instructor expertise, and minimize 

overall life cycle costs. 

Therefore, not later than March 1, 2014, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a recapitalization plan for the replacement of 

MQ–1 aircraft with MQ–9 aircraft. The plan shall include the criteria for beddown, including both the weight and scoring of such 

criteria that will be given to MQ–1 wings and squadrons with colocated formal training unit schoolhouse missions. 

Report on Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment 

The committee recognizes the Army’s need to responsibly decrease Active Duty end strength from 562,000 at the end of Fiscal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
324 

Year 2012 to 490,000 by Fiscal Year 2020. The committee notes 

that as the Army considers stationing actions that will involve the 

inactivation of at least eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), the 

Army has undertaken a Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

(PEA) to examine the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 

potential stationing decisions. In addition, the Army process will 

involve a qualitative analysis to consider factors such as training, 

power projection, Soldier well-being, mission expansion, and geographic distribution. In making final stationing recommendations, 

the committee fully expects the Army to demonstrate a business 

case analysis in support of each recommendation. Prior to issuing 

formal stationing announcements related to the Army 2020 force 

structure realignment, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 

on the business case to support the stationing recommendations 

proposed by the Army. 

Space Management 

The committee believes that significant savings may be available 

in better space management on military installations. The Government Accountability Office continues to designate the Department 

of Defense’s management of its support infrastructure as a highrisk area, in part because of issues in disposing of excess facilities. 

In order to identify excess or underutilized facilities, the Department needs accurate facility utilization information in its real property inventory database. This information is ultimately reported to 

the Federal Real Property Profile and is used by decision-makers 

to make asset management decisions, including disposing of 

unneeded federal properties or identifying opportunities for consolidation. 

As the Government Accountability Office recently reported, the 

Department does not maintain complete and accurate data concerning the utilization of its facilities. For example, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department’s real property inventory database showed utilization data for less than half 

of the Department’s total inventory and that this data was often 

incomplete or did not reflect the true usage rate of the facilities. 

Further, the Government Accountability Office recommended that 

the Department calculate and record complete and accurate utilization data for all facilities. The Department concurred with this recommendation and stated that it recognizes the need for further improvements in the collection and reporting of utilization data. The 

Department of Defense’s ability to identify excess or underutilized 

facilities and potential opportunities for consolidation of space relies on collecting and maintaining accurate facility utilization data. 

The committee encourages the Department to take action to correct 

its collection and reporting of facility utilization data to ensure that 

opportunities for disposal or consolidation are identified and not 

lost. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the Department’s efforts to improve 

the accuracy of its real property inventory database and the impact 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
325 

on consolidation activities. At a minimum, the report should address the following: 

(1) To what extent has the Department improved collecting 

and accurately maintaining facility utilization data in its real 

property inventory database; 

(2) To what extent does the Department use the data contained in its real property inventory database to identify excess 

facilities or potential consolidation opportunities; and 

(3) To what extent the Department has consolidated facilities 

where the Department identified consolidation opportunities. 

Study on Treating Defense Nuclear Facilities as Military 

Construction 

Section 2804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013, as passed by the House of Representatives, would have 

mandated that certain defense nuclear facility construction projects 

of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) be 

deemed military construction projects and be carried out as such. 

The committee continues to be concerned about NNSA’s inability to 

successfully execute large defense nuclear facility construction 

projects. Last year, NNSA informed the committee that its largest 

defense nuclear facility construction project, the Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (UCRP) at the Y–12 National Security 

Complex, Tennessee, had encountered major problems because the 

process equipment would not fit within the structure of the 

planned building. NNSA also now intends to reduce the scope of 

UCRP such that only capabilities currently contained in Building 

9212 at Y–12 National Security Complex will be replaced in the 

first phase of the project; however, the project cost is likely to increase despite the reduced scope. NNSA has indicated that the redesign required by this problem will result in a schedule delay of 

at least 9 months and require a new baseline cost estimate. 

As only the most recent example of NNSA’s history of problems 

in designing and constructing large defense nuclear facilities ontime and on-budget, the committee continues to believe that facilities, like UCRP, can be constructed in a more cost effective and 

timely manner. To better understand the option and implications 

of designating these facilities as military construction, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 30, 2014, 

containing an analysis of the feasibility, costs, benefits, and risks 

regarding moving design and construction of defense nuclear facilities to military construction. In addition an assessment of costs, 

benefits, and risks, the report should also include: 

(1) A comparative analysis of the similarities and differences 

between the military construction process and NNSA’s defense 

nuclear facility construction process, including for one-of-a-kind 

facilities; 

(2) A description of the Navy’s history and experience in designing and constructing nuclear facilities, including one-of-akind facilities and facilities that process and store nuclear materials; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
326 

(3) One or more case studies describing the costs, benefits, 

and risks of carrying out a specific defense nuclear facility construction project through military construction. 

Update to Master Plan for Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti 

The committee acknowledges the strategic importance of Camp 

Lemonnier, Djibouti, which currently supports four combatant commands as well as other government agencies. The committee believes that the national security interests of the United States are 

supported by the enduring presence at Camp Lemonnier and recognizes the need to make prudent investments in the infrastructure 

and facilities at Camp Lemonnier that are necessary to support the 

enduring mission. 

On August 31, 2012, the committee received the Camp 

Lemonnier, Djibouti Master Plan which outlined a $1.4 billion investment to provide infrastructure to support operational requirements and support functions at Camp Lemonnier. The committee 

received an update to this master plan on April 12, 2013, which reduced the total cost to $880 million. However, the committee is 

aware that the Government of Djibouti mandated that operations 

of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) cease from Camp Lemonnier, 

while allowing such operations to relocate to Chabelley Airfield, 

Djibouti. To date, the committee has received notification of approximately $13.0 million in investments made to ensure that appropriate infrastructure and equipment is in place to support the 

relocation of RPA operations to Chabelley Airfield. While the committee is supportive of the investments necessary to allow continuity of operations from Djibouti, the committee is concerned 

about the lack of clarity on the long-term plan to sustain operations and the infrastructure at this leased location and subsequent investments required to support such operations. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense 

to keep the committee informed as alternative locations are considered to host RPA operations that were previously hosted at Camp 

Lemonnier and as changes are made to the short- and long-term 

master plans for infrastructure requirements to support operations 

from Djibouti. Additionally, the committee also encourages the Department of Defense to ensure that the master plan addresses energy security requirements to include energy reductions and surety 

of supply, in addition to steps taken to minimize exposures to toxic 

fumes from host-nation waste disposal sites. 

U.S. Air Force Space Command Infrastructure 

The committee recognizes the national importance of having a 

safe, secure, reliable, and modern space launch range infrastructure to support the national security space mission. The committee 

is aware that there are a number of aging facilities, with structural 

and technological deficiencies, that are indispensable hubs for command, telemetry, and radar support for U.S. space launch capabilities as well as warfighters down-range. The committee notes that 

the Air Force included military construction projects in the Future 

Years Defense Program, submitted as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 

budget request, that would support the U.S. Air Force Space ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
327 

mand. However, the committee is concerned about the current condition of the aging facilities and the impact such conditions may 

have on the ability of U.S. Air Force Space Command to meet its 

mission and operational requirements until such facilities are recapitalized. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of 

U.S. Air Force Space Command to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the modernization and sustainment of space launch range infrastructure that 

supports its mission. In addition, the briefing should address what 

steps are planned to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the mission readiness of U.S. Air Force Space Command until such time 

as the infrastructure is recapitalized. 

Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support 

Initiative 

The committee believes the Army’s government-owned ammunition plants are critical to the nation’s readiness and to equipping 

the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee recognizes that the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Initiative has 

allowed Army ammunition plants to utilize commercial firms to reduce overhead costs, resulting in cost savings and lower production 

costs for the Department of Defense. The committee encourages 

continued utilization of the ARMS Initiative to promote use of ammunition plant facilities by private firms, foster private investment 

in the facilities, and generate further cost savings. The committee 

also encourages cooperation and coordination among the Army, 

property managers, commercial interests, local and state agencies, 

and local economic development organizations to promote effective 

utilization of ARMS. 

To further promote its use, the committee directs the Secretary 

of the Army, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology as well as Joint 

Munitions Command, to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2014, on potential improvements to 

the ARMS Initiative. The report should include proposals to foster 

greater participation by commercial interests and local and state 

agencies and should consider longer lease terms in order to foster 

greater commercial interest in the program. 

Vulnerability of Defense Infrastructure to Seismic Hazards 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has existing infrastructure on installations located in seismic hazard 

zones and that some of this infrastructure is vulnerable to seismic 

hazards. The committee acknowledges that there is a need for the 

Department of Defense to balance investments in infrastructure 

that supports new missions while also recapitalizing existing infrastructure that supports current missions. When prioritizing recapitalization projects, the committee encourages the Department to 

address seismic vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure that supports the national security of the United States. Particular consideration should be given to buildings, depots, and other infrastructure located in seismic hazard zones that are in need of seismic upVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
328 

grades to ensure the life, safety, and health of personnel as well 

as the continuity of operations following a seismic event. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified 

Military Construction 

The section would modify section 2805 of title 10, United States 

Code, and allow the threshold of the unspecified minor construction 

project to be adjusted based on area cost factors. This section would 

also increase the threshold of application associated with operation 

and maintenance funding for construction purposes from $750,000 

to $1.0 million. 

Section 2802—Repeal of Requirements for Local Comparability of 

Room Patterns and Floor Areas for Military Family Housing and 

Submission of Net Floor Area Information 

This section would repeal section 2826 of title 10, Untied States 

Code, that required the Secretary concerned to acquire military 

family housing that is comparable in structure to family housing 

available in the local community. While the committee notes that 

the Administration has generally adopted this practice, the committee also notes that the Department should be provided latitude 

in the design and construction of family housing. 

Section 2803—Repeal of Separate Authority to Enter into Limited 

Partnerships with Private Developers of Housing 

This section would repeal the limited authority of the Department of Defense to enter into partnerships with private developers 

for the purpose of providing family housing construction. The committee notes that subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United 

States Code, provides the Department of Defense broad authority 

to implement an extremely successful privatization family housing 

program which is not being abridged by this section. 

Section 2804—Military Construction Standards to Reduce 

Vulnerability of Structures to Terrorist Attack 

This section would provide additional latitude to the Department 

of Defense (DOD) to apply local threat criteria into the design of 

DOD facilities. 

Currently, the Department of Defense uses a universal design 

basis threat to develop facilities criteria. Unfortunately, the universal application of a design basis threat drives increased facility 

costs when no credible threat exists. The committee continues to be 

concerned about institutional cost additions that only serve to increase the Federal cost premium. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
329 

Section 2805—Treatment of Payments Received for Providing Utilities and Services in Connection with Use of Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing 

This provision would modify section 2872a of title 10, United 

States Code, and eliminate the fiscal year reimbursement loss that 

occurs on late fiscal year reimbursements to the military family 

housing account. Specifically, payments made for utilities and services would be credited to the appropriation or working capital account that is current at the time the reimbursements are received, 

instead of the appropriation account from which the services were 

originally funded. 

Section 2806—Repeal of Advance Notification Requirement for Use 

of Military Family Housing Investment Authority 

This section would repeal a family housing notification requirement required in section 2875 of title 10, United States Code, that 

has been previously assessed in the President’s request. 

Section 2807—Additional Element for Annual Report on Military 

Housing Privatization Projects 

This section would provide additional oversight and accountability in the pursuit of military family housing privatization 

projects to include an assessment of litigation costs that are being 

pursued by the privatization partners. 

Section 2808—Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use 

Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects in 

Certain Areas Outside the United States 

This section would amend section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public 

Law 108–136) and extend the Department of Defense’s ability to 

use operation and maintenance appropriations for military construction purposes for the U.S. Central Command and Horn of Africa area until September 30, 2014. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Codification of Policies and Requirements Regarding 

Closure and Realignment of United States Military Installations 

in Foreign Countries 

This section would repeal section 2921 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510) and 

consolidate the requirements of overseas basing notification process 

in section 2687a of title 10, Untied States Code. This section would 

also remove a redundant reporting requirement associated with the 

proposed residual value of foreign military closure determinations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
330 

SUBTITLE C—ENERGY SECURITY

Section 2821—Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds for 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or 

Platinum Certification 

This section would continue the prohibition on the use of funds 

for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design gold or platinum certifications for fiscal year 2014, set forth in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 

81), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has met 

two of the three requirements to include submission of a report regarding the different design standards and a new high performance 

and sustainable building unified facilities criteria. The committee 

looks forward to receiving the updated policy guidance that prescribes building design and certification standards that specifically 

address energy- and water-efficient standards and sustainable design attributes for military construction based on the cost-benefit 

analysis, return on investment, total ownership costs, and demonstrated payback applied by specific geographic location and local 

circumstances to ensure maximum savings. 

SUBTITLE D—PROVISIONS RELATED TO GUAM REALIGNMENT

Section 2831—Change From Previous Calendar Year to Previous 

Fiscal Year for Period Covered by Annual Report of Interagency 

Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment 

This section would change the annual inspectors general reporting requirement from the end of each calendar year to the end of 

the fiscal year. 

Section 2832—Repeal of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of 

Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region 

This section would repeal section 2832 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239). 

SUBTITLE E—LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Real Property Acquisition, Naval Base Ventura 

County, California 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to terminate the outlease and acquire certain family housing improvements 

at Naval Base Ventura County, California. This section would also 

authorize the continued use of the housing as authorized by section 

2835 and section 2835a of title 10, United States Code, pending 

funding and execution of a Navy project to permanently convert the 

housing to an alternative use. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
331 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Former Oxnard Air Force Base, 

Ventura County, California 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, 

without consideration, the Oxnard Air Force Base at Ventura, California, to Ventura County for public purposes. 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

certain properties and improvements at the Philadelphia Naval 

Shipyard, Pennsylvania, for fair market value. 

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Camp Williams, Utah 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

transfer 420 acres to the State of Utah for the purpose of permitting the Utah National Guard to use the conveyed land for military 

use. 

Section 2845—Conveyance, Air National Guard Radar Site, Francis 

Peak, Wasatch Mountains, Utah 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

convey, without consideration, certain Air National Guard facilities 

at Francis Peak, Utah, for purposes of permitting the State to use 

the structures to support emergency public safety communications. 

This authority shall expire on September 30, 2014, or enactment 

of an act authorizing military construction for fiscal year 2015, 

whichever is later. 

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Former Fort Monroe, Hampton, 

Virginia 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey 

certain properties at Fort Monroe, Virginia, to the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. 

Section 2847—Land Conveyance, Mifflin County United States 

Army Reserve Center, Lewistown, Pennsylvania 

This section would convey, without consideration, to Derry Township, Pennsylvania, certain properties for the purpose of permitting 

the Township to use these properties for public purposes. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2861—Repeal of Annual Economic Adjustment Committee 

Reporting Requirement 

This section would repeal an annual economic adjustment committee report required by section 4004 of the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, and Stabilization Act of 1990 (division D 

of Public Law 101–510). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
332 

Section 2862—Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies 

This section would name the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific 

Center for Security Studies’’, and would make other conforming 

changes. 

Section 2863—Redesignation of the Graduate School of Nursing at 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the 

Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing 

This section would rename the Graduate School of Nursing at 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, as the 

‘‘Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing’’, and would make 

other conforming changes. 

Section 2864—Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 

National Historical Park, Ohio 

This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry, Sr. 

Wright Brothers Aviation Center to the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright 

Brothers National Museum, Dayton, Ohio. 

Section 2865—Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in 

Riverside, California 

This section would authorize a memorial to members of the 

Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying 

Cross The memorial is located at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, and would hereby be designated as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial. 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained no funds for Overseas Contingency 

Activity military construction related activities. The committee recommends authorization of $247,400,000 for Overseas Contingency 

Activity military construction activities. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Project 

This section would contain the list of certain authorized Army 

construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts 

include: Seaside Galley, $12.0 million; High Value Detainee Facility, $52.0 million; Medical Support Facilities, $11.8 million; Communications Network Facility, $11.6 million; Barracks (496 Persons), $94.0 million; and Barracks (352 Persons), $66.0 million. 

These projects represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at this location. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
333 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a brief to the congressional defense committees on infrastructure costs associated with continued detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and would require the President to provide a 

plan relating to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, future terrorist captures, and detainees held at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan. 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND 

WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT READINESS AND 

SECURITY 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—LIMESTONE HILLS TRAINING AREA, MONTANA

Section 3001—Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Lands for 

Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana 

This section would withdraw the lands described at Limestone 

Hills Training Area, Montana, for use by the Department of the 

Army. 

Section 3002—Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to manage 

the lands withdrawn in section 3001 in accordance with the limitations and restrictions of section. 

Section 3003—Special Rules Governing Minerals Management 

This section would establish additional rules governing mineral 

management at Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana. 

Section 3004—Grazing 

This section would require the Secretary of the Interior to continue and manage grazing permits and leases. The Secretary of the 

Interior, with the agreement of the Secretary of the Army, may delegate such authority to the Secretary of the Army. 

Section 3005—Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation 

This section would terminate the land withdrawal authorized in 

this subtitle on March 31, 2039. 

Section 3006—Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

This section would authorize the lands withdrawn in section 

3001 to remain entitlement land under section 6901 of title 31, 

United States Code. 

Section 3007—Hunting, Fishing and Trapping 

This section would require hunting, fishing and trapping on the 

lands withdrawn in section 3001 to be conducted in accordance 

with section 2671 of title 10, United States Code. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
334 

Section 3008—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

withdrawal authorized in section 3001. 

Section 3009—Brush and Range Fire Prevention and Suppression 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to take necessary precautions to prevent, and actions to suppress, brush and 

range fires occurring as a result of military activities on the lands 

withdrawn by section 3001. 

Section 3010—On-Going Decontamination 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to maintain 

a program of decontamination on the withdrawn land provided by 

section 3001. 

Section 3011—Application for Renewal of a Withdrawal and 

Reservation 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to notify 

the Secretary of the Interior 5 years before the termination of the 

withdrawal. The Secretary of the Army shall provide to the Secretary of the Interior notice as to the Army’s intent to continue defense related functions after the term of the withdrawal. 

Section 3012—Limitation on Subsequent Availability of Lands for 

Appropriation 

This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 

3001 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws. 

Section 3013—Relinquishment 

This section would provide authority and procedures for the Secretary of the Army to relinquish any or all of the lands withdrawn 

or reserved authorized in section 3001. 

SUBTITLE B—WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, NEW MEXICO

Section 3021—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, White 

Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 

This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. 

Section 3022—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3021. 

Section 3023—Withdrawal 

This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 

3021 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long 

as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of the Army. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
335 

SUBTITLE C—NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE, 

CALIFORNIA

Section 3031—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air 

Weapons Station China Lake, California 

This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Inyo, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, 

California, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the 

Navy. 

Section 3032—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3031. 

Section 3033—Withdrawal 

This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 

3031 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long 

as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of the Navy. 

SUBTITLE D—CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE, 

CALIFORNIA

Section 3041—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Chocolate 

Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California 

This section would transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain lands located in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California, 

from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Section 3042—Management and Use of Transferred Land 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to use the 

lands transferred in section 3041 for military purposes. This section would also limit any diminution of these lands as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Finally, this section would withdraw the 

lands transferred in section 3041 from all forms of appropriation 

under public land laws so long as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. 

Section 3043—Realignment of Range Boundary and Related 

Transfer of Title 

This section would authorize the realignment of the range boundary to ensure that the northwestern boundary of the Chocolate 

Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range shall be realigned to the edge of 

the Bradshaw trail so that the trail remains entirely under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply 

to any transfer provided by this section. 

Section 3044—Effect of Termination of Military Use 

This section would require that if the Secretary of the Navy determines that there is no longer a military need for the lands 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
336 

transferred by section 3041, the Secretary of the Navy shall assess 

the level of contamination and determine, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Interior, whether decontamination is practical and 

economically feasible. If the Secretary of the Navy determines that 

decontamination is practical, the Secretary of the Navy shall provide funds for such decontamination. 

Section 3045—Temporary Extension of Existing Withdrawal Period 

This section would find that notwithstanding subsection (a) of 

section 806 of the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflight Act of 1994 (title VIII of Public Law 103–433), the withdrawal and reservation of land transferred under section 3041 shall 

not terminate until the date on which the land transfer required 

by section 3041 is executed. 

Section 3046—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3041. 

SUBTITLE E—MARINE CORPS AIR GROUND COMBAT CENTER

TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA

Section 3051—Designation of Johnson Valley National Off-Highway 

Vehicle Recreation Area 

This section would designate certain lands administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior in San Bernardino County, California, as 

the ‘‘Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation 

Area’’. This section would further withdraw the lands designated in 

this section from all forms of appropriation under public land laws. 

Section 3052—Limited Biannual Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 

Center Twentynine Palms Use of Johnson Valley National OffHighway Vehicle Recreation Area 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the Secretary of the Navy’s use of the Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area twice in each calendar 

year for up to a total of 60 days per year for certain purposes. Any 

agreement for the military use of the Johnson Valley National OffHighway Vehicle Recreation Area shall terminate not later than 

March 31, 2039. 

Section 3053—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Southern 

Study Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 

Twentynine Palms, California 

This section would transfer certain lands in San Bernardino 

County, California, as generally depicted as the ‘‘Southern Study 

Area’’ to be transferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the 

Secretary of the Navy for military purposes. 

Section 3054—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3051. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
337 

SUBTITLE F—NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON, NEVADA

Section 3061—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air 

Station Fallon, Nevada 

This section would transfer certain lands in Churchill County, 

Nevada, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the 

Navy for military purposes. 

Section 3062—Water Rights 

This section would retain water rights in existence prior to the 

transfer of administrative jurisdiction authorized in section 3061. 

Section 3063—Withdrawal 

This section would withdraw the lands transferred in section 

3031 from all forms of appropriation under public land laws so long 

as the lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of the Navy. 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2014 contained $17.8 billion 

for atomic energy defense activities. The committee recommends 

$17.6 billion, a decrease of $146.0 million to the budget request. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $11.7 billion for the programs of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends $11.9 billion, an increase of $212.0 

million to the budget request. 

Weapons Activities 

Advanced manufacturing within the nuclear security enterprise 

The committee notes the recent progress in advanced manufacturing technologies in the commercial sector and the potential to 

adapt these methods for use by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These technologies have the potential to reduce the cost, schedule, and risk for NNSA’s warhead life extension 

programs and other national security programs. Technologies such 

as additive manufacturing may improve the manufacturability of 

components, reduce time required between design and production 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
338 

of components, and reduce waste and production footprint. However, the committee is aware that new manufacturing technologies 

may face significant hurdles before their products can be certified 

for use in the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee also is 

concerned that advanced manufacturing technologies could create 

proliferation challenges. 

The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

develop a roadmap for developing the opportunities and addressing 

the challenges of advanced manufacturing technologies, and to provide a briefing on the roadmap to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2014. The plan should include identification 

of the following: 

(1) Near-term and long-term advanced manufacturing processes that could be further developed and adapted for NNSA’s 

mission; 

(2) Steps that must be taken to scale-up advanced manufacturing technologies to support NNSA production requirements; 

(3) Potential cost savings and reductions in waste, including 

toxic waste, floor space requirements, and production time that 

may be possible from the use of advanced manufacturing technologies; 

(4) Timelines associated with developing and scaling up advanced manufacturing technologies; 

(5) Challenges related to certification for use in the stockpile 

of products made through advanced manufacturing technologies, including timelines for when such certification may be 

possible; and 

(6) Collaboration opportunities related to advanced manufacturing among the production plants and laboratories of the nuclear security enterprise, as well as private industry and other 

Government agencies. 

Finally, the briefing should also provide an assessment of the security and proliferation implications of these new technologies, including implications for detection of illicit uses and steps that 

should be taken to protect or limit access to sensitive technologies. 

Budget tables for NNSA Production Office 

As is traditional practice, the fiscal year 2014 budget request 

submission for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contained ‘‘Laboratory 

Tables’’ and ‘‘State Tables’’ that are intended to describe, respectively, the funding each DOE facility would receive and the funding 

each State would receive under the budget request. Due to the recent creation of the NNSA Production Office (NPO), which oversees 

both the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and the Y–12 National 

Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, these budget tables are 

unclear. The Laboratory Tables combine the amounts for Pantex 

and Y–12 under the NPO and do not provide any information regarding how much funding would be provided to each of these facilities. Furthermore, the State Tables combine the nearly $1.8 billion in total funding for Pantex and Y–12 into a single entry called 

‘‘Undesignated State.’’ 

This lack of clarity hinders the committee’s ability to understand 

the budget request in detail. The committee encourages the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
339 

retary of Energy to include facility-specific detail for Pantex and Y– 

12 in future budget submissions. 

Cyber security 

The budget request contained $148.4 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Chief Information Officer (NCIO) 

Activities. 

The NCIO program includes cyber security efforts at NNSA 

Headquarters, field offices, and the facilities of the nuclear security 

enterprise. Like other agencies of the federal government, NNSA 

has been striving to defend against cyber security threats of increasing quantity and sophistication. The committee is concerned 

that the request for NCIO Activities does not reflect the severity 

of this threat, and the committee is concerned that NNSA is actually decreasing the cyber security funds provided to the management and operating contractors who run its facilities and have 

operational responsibility for protecting their computer networks. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $170.9 million for NCIO 

Activities, an increase of $22.5 million. The committee expects this 

funding would be distributed in a risk-based manner across all 

NNSA elements and the facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. 

Clarification of congressional intent regarding national security laboratories 

The committee believes that national security relies upon a diverse science and technology base that is then leveraged and applied to a wide range of problems. This includes weapons development, but also signature detection and analysis, forensics and attribution, data analysis, nonproliferation, infrastructure protection, 

cyber security, and many others. In the United States, many of 

these capabilities are stewarded and provided by a broad range of 

national laboratories in a way that leverages the investments of 

many federal agencies responsible for security, energy, and fundamental science missions. 

The committee notes that section 3131 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) created a statutory definition for ‘‘national security laboratory’’ in section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501). The 

definition includes the three laboratories of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration. However, the committee clarifies that the 

intent of this definition was not to exclude other national laboratories or defense laboratories from pursuing or engaging in national 

security work. The committee believes the capabilities of all Federal laboratories should be leveraged to support national security 

wherever appropriate, with particular focus on leveraging unique 

capabilities while avoiding unnecessary duplication and loss of critical capabilities. 

Deferred maintenance in the nuclear security enterprise 

The budget request contained $1.7 billion for Site Stewardship, 

which includes $433.8 million for Enterprise InfrastructureSustainment. These funds provide for maintenance activities at 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
340 

mission essential facilities, recapitalization of aging and obsolete 

infrastructure, and efforts to address deferred maintenance. 

The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program 

(FIRP) was established in fiscal year 2002 to reduce the backlog of 

deferred maintenance that had accumulated across the facilities of 

the nuclear security enterprise. In February 2013, the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced the completion of the FIRP and highlighted that, during the course of the program, over 800 separate projects had been executed and a total of 

$900 million in deferred maintenance had been eliminated. 

With the termination of FIRP and the numerous high-priority 

programs at the NNSA, the committee is concerned that the backlog of deferred maintenance will again accumulate. The committee 

encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security to remain vigilant and request resources as needed to ensure NNSA’s facilities 

and infrastructure are modern and well-maintained. To ensure full 

transparency, the committee also encourages the Administrator to 

include, as part of future budget requests, an estimate of the deferred maintenance backlog across the enterprise. The committee recommends $498.9 million for Enterprise Infra- structure-Sustainment, an increase of $65.1 million to the budget 

request, to support continued reduction of deferred maintenance 

across the enterprise. 

Directed Stockpile Work 

The budget request contained $2.4 billion for Directed Stockpile 

Work (DSW). DSW encompasses a variety of activities related to 

the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) core mission of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and management, 

including life extension programs and major alterations, stockpile 

surveillance and sustainment, testing and experiments, manufacturing and delivery of limited life components, and weapons dismantlement and disposition. Within DSW, the budget request contained $1.0 billion for life extension programs and major alterations to nuclear weapons in the 

enduring stockpile. The committee notes that the Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security has testified that the continuing effects 

of budget cuts, including those resulting from the Budget Control 

Act, may result in delays to schedules for several critical DSW programs, including the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) and the 

W78/88–1 LEP. The committee also notes that NNSA has budgeted 

for $106.8 million in ‘‘efficiencies’’ within DSW. If these efficiencies 

are not achieved, significant impacts to critical DSW programs will 

likely result. 

The committee recommends $2.6 billion for DSW, an increase of 

$125.9 million to the budget request. This includes $581.0 million 

for the B61 LEP, an increase of $44.0 million, and $78.3 million, 

an increase of $5.6 million, to the W78/88–1 LEP to reduce risk 

and prevent schedule slips in these critical programs. This also includes $245.1 million for the W76 LEP, an increase of $9.7 million, 

to ensure NNSA delivers the full, previously-agreed quantity of 

W76–1 warheads to the Navy in fiscal year 2014. Finally, this also 

includes $970.8 million for Stockpile Services, an increase of $60.6 

million, to improve capabilities that support the entire stockpile, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
341 

particularly research and development in support of certification 

and safety and plutonium sustainment activities. Within Stockpile 

Services, $351.0 million is provided to Production Support, an increase of $29.6 million, to ensure sufficient production capacity is 

available to support the B61 and W76 LEPs. 

Exascale computing 

To maintain our economic and national security, the committee 

believes that the United States must continue to be at the forefront 

of high-performance computing technology. The committee believes 

that the U.S. must continue public and private efforts to develop 

exascale computing systems that would represent a dramatic leapforward in high performance computing technology. Such computers would not only help ensure the long-term viability of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, 

but would also support important technology innovation for the 

broader economy. 

A robust research and development program coordinated among 

the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of 

Energy’s Office of Science, and key industry partners is critical to 

successfully fielding exascale computers. Recent progress towards 

exascale computing is encouraging, but significant technical challenges remain. The committee encourages the Administrator for 

Nuclear Security and the Secretary of Energy to prioritize exascale 

computing development efforts within its high performance computing portfolio. 

Ignition and budget prioritization 

The committee understands that the National Ignition Campaign 

concluded in September 2012 without having achieved its primary 

goal of creating fusion ignition in a laboratory environment. The 

committee continues to support efforts to achieve ignition, but believes such efforts must become a lower priority when the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is faced with such large 

budget needs in core Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs. The committee is therefore supportive of NNSA’s efforts in 

fiscal year 2013 and the budget request for fiscal year 2014 to reorient funding for ignition experiments towards experiments and 

activities more directly supporting the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

The committee believes NNSA must set priorities within its budget 

and continues to believe that the top priority of the Administrator 

must be sustaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile, 

delivering life extension programs on schedules that meet military 

requirements, and modernizing the supporting infrastructure. 

Livermore valley open campus 

The committee understands that the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) has endorsed the development of the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC), which utilizes adjoining portions of the California site of Sandia National Laboratories and the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to enable mission-driven 

research and development collaboration with public and private 

sector partners. The LVOC research activities, first initiated in fiscal year 2011, enhance core laboratory science and engineering caVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
342 

pabilities by advancing programs in high performance computing, 

energy security, and cyber security. The committee encourages the 

NNSA to consider facilitating continued development of the LVOC 

by utilizing its existing authorities to lease land within the LVOC 

to enable public/private partnerships to construct new facilities. 

However, the committee cautions that the LVOC should complement, and not distract from, NNSA’s core mission, that limited 

NNSA resources must be applied judiciously to any public/private 

partnerships, and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure security of sensitive information. 

Trilateral cooperation 

The committee notes that there may be opportunities to strengthen trilateral cooperation between the United States, the United 

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French 

Republic on nuclear stockpile stewardship and nuclear nonproliferation goals. These efforts could increase scientific collaboration and lead to cost-savings and efficiencies in a budget-constrained environment. The committee therefore encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the Secretary 

of Energy, to consider specific technical, scientific, and policy areas 

that could benefit from further cooperation; assess regulatory constraints that relate to such cooperation; and identify areas in which 

cooperation should be limited to protect sensitive information. The 

committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

keep the congressional defense committees informed of these considerations. 

Risks within long-term schedule for life extension programs 

The committee notes the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) ambitious schedule for performance of nuclear weapons Life Extension Programs (LEP), including plans to conduct development or production of up to five LEPs concurrently during fiscal year 2023 and plans to conduct at least three LEPs concurrently during the late-2020s. Such LEPs would be conducted while 

NNSA continues efforts to meet military requirements for limited 

lifetime component exchanges and while also managing several 

very large defense nuclear facility construction projects. 

The committee also notes the track record of significant technical 

challenges, cost increases, and schedule delays that have plagued 

NNSA’s major programs. In 2012, NNSA’s estimated cost of the 

B61 LEP increased to $7.9 billion. In a September 2012 report, the 

Department of Energy Inspector General found that the W76 LEP 

had ‘‘experienced significant delays in startup and in achieving production goals,’’ and ‘‘NNSA may be unable to complete the W76 

LEP within established scope, cost and schedule parameters, unless it adopts a more effective approach to reducing unit costs.’’ 

The committee is therefore concerned about the potential risks 

within the long-term schedule for LEPs. In particular, the committee is concerned regarding how potential delays or cost increases within the B61 LEP may affect other LEPs planned for the 

2020s and 2030s. 

The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons 

Council and the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
343 

joint briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 

January 15, 2014, on the risks within the long-term schedule for 

LEPs, including the impacts to the long-term plan of potential unforeseen technical challenges, schedule delays, and cost increases 

in near-term LEPs. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Follow-on to Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

The committee recognizes the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s (GTRI) 

progress to secure and remove nuclear weapons-usable material in 

both foreign countries and the United States. The committee notes 

the central role this program has played in the President’s plan to 

secure all vulnerable nuclear weapons-usable material worldwide 

and commends the commitments made by foreign leaders at the 

2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summits to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. The committee notes that calendar year 2013 

marks the end of this 4-year plan and the beginning of the phasing 

out of the program. However, the committee understands that significant quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) remain in 

foreign countries and potentially at risk of theft or diversion. 

The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

provide a plan to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2014, to complete efforts to remove and secure vulnerable 

HEU worldwide. This plan should include: 

(1) Analysis detailing the quantity and status of HEU that 

has not been secured or removed; 

(2) An assessment of the threat or risks of this HEU being 

stolen or diverted; 

(3) An assessment of the level of vulnerability of such material; 

(4) Potential follow-on efforts to the GTRI’s efforts to secure 

or remove this material; a cost-benefit analysis for such potential follow-on efforts; 

(5) An estimation of the costs of such efforts that would be 

borne by the United States, allied countries, and partner countries; 

(6) An assessment of the priority of such efforts as compared 

to other NNSA missions, including a description of the opportunity costs on other NNSA missions inherent with pursuing 

such efforts; and 

(7) An assessment of material that cannot be accessed, removed, or secured and the threats to such material. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility analysis 

While the Committee is concerned with the continuing escalating 

costs associated the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication (MOX) Facility, 

the budget request may not actually reduce costs to the taxpayer 

and will likely delay the disposition of 34 metric tons of weapons 

grade plutonium. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear 

Security to study ways to achieve cost savings within the MOX program. This study should analyze potential additional international 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
344 

partners and the potential for achieving greater economic efficiencies by designating additional supplies of surplus plutonium for 

disposition through the MOX facility. The completed study should 

be submitted to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 

2014. 

Nonproliferation and arms control verification technology research 

and development 

The committee notes the importance of continuing sound investments in technology research and development (R&D) to support 

detection and verification efforts for nonproliferation and arms control regimes. The committee is concerned that the level of investment and a clear strategic plan to sustain and develop national capabilities to support current and long-term nonproliferation goals 

may not be sufficient to effectively address future threats and opportunities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of Nuclear 

Security, in consultation with the relevant national laboratories 

and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2014, on the national research agenda to develop technologies, responsive to nearand long-term requirements, including technologies applicable to 

safeguards, to detect state and non-state efforts to develop or acquire nuclear devices or weapons-usable nuclear materials. The report should also include verification technologies, including nontraditional technologies, that need to be developed, across the nearand long-term, to support future arms control efforts including nuclear reductions to lower force levels, reductions of strategic or nonstrategic nuclear forces, or of deployed or non-deployed warhead 

limitations. 

Naval Reactors 

Fissile material stockpiles 

The committee is mindful that the Director, Naval Reactors has 

an enduring requirement for highly enriched uranium for their 

mission to provide nuclear reactors to the U.S. Navy. The committee also notes that a key argument for maintaining a domestic 

enrichment capability is to ensure a sustainable stockpile of highly 

enriched uranium for the nuclear Navy mission. The Department 

of Energy is undertaking a program to provide such a domestic enrichment capability at the present time. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Naval Reactors to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by August 31, 2013, on the projected availability of highly enriched uranium and very highly enriched uranium for naval nuclear reactors 

and the date at which new production or enrichment of highly and 

very highly enriched uranium is required to support naval nuclear 

reactors for the long-term future. 

Naval Reactors 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant technology 

design and development, reactor plant operation and maintenance, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
345 

and reactor retirement and disposal. The program ensures the safe 

and reliable operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that represent over 40 percent of the 

Navy’s major combatants. 

The budget request contained $1.2 billion for Naval Reactors for 

fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $1.2 billion, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

Office of Infrastructure and Operations 

In March 2012, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) created the Office of Infrastructure and Operations, headed by a new Associate Administrator, and realigned all NNSA site 

offices to report to this new entity rather than the Office of Defense 

Programs. This realignment was intended to provide Defense Programs the ability to focus more directly on its mission while Infrastructure and Operations provides the basic management and functions required to keep NNSA facilities open and operating. The realignment also provides a more direct link between the site offices 

(now renamed ‘‘field offices’’) and the NNSA Administrator. With 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request, NNSA also proposes to divide 

the former Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account into 

two new accounts: (1) Nuclear Programs, and (2) Site Stewardship. 

NNSA has proposed the new Site Stewardship funding to be managed by the Office of Infrastructure and Operations, while Nuclear 

Programs remains with the Office of Defense Programs. 

The committee understands the intent of this realignment, but is 

concerned about NNSA’s ability to execute it efficiently and effectively. Based on past experiences at the Department of Energy and 

NNSA, creation of a new office can lead to increased bureaucracy, 

confused roles and responsibilities, and poor coordination on priorities and programs. The committee expects the Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Operations to work closely with all 

elements of NNSA to ensure appropriate priorities are set, timely 

and efficient decisionmaking occurs, roles and responsibilities are 

clear, and processes are streamlined. The committee will continue 

its oversight of this new structure. 

Plan and roadmap to address security problems 

In response to the security incident that occurred at the Y–12 

National Security Complex on July 28, 2012, the committee conducted several briefings and hearings to examine the management, 

governance, oversight, and cultural failures within the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of 

Energy (DOE) that enabled the incident to take place. 

Over the past several decades, many independent and objective 

studies have been conducted that have highlighted the longstanding problems at NNSA and DOE that led directly to the Y– 

12 incident and other security failures before it. Many of these 

studies have found the same problems and recommended strikingly 

similar solutions. The Independent NNSA Security Review (known 

as the ‘‘Mies Panel’’) highlighted this fact in 2005, stating that, 

‘‘. . . past studies and reviews of DOE/NNSA security have reached 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
346 

similar findings regarding the cultural, personnel, organizational, 

policy and procedural challenges that exist within DOE and NNSA. 

Many of these issues are not new; many continue to exist because 

of a lack of clear accountability, excessive bureaucracy, organizational stovepipes, lack of collaboration, and unwieldy, cumbersome 

processes. Robust, formal mechanisms to evaluate findings, assess 

underlying root causes, analyze alternative courses of action, formulate appropriate corrective action, gain approval, and effectively 

implement change are weak to non-existent within DOE/NNSA.’’ 

The committee continues to be concerned with the failure to implement meaningful and effective changes when the problems and 

possible solutions have been so thoroughly studied. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare and submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, 

by September 30, 2013, on the Department’s plan to address the 

longstanding, well-documented problems that contributed to the Y– 

12 security failure. The report should contain at least three major 

components: 

(1) An explicit examination of studies conducted in the past 

15 years, including the reviews performed following the Y–12 

intrusion, that have assessed security problems within the nuclear enterprise and a summary of their findings and recommendations as well as the actions the Department has 

taken or will take to resolve them. This should take the form 

of a security roadmap, as recommended in the Task Force Report on the Assessment of NNSA Federal Organization and 

Oversight of Security Operations, that, ‘‘consolidates recommendations, articulates a clear vision of where the security 

program is going, . . . charts a path forward,’’ and provides 

evidence that, ‘‘the solutions [are] enduring so that they are 

not again written up in the next report.’’ 

(2) A clear statement of the authorities, roles, responsibilities, budget authority, and chain of command regarding security within all NNSA organizations with security responsibilities and any DOE organizations that affect NNSA security. 

(3) Measures to improve oversight and increase accountability of both contractors and Federal officials. 

Reprogramming Procedure and Funding Control Levels 

The committee requests that the Department of Energy follow 

the same procedures for reprogramming requests and approvals as 

the Department of Defense. Requesting prior approval for reprogramming requests rather than adhering to a notice and wait 

procedure can streamline the process for approval and execution. 

The committee would like to work with and support the emergent 

execution year requirements of the Department of Energy, and will 

work to respond to reprogramming requests in an efficient manner. 

In the justification books accompanying the fiscal year 2014 

budget request, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) proposes funding control levels at the subprogram level, 

rather than the activity level. The committee understands NNSA 

executes a wide range of nuclear security programs, and that the 

proposed control levels may provide greater flexibility, agility, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
347 

efficiency for program management. However, the committee is 

concerned that NNSA has not yet demonstrated sufficient program 

management effectiveness to warrant such leeway from Congress. 

Furthermore, the scope of work NNSA must accomplish in the next 

decade is significantly larger than in the past. In addition, the committee believes it is important to separate the maintenance, support, and operations funding lines and maintain those as separate 

control levels to reduce the risk of maintenance funds being diverted to operations, particularly as many facilities across the nuclear enterprise are decades-old. 

The committee is concerned that this proposal for higher-level 

control levels was made without prior discussion with the committee and without sufficient justification and transparency. Therefore, the committee clarifies that the control levels for the NNSA 

authorization are those authorized by section 3101 of this Act. The 

committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in 

coordination with the White House Office of Management and 

Budget, to consult closely with Congress before any future changes 

to control levels are proposed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $6.1 billion for environmental and 

other defense activities for fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends $5.7 billion, a decrease of $358.0 million to the budget request. 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Environmental Management Technology Development Program 

The budget request contained $24.1 million for the technology development program of the Office of Environmental Management. 

This program is focused on resolving technical challenges and developing transformational technology solutions to address the highest priority needs of the environmental remediation program. Applied engineering and research to create and demonstrate highrisk, high-payoff technologies are included in this program. Technologies developed by this program have already been shown to significantly reduce long-term costs, improve waste processing 

throughput, and improve schedules for cleanup activities. Because 

the environmental cleanup program as a whole is expected to require at least an additional $200.0 billion and continue into the 

2060s, small amounts of money invested now on technology and 

process improvements can lead to major savings in the future. 

The committee supports this program and encourages the Office 

of Environmental Management to develop and communicate potential return on investment figures for each subprogram. 

The committee recommends $34.1 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, for the technology development program. 

Transuranic Wastes at Hanford Tank Farms 

The committee is aware that on March 11, 2013, the Department 

of Energy announced its preferred alternative to characterize and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
348 

certify appropriate mixed transuranic (TRU) waste at the Hanford 

Site’s Tank Farms and ultimately dispose of such waste at the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The 

Department has identified up to 3.1 million gallons of potential 

mixed TRU waste in the Tank Farms, equivalent to approximately 

5.6 percent of the total waste volume in the tanks, that would be 

assessed for possible disposal at WIPP. Currently, all Tank Farm 

waste is managed as high-level waste. 

The committee is aware that although the amount of waste that 

may potentially be classified as mixed TRU is a small fraction of 

the total 56 million gallons of waste in the Tank Farms, efforts to 

dispose of this small fraction at WIPP may result in significant cost 

savings in the long-term. Such disposal may also enable the Department of Energy to demonstrate small but appreciable progress 

on cleaning up a major Cold War legacy site and removing waste 

from the State of Washington. 

However, the committee notes stakeholder concerns about the 

process of classifying tank waste as TRU waste, as well as the 

technical and legal obstacles to doing so. Such disposal, if viable 

and cost-effective, must adhere to a rigorous and transparent process based on sound science in determining and certifying potential 

mixed TRU waste, be based on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of 

the investments needed to certify and dispose of TRU waste versus 

immobilization through vitrification, and be adequately coordinated 

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate agencies in the State of Washington and the State of New Mexico. The committee encourages the 

Department of Energy to fully investigate this possible approach to 

disposal and ensure that all regulatory requirements are met and 

appropriate permits are in place before retrieval of tank waste is 

initiated. Throughout this process, the committee expects the Department to keep the appropriate congressional committees fully 

informed of its plans. 

Other Defense Activities 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security Program 

The Department of Energy budget request proposes to move 

funding for the Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other 

Defense Activities to Nuclear Energy programs. This move is intended to provide the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy more 

direct control over the safeguards and security program at a facility 

for which the Assistant Secretary has responsibility. The committee 

is supportive of this realignment, and views it as a sensible management practice. However, the committee cautions the Department that this move should not be viewed as a precedent for transferring defense funding to energy programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
349 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would authorize appropriations for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2014, including funds 

for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator, at the 

levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. This section would also authorize several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup 

This section would authorize appropriations for defense environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2014, at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities 

This section would authorize appropriations for other defense activities for fiscal year 2014, including funds for Health, Safety, and 

Security, the Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy, at 

the funds identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. 

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance 

This section would authorize appropriations for energy security 

and assurance programs for fiscal year 2014, at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Clarification of Principles of National Nuclear 

Security Administration 

This section would amend section 3211 of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401) to clarify the set of 

principles with which the National Nuclear Security Administration must carry out its operations and activities. Specifically, this 

section would add the requirement that all operations and activities of the Administration be conducted consistent with the principle of ‘‘ensuring the security of the nuclear weapons, nuclear material, and classified information in the custody of the Administration.’’ 

Section 3112—Termination of Department of Energy Employees to 

Protect National Security 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to terminate an employee of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) or any element of the Department of Energy that involves 

nuclear security if the Secretary determines the employee acted in 

a manner that endangers the security of special nuclear material 

or classified information. To exercise such authority, the Secretary 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
350 

would have to consider the termination to be in the interests of the 

United States and determine that the termination procedures prescribed by other provisions of law cannot be invoked in a manner 

that the Secretary considers consistent with national security. 

This section would also require the Secretary, to the extent the 

interests of national security permit, to notify an employee whose 

employment is terminated under this section of the reasons for the 

termination. The terminated employee would then be allowed 30 

days to submit statements or affidavits to the Secretary to show 

why the employee should be restored to duty. If such statements 

and affidavits are submitted, the Secretary would be required to 

provide a written response to the employee and may, if the Secretary chooses, restore the employment of the employee. A decision 

by the Secretary to terminate employment of an employee under 

this section would be final and would not be able to be appealed, 

though such termination would not affect the right of the employee 

to seek or accept employment with any other department or agency 

of the United States if that employee is declared eligible for such 

employment by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The authority under this section would reside only with the 

Secretary, without delegation. 

The committee understands that several Federal employees have 

been reassigned or allowed to retire in response to the July 2012, 

security breach at the Y–12 National Security Complex. However, 

no Federal employees have been terminated. Senior officials from 

the Department of Energy have indicated to the committee that 

Federal employment rules did not enable terminations in this case. 

The committee believes that strong accountability actions are required in response to egregious security problems; this section 

would provide the Secretary of Energy the authority needed to ensure strong accountability actions are possible. The committee 

notes that this authority would reside only with the Secretary 

(without delegation) and encourages the Secretary to make use of 

the authority only in instances where the most robust accountability is needed. The committee notes the similar existing statutory authority contained in section 1609 of title 10, United States 

Code, which enables the Secretary of Defense to terminate defense 

intelligence employees. 

Section 3113—Modification of Independent Cost Estimates on Life 

Extension Programs and New Nuclear Facilities 

This section would amend section 4217 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2537) to require that any independent cost estimate carried out pursuant to section 4217 be conducted by the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). The Director would be authorized to delegate carrying out such cost estimates to other elements of the Department of Defense. This section would also provide the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security and acting through the Director of 

CAPE, the authority to conduct an independent cost assessment of 

any initiative or program of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that is estimated to cost more than $500.0 million. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
351 

This section would also require the Secretary of Energy, acting 

through the Administrator, to request an independent review of 

each guidance issued for the analysis of alternatives for each nuclear weapon system undergoing life extension and each new nuclear facility of the nuclear security enterprise as well as the results of such analysis of alternatives. The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator, would be required to submit the results of any such analysis to the Nuclear Weapons Council and the 

congressional defense committees. The independent review would 

be required to be conducted by either the Director of CAPE, an organization selected by the Director of CAPE, or the JASON Defense Advisory Panel. The requirement for independent reviews 

would expire on the date that is three years after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Finally, this section would express the sense of Congress that 

Congress encourages the Administrator and the Nuclear Weapons 

Council to follow the results of the analysis of alternatives of a life 

extension program or a defense nuclear facility construction project 

when selecting a final option. 

Section 3114—Plan for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition of 

Tank Farm Waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to submit a 

comprehensive plan through 2025 to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2014, for the safe and effective retrieval, 

treatment, and disposition of nuclear waste contained in the Tank 

Farms of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. The plan would be required to include: (1) a list of all requirements, assumptions, and criteria needed to design, construct, 

and operate the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) 

and any required infrastructure or facilities at the Hanford Tank 

Farms; (2) a schedule of activities, construction, and operations at 

the Tank Farms and the WTP through 2025 in order to carry out 

the safe and effective retrieval, treatment, and disposition of nuclear waste in the Tank Farms; (3) actions required to accelerate, 

to the extent possible, retrieval and treatment of lower-risk, lowactivity waste while continuing efforts to accelerate resolution of 

technical challenges associated with higher-risk, high-activity 

waste; and (4) a description of how adequate protection will be provided to workers and the public under the plan and how any new 

science and technical information, not available prior to development of the plan or available prior to March 2014, will be incorporated into the plan. 

This section would also require that the Secretary make a determination whether each requirement, assumption, and criterion 

identified in the plan is finalized and will be used to inform planning, design, construction, and operations. For each requirement, 

assumption, or criterion that the Secretary cannot make a finalized 

determination, the Secretary would be required to include in the 

plan: (1) a description of the requirement, assumption, or criterion; 

(2) a list of activities required for the Secretary to make a finalized 

determination; and (3) the date on which the Secretary anticipates 

making a finalized determination. Once a finalized determination 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
352 

is made, the Secretary would be required to notify the congressional defense committees. 

This section would authorize the Secretary (without delegation) 

to change a finalized determination made pursuant to this section. 

If such a change will have a material effect on any aspect of the 

schedule or cost of the WTP project, the Secretary would be required to promptly notify the congressional defense committees. Finally, the Secretary would be required to make changes to a requirement, assumption, or criterion if adequate protection cannot 

be provided without such change. 

In carrying out this section, the committee expects the Secretary 

to leverage the national laboratories to help resolve outstanding 

technical challenges. 

Section 3115—Enhanced Procurement Authority to Manage Supply 

Chain Risk 

This section would provide the Secretary of Energy with the authority to take certain actions with regard to the protection of the 

supply chain of the Department of Energy. This authority would 

replicate the authority provided to the Department of Defense in 

section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) and to the intelligence 

community in section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–87). 

Section 3116—Limitation on Availability of Funds for National 

Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would limit the funds authorized to be appropriated 

by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) such that $139.5 

million may not be obligated or expended until the Administrator 

for Nuclear Security submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed plan to achieve certain planned efficiencies and 

written certification that the planned efficiencies will be achieved. 

If the Administrator does not submit the plan or is unable to certify within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this Act that 

the efficiencies will be achieved, the Administrator would be required to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

on the amount of planned efficiencies that will not be realized and 

any effects caused by planned but unrealized efficiencies in the Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs accounts. The limitation of funds for NNSA would not apply to funds authorized to be 

appropriated for Directed Stockpile Work, Nuclear Programs, or 

Naval Reactors. Finally, the limitation on obligation of funds would 

not affect the authority of the Secretary of Energy to reprogram or 

transfer funding under sections 4702, 4705, and 4711 of the Atomic 

Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742, 2745, and 2751). 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2014 budget request 

justification materials for NNSA assume $106.8 million in Directed 

Stockpile Work and $32.7 million in Nuclear Programs will be 

saved through, ‘‘management efficiency and workforce restructuring reductions.’’ The NNSA anticipates utilizing the savings 

from these efficiencies to support nuclear modernization work in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
353 

these programs. However, the committee is concerned that NNSA 

does not have a clear plan for achieving these efficiencies. Furthermore, if these efficiencies are not achieved, critical nuclear modernization programs will be forced to reduce scope or slip schedules. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to ensure 

a detailed plan is submitted to Congress and that nuclear modernization programs remain on track should the expected efficiencies not be realized. If the efficiencies are not realized, the committee encourages the Secretary to propose a transfer of funds from 

lower priority programs to support the nuclear modernization efforts at the core of Directed Stockpile Work and Nuclear Programs. 

Section 3117—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the 

Administrator 

This section would limit the availability of funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 

2014 for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of 

the Administrator to not more than 75 percent until several statutorily required reports are submitted to Congress in 2013 and 2014. 

These include: 

(1) The report on stockpile assessments required under section 4205(f)(2) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 

2525(f)(2)); 

(2) The Secretary of Energy’s portion of the report required 

by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81); 

(3) The annual assessment required under section 3122 of 

Public Law 112–81; and, 

(4) The detailed report (in 2013) and summary (in 2014) on 

the stockpile stewardship, management, and infrastructure 

plan required by section 4203(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense 

Act (50 U.S.C. 2523(b)). 

The committee notes that in the past year, it did not receive 

many statutorily required reports that are key to conducting effective oversight of the nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear security enterprise. In particular, the four reports identified in this section are a critical means by which the committee is informed of the 

safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile as well as 

the Administration’s plans for the stockpile and enterprise. In 

2012, the committee received the report on stockpile assessments 

from the President 3-months late and never received the ‘‘Section 

1043 Report’’ or Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan 

(SSMP). Regarding the Section 1043 Report and SSMP, it was not 

until December 7, 2012, that the committee was officially informed 

that the Administration would not be submitting the reports as required by law. The committee finds this to be unacceptable and has 

a direct and negative impact on the committee’s oversight activities. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to ensure 

the reports are submitted, as required, in 2013 and 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
354 

Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative 

This section would express the sense of Congress that, particularly in a constrained budget environment, the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) should prioritize its primary mission of sustaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile 

and, if required, shift funding from secondary missions to ensure 

critical nuclear weapons modernization programs stay on schedule 

and deliver nuclear warheads needed to support military requirements. 

This section would also require that, of the funds authorized to 

be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 

year 2014 for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative of the NNSA, 

not more than 80 percent may be obligated or expended unless, by 

not later than 60 days after the date of enactment, the NNSA Administrator certifies to the congressional defense committees that 

the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) will deliver a first production unit in fiscal year 2019. 

Finally, this section includes an exception that the limitation on 

funds described above does not affect the authority of the Secretary 

of Energy to reprogram or transfer such limited funds under section 4702 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742). 

Section 3119—Establishment of Center for Security Technology, 

Analysis, Testing, and Response 

This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish a Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Testing, and Response within the nuclear security enterprise. The Center would be responsible for a range of activities, but would primarily serve to provide the Administrator, the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, and the management and operating contractors of 

the nuclear security enterprise a wide-range of objective expertise 

on security technologies, systems, analysis, testing, and response 

forces. The Center would also: 

(1) Assist the Administrator in developing standards, requirements, analysis methods, and testing criteria; 

(2) Collect, analyze, and distribute lessons learned; 

(3) Support inspections and oversight activities; 

(4) Promote professional development and training for security professionals; 

(5) Provide for advance and bulk procurement for security-related acquisitions that impact multiple facilities of the nuclear 

security enterprise; and 

(6) Advocate continual improvement and security excellence 

across the nuclear security enterprise. 

The committee notes that the Center established by this section 

would serve an advisory, support, and coordination function across 

the nuclear security enterprise, and would not replace the role of 

the Administrator or the Secretary of Energy in deciding final security requirements and policies or conducting oversight. The committee believes the Center would serve to advance a strong security 

culture and enable consistency, effectiveness, and coordination in 

security matters across the nuclear security enterprise. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
355 

Section 3120—Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of 

Management and Operating Contracts 

This section would amend section 3121 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to 

clarify that, if a management and operating contract awarded by 

the Administrator for Nuclear Security is protested, the report required by such section to be submitted to Congress shall be submitted not later than 30 days after such protest is resolved. This 

section would also require any report under section 3121 to include 

a description of the assumptions used and analysis conducted to determine cost savings expected from the competition of the contract 

and exempt contracts for managing and operating facilities of the 

Naval Reactors Program from the requirements of section 3121. 

The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) recent award of the contract for consolidated 

management and operations of the Y–12 National Security Complex and the Pantex Plant was protested by several bidders. On 

April 29, 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained this protest. GAO stated that it, ‘‘sustained these protests 

on the basis that NNSA failed to follow the publicly-stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the 

feasibility and size of each offeror’s proposed cost savings resulting 

from the consolidation of the management and operation of these 

sites. Specifically, GAO concluded that NNSA failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offeror’s proposed cost savings, 

and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be 

achieved.’’ 

The committee believes NNSA’s failure to meaningfully assess 

each offeror’s proposed cost savings is unacceptable for a contract 

whose total value will likely exceed $22.8 billion. To ensure robust 

oversight of this issue, the committee recommends this section to 

ensure NNSA reports to Congress about the assumptions and analysis utilized to estimate anticipated cost savings. Finally, to protect 

proprietary information and the integrity of contract competitions, 

the committee believes submission of the report required by section 

3121 of Public Law 112–239 is appropriate after any protest is resolved. 

Section 3121—W88–1 Warhead and W78–1 Warhead Life 

Extension Options 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Nuclear Weapons Council, to 

include several warhead life extension options through all of Phase 

6.2 and all of Phase 6.2A of the Joint W78/88–1 Warhead Life Extension Program. The options would include: 

(1) A separate life extension option to produce a W78–1 warhead; 

(2) A separate life extension option to produce a W88–1 warhead; 

(3) A W78/88–1 life extension option that would produce an 

interoperable warhead for both intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
356 

(4) Any other option that the Nuclear Weapons Council considers appropriate. 

During Phase 6.2 and Phase 6.2A, each such option would be required to receive a full analysis of feasibility, design definition, and 

cost estimation. 

The committee understands that the Nuclear Weapons Council 

has endorsed a long-term plan for U.S. nuclear weapons that 

would, through life extension programs, produce several interoperable nuclear warheads that contain components that may be deployed on either submarine-launched ballistic missiles or landbased intercontinental ballistic missiles. The committee believes 

that while this conceptual approach has merit, caution is required. 

In particular, the committee is concerned about the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) ability to execute a W78/ 

88–1 program that contains significant technical and programmatic 

risk. Close coordination between the Air Force, the Navy, and 

NNSA will be required throughout the program. In addition, the 

Nuclear Weapons Council must have full information on the various options for the life extension before entering Phase 6.3 (Development Engineering) of the program. Therefore, the committee believes this section is a prudent means of ensuring that full feasibility, design definition, and cost estimates are developed to enable 

a fully informed decision by the Nuclear Weapons Council on a 

final option. The committee discusses its views on commonality 

elsewhere in this report. 

Section 3122—Extension of Principles of Pilot Program to 

Additional Facilities of the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

This section would make a series of findings related to a pilot 

program conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at the Kansas City Plant (KCP) starting in April 2006, 

and would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to extend 

the principles of such pilot program. The Administrator would be 

required to implement the principles of the pilot program permanently at the Kansas City Plant and extend the principles of the 

pilot program, with modifications as the Administrator determines 

appropriate, to not less than two additional facilities of the nuclear 

security enterprise within 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this Act. 

In carrying out the principles of the pilot program, the Administrator would be allowed to exempt high-hazard or high-risk activities from such extension, would be required to exempt nuclear operations from such extension, and would be required to focus initial 

extension of such principles on low-risk, high-reward initiatives. In 

extending the principles of the pilot program, the Administrator 

would be required to certify to the appropriate congressional committees that: (1) the management and operating contractor for a selected facility has sufficiently mature processes and high-performance to enable the extension without undue risk; and (2) Federal 

oversight mechanisms are in place and mature enough to enable 

the extension without undue risk. If the Administrator cannot 

make such a certification, the Administrator would be required to 

delay the extension until they can make such a certification and 

submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
357 

garding: what improvements to processes, procedures, and performance are required to make such certification; the Administrator’s 

plan for what activities will be carried out to make such improvements; and the date by which the Administrator expects to make 

a certification. 

Based upon its continuing oversight of this issue, the committee 

continues to believe that reform of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) approach to 

governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise are required. In addition, the National Nuclear Security 

Administration and the Department of Energy must streamline 

and clarify roles, responsibilities, and authorities and ensure robust accountability of both contractors and Federal officials when 

failures occur. 

The committee expects the Congressional Advisory Panel on the 

Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise established by section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) to provide concrete and actionable recommendations for fixing the longstanding and well-documented 

problems with the current system. However, the committee is concerned that fiscal challenges and the large scope of work facing the 

National Nuclear Security Administration necessitate more immediate action as well. Therefore, the committee recommends this section to extend the principles of a previously successful pilot program to additional facilities of the enterprise. Such extension was 

recommended in 2009 by the bipartisan Congressional Commission 

on the Strategic Posture of the United States. 

The committee notes that while an independent assessment of 

the Kansas City Plant pilot program found significant cost savings 

and said, ‘‘the lessons learned at KCP can and should be applied 

at other NNSA and DOE sites,’’ the assessment also cautioned that 

application of the, ‘‘elements [of the pilot] will be limited in other 

locations, primarily by the presence of high risk, high hazard activities and materials.’’ The assessment went on to highlight several features of the pilot that should be considered for other sites 

within these limitations. The committee encourages the Administrator to carefully consider the advice of the independent assessment, as well as the recommendations in recent reports by the Government Accountability Office on this topic, in determining where 

and how to extend the principles of the pilot program. Finally, to 

ensure the committee is fully informed, the committee expects the 

Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing to 

the House Committee on Armed Services by October 30, 2013, on 

the benefits, risks, opportunities, and challenges associated with 

extension of the principles of the pilot program to additional sites. 

SUBTITLE C—REPORTS

Section 3131—Annual Report and Certification on Status of the 

Security of the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

This section would amend section 4506 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act to require that, not later than September 30 of each year, 

the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense committees a reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
358 

port detailing the status of the security of the nuclear security enterprise, including the status of the security of special nuclear material, nuclear weapons, and classified information at each nuclear 

weapons production facility and national security laboratory. This 

section would also require that, as part of this annual report to the 

Secretary and to Congress, the Administrator certify that the special nuclear material, nuclear weapons, and classified information 

in the custody of the National Nuclear Security Administration are 

secure. 

Section 3132—Modifications to Annual Reports Regarding the 

Condition of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile 

This section would amend section 4205 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2525) to clarify requirements related to the 

statutorily required annual assessments regarding the condition of 

the nuclear weapons stockpile. Specifically, the assessments submitted by the head of each national security laboratory would be 

required to include a concise summary of any significant finding investigations initiated or active during the previous year. Furthermore, the assessment submitted by the commander, U.S. Strategic 

Command would be required to include a summary of major assembly releases in place as of the date of the assessment. This section 

would also require that, if the President does not forward the annual assessments to Congress by March 15 as required by statute, 

the appropriate officials submit their assessments directly to the 

congressional defense committees. 

The committee believes these annual stockpile assessments to be 

a critical means by which Congress stays apprised of the safety, reliability, performance, and military effectiveness of our nuclear 

weapons. In recent years, the committee has received these assessments after the statutory deadline of March 15. For instance, in 

2012 the assessments were not submitted by the President until 

June 25. These delays have a direct and detrimental impact on the 

committee’s ability to conduct oversight and carry out its responsibility to provide for the common defense. Review of past assessment letters indicate that the nuclear security laboratory directors 

and the commander, U.S. Strategic Command have been diligent in 

submitting their reports to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy on time. Therefore, the committee recommends 

this section that would require the laboratory directors and commander to submit their assessments directly to Congress should 

the President fail to submit the annual assessment report to Congress by March 15. 

Section 3133—Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements 

This section would repeal two statutes requiring submission of 

annual, recurring reports: (1) a report on Counterintelligence and 

Security Practices at National Laboratories required by section 

4507 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2658); and (2) 

a report on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to Certain Foreign Nations contained in section 3157 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
359 

Repeal of these recurring report requirements was requested by 

the Secretary of Energy. The committee appreciates the Secretary’s 

desire to reduce the number of recurring reports, but believes continued vigilance on the issues covered by these reports is warranted. The committee expects the Secretary of Energy to continue 

providing regular, annual briefings to the appropriate congressional committees on the matters covered by these reports to ensure continued leadership attention and robust congressional oversight. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 3141—Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of 

the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

This section would amend section 3166 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to 

modify statutory deadlines regarding the Congressional Advisory 

Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. The 

advisory panel’s interim report would be due by October 1, 2013, 

instead of 180 days after enactment of Public Law 112–239. Also, 

the advisory panel’s full report would be due March 1, 2014, instead of February 1, 2014. Finally, the advisory panel would terminate not later than September 30, 2014, instead of June 1, 2014. 

This section would also enable the advisory panel to submit a final 

report on its activities and recommendations prior to termination. 

Given the late start of the panel’s work resulting from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public 

Law 113–6), the committee believes these adjustments are prudent 

to enable the advisory panel to carry out its mandate. 

The committee reaffirms its belief, based on the findings of dozens of reports and the committee’s own oversight activities, that 

the current system for governance, management, and oversight of 

the nuclear security enterprise is broken. The committee encourages the advisory panel to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 

the system and its problems, meet with all stakeholders, and consider a wide range of potential solutions. Ultimately, however, the 

committee expects the advisory panel to deliver a concrete, actionable, and bipartisan recommendation for how to fix the system. 

Section 3142—Study of Potential Reuse of Nuclear Weapon 

Secondaries 

This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, to conduct a study of the potential reuse of nuclear weapon 

secondaries that includes: an assessment of the potential for 

reusing secondaries in future life extension programs; a description 

of such secondaries that could be reused; the number of such 

secondaries available as of the date of the study; and the number 

of such secondaries that are planned to be available as a result of 

the dismantlement of nuclear weapons. 

The study required under this section would be required to include a variety of other matters, including: an assessment of the 

feasibility and practicability of potential full or partial reuse opVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
360 

tions with respect to nuclear weapon secondaries; the benefits and 

risks of reusing such secondaries; a list of technical challenges that 

must be resolved to certify aged materials under dynamic loading 

conditions and the full stockpile-to-target sequence of weapons, including a program plan and timeline for resolving such technical 

challenges and an assessment of the importance of resolving outstanding materials issues on certifying aged secondaries; the potential costs and cost savings of such reuse; the effects of such reuse 

on the requirements for secondary manufacturing; and an assessment of how such reuse affects plans to build a responsive nuclear 

weapons infrastructure. 

This section would require the Administrator to submit the study 

carried out pursuant to this section to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2014. 

Section 3143—Clarification of Role of Secretary of Energy 

This section would clarify that the amendment made by section 

3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112—239) to section 4102 of the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2512) may not be construed as affecting the 

authority of the Secretary of Energy, in carrying out national security programs, with respect to the management, planning, and 

oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration or as affecting the delegation by the Secretary of Energy of authority to 

carry out such activities, as set forth under subsection (a) of section 

4102 as it existed before the amendment made by section 3113. 

Section 3144—Technical Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

This section would make a technical amendment to chapter 10 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.). 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $29.9 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2014. The committee 

recommends $29.9 million, the amount of the request. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2014. 

Section 3202—Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board 

This section would amend section 315 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286d) to enable the Secretary of Energy to request an analysis regarding the costs and benefits of any draft or 

final recommendation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board. If the Secretary requests such an analysis, the Board would 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
361 

be required to transmit such an analysis to the Department of Energy within 30 days and make such analysis public when the associated recommendation is made available to the public. Additionally, if the Secretary requests such an analysis from the Board, the 

Secretary would be required to conduct a similar analysis of the 

costs and benefits of the recommendation and make such analysis 

available to the public. 

This section would also amend section 312 of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954 (U.S.C. 2286a) to clarify that, in making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, the Board must use rigorous, 

quantitative analysis and specifically assess the use of various administrative, passive, and engineered controls for implementing the 

recommended measures. 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $20.0 million for fiscal year 2014 for 

operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee 

The budget request contained $2.65 million to support expenses 

associated with administering the Maritime Guaranteed Loan 

(Title XI) Program. 

The committee notes that the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program is designed to promote the growth and modernization of the 

U.S. merchant marine and U.S. shipyards by enabling owners of eligible vessels and shipyards to obtain long-term financing on terms 

and conditions that might not otherwise be available for projects 

that are technically, financially, and economically sound. 

The committee supports an increase of $70.0 million for the Maritime Administration Title XI Ship loan guarantee program to expand the loan capacity of the Maritime Administration. This program is essential to modernize and sustain our U.S.-flagged Merchant Marine and United States shipbuilding industry, both of 

which are critical to national security preparedness. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National 

Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2014 

This section would authorize appropriations for the national security aspects of the Merchant Marine for fiscal year 2014. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
362 

Section 3502—5-Year Reauthorization of Vessel War Risk 

Insurance Program 

This section would amend section 53912 of title 46, United States 

Code, relating to the expiration of chapter 539, War Risk Insurance 

Program. Under this program, the Secretary of Transportation, 

with the approval of the President, may provide insurance and reinsurance to American and foreign vessels that provide service to 

the U.S. Government. The insurance covers loss or damage caused 

by war risks. Whenever it appears to the Secretary that the insurance cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions from 

the commercial insurance market, then such war risk insurance for 

vessels may be provided by the Secretary only on the condition that 

such vessels are available for the U.S. Government in time of war 

or national emergency. 

Section 3503—Sense of Congress 

This section would provide a sense of Congress on the importance 

of the United States shipbuilding industry and specifically the 

Ready Reserve Force of the Maritime Administration to the national security needs of the United States. This section also encourages the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the 

Department of the Navy, to pursue the most cost effective means 

for recapitalizing the Ready Reserve Force. 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables 

This section would provide for the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming guidance in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

this section would also require that a decision by an Agency Head 

to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the 

basis of such funding tables be based on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and 

section 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable 

provisions of law. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
363 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request 

Function 051, Department of Defense-Military 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

Title I—Procurement 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ..................................................... 5,024,387 135,100 5,159,487 

Missile Procurement, Army ...................................................... 1,334,083 1,334,083 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .......................... 1,597,267 191,000 1,788,267 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ......................................... 1,540,437 –74,500 1,465,937 

Other Procurement, Army ........................................................ 6,465,218 –54,300 6,410,918 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ..................................................... 17,927,651 30,000 17,957,651 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ................................................... 3,122,193 –14,100 3,108,093 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ............... 589,267 589,267 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy ............................................ 14,077,804 934,300 15,012,104 

Other Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 6,310,257 –26,194 6,284,063 

Procurement, Marine Corps ..................................................... 1,343,511 1,343,511 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ............................................... 11,398,901 310,200 11,709,101 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ................................................ 5,343,286 –703 5,342,583 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ................................... 759,442 759,442 

Other Procurement, Air Force .................................................. 16,760,581 16,760,581 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 4,534,083 107,000 4,641,083 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ..................................... 98,800 –98,800 0 

Subtotal, Title I—Procurement ............................................. 98,227,168 1,439,003 99,666,171 

Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army ................. 7,989,102 –47,000 7,942,102 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy .................. 15,974,780 58,100 16,032,880 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force ........... 25,702,946 76,000 25,778,946 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide .... 17,667,108 472,124 18,139,232 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ................................. 186,300 186,300 

Subtotal, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation .................................................................................. 67,520,236 559,224 68,079,460 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 35,073,077 232,476 34,840,601 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ............................... 3,095,036 29,100 3,124,136 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ................... 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ............................................. 39,945,237 –26,994 39,918,243 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 6,254,650 24,100 6,278,750 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................ 1,197,752 5,000 1,202,752 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................. 263,317 1,800 265,117 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 37,270,842 166,830 37,437,672 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ......................... 3,164,607 9,100 3,173,707 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ....................... 6,566,004 26,900 6,592,904 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 32,997,693 –497,062 32,500,631 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
364 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense ............. 13,606 –980 12,626 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid .................... 109,500 109,500 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ................................................. 528,455 528,455 

Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund ................. 256,031 256,031 

Environmental Restoration, Army ............................................ 298,815 298,815 

Environmental Restoration, Navy ............................................ 316,103 316,103 

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ...................................... 439,820 439,820 

Environmental Restoration, Defense ....................................... 10,757 10,757 

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites .................... 237,443 237,443 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ................... 5,000 –5,000 0 

Subtotal, Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................. 175,097,941 –425,482 174,672,459 

Title IV—Military Personnel 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 130,399,881 –180,600 130,219,281 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............. 6,676,750 6,676,750 

Subtotal, Title IV—Military Personnel .................................. 137,076,631 –180,600 136,896,031 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations 

Working Capital Fund, Army ................................................... 25,158 25,158 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ............................................. 61,731 61,731 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide ...................................... 46,428 46,428 

Working Capital Fund, DECA ................................................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 

National Defense Sealift Fund ................................................ 730,700 730,700 

Defense Health Program ......................................................... 33,054,528 –276,800 32,777,728 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction ............................. 1,057,123 1,057,123 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ....................... 938,545 938,545 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................... 312,131 312,131 

Subtotal, Title XIV—Other Authorizations ............................ 37,638,854 –276,800 37,362,054 

Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations ... 515,560,830 1,115,345 516,676,175 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Military Construction 

Army ......................................................................................... 1,119,875 –20,000 1,099,875 

Navy ......................................................................................... 1,700,269 1,700,269 

Air Force .................................................................................. 1,156,573 –17,730 1,138,843 

Defense-Wide ........................................................................... 3,985,300 –276,927 3,708,373 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense ................... 122,536 122,536 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................ 239,700 –40,000 199,700 

Army National Guard ............................................................... 320,815 –5,000 315,815 

Army Reserve ........................................................................... 174,060 174,060 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve ............................................. 32,976 32,976 

Air National Guard .................................................................. 119,800 –12,000 107,800 

Air Force Reserve ..................................................................... 45,659 45,659 

Subtotal, Military Construction .............................................. 9,017,563 –371,657 8,645,906 

Family Housing 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
365 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Construction, Army .................................................................. 44,008 44,008 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 512,871 512,871 

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps .................................... 73,407 73,407 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ............... 389,844 389,844 

Construction, Air Force ............................................................ 76,360 76,360 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 388,598 388,598 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 55,845 55,845 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ......................................... 1,780 1,780 

Subtotal, Family Housing ....................................................... 1,542,713 1,542,713 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Base Realignment and Closure—Army .................................. 180,401 180,401 

Base Realignment and Closure—Navy .................................. 144,580 144,580 

Base Realignment and Closure—Air Force ............................ 126,376 126,376 

Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure ............................. 451,357 451,357 

Undistributed Adjustments 

Prior Year Savings ................................................................... 0 –584,413 –584,413 

Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments ..................................... 0 –584,413 –584,413 

Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations ....... 11,011,633 –956,070 10,055,563 

Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military ......................... 526,572,463 159,275 526,731,738 

Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ................................ 16,000 –16,000 0 

Nuclear Energy ........................................................................ 94,000 94,000 

Weapons Activities .................................................................. 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................ 2,140,142 2,140,142 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................ 1,246,134 1,246,134 

Office of the Administrator ..................................................... 397,784 –8,000 389,784 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................. 5,316,909 –358,000 4,958,909 

Other Defense Activities .......................................................... 749,080 749,080 

Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ........ 17,828,458 –162,000 17,666,458 

Independent Federal Agency Authorization 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................. 29,915 29,915 

Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization ......... 29,915 29,915 

Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations .................... 17,858,373 –162,000 17,696,373 

Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................. 17,858,373 –162,000 17,696,373 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
366 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request ..... 544,430,836 –2,725 544,428,111 

National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request 

Function 051, Department of Defense-Military 

Procurement 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ..................................................... 771,788 771,788 

Missile Procurement, Army ...................................................... 128,645 25,887 154,532 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .......................... 0 15,422 15,422 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ......................................... 180,900 34,482 215,382 

Other Procurement, Army ........................................................ 603,123 340,937 944,060 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ...................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ..................................................... 240,696 240,696 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ................................................... 86,500 86,500 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ............... 206,821 206,821 

Other Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 17,968 17,968 

Procurement, Marine Corps ..................................................... 129,584 129,584 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ............................................... 115,668 115,668 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ................................................ 24,200 24,200 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ................................... 159,965 159,965 

Other Procurement, Air Force .................................................. 2,574,846 2,574,846 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 111,275 111,275 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ..................................... 15,000 –15,000 0 

National Guard & Reserve Equipment .................................... 0 400,000 400,000 

Subtotal, Procurement ........................................................... 6,366,979 801,728 7,168,707 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army ................. 7,000 7,000 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy .................. 34,426 34,426 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force ........... 9,000 9,000 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide .... 66,208 66,208 

Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ...... 116,634 116,634 

Operation and Maintenance 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 29,279,633 2,116,100 31,395,733 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ............................... 42,935 75,800 118,735 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ................... 199,371 199,371 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund .......................................... 7,726,720 7,726,720 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund ............................................. 279,000 279,000 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ............................................. 6,067,993 949,800 7,017,793 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 2,669,815 61,400 2,731,215 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................ 55,700 55,700 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................. 12,534 12,534 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 10,005,224 1,004,000 11,009,224 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ......................... 32,849 32,849 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ....................... 22,200 22,200 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 6,435,078 35,000 6,470,078 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
367 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance .................................. 62,829,052 4,242,100 67,071,152 

Military Personnel 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 9,689,307 9,689,307 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............. 164,033 164,033 

Subtotal, Military Personnel .................................................. 9,853,340 9,853,340 

Other Authorizations 

Working Capital Fund, Army ................................................... 44,732 44,732 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ............................................. 88,500 88,500 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide ...................................... 131,678 131,678 

Defense Health Program ......................................................... 904,201 904,201 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ....................... 376,305 376,305 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................... 10,766 10,766 

Subtotal, Other Authorizations .............................................. 1,556,182 1,556,182 

Total, National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request ...... 80,722,187 5,043,828 85,766,015 

Total, National Defense .......................................................... 625,153,023 5,041,103 630,194,126 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ... 67,800 67,800 

Title XIV—Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700) .......... 45,800 25,000 70,800 

Title XXXIV—Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 

(Function 270) .................................................................... 20,000 20,000 

Title XXXV—Maritime Administration (Function 400) ............ 152,168 45,000 197,168 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority ........................................ [4,000,000 ] [3,500,000 ] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority ...................................... [4,000,000 ] [3,000,000 ] 

MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD) 

Defense Production Act ........................................................... [25,135 ] [25,135 ] 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ................................. 526,572,463 159,275 526,731,738 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) .............. 17,858,373 –162,000 17,696,373 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)—BASE BILL .............................. 544,430,836 –2,725 544,428,111 

TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .............................. 80,722,187 5,043,828 85,766,015 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE ................................................ 625,153,023 5,041,103 630,194,126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
368 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services 

Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization 

Defense Production Act Purchases ................................................. 25,135 25,135 

Indefinite Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property ....................... 10,000 10,000 

Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property ............................ 30,000 30,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .............................................. 65,135 65,135 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .......................... 104,000 104,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .............................................. 104,000 104,000 

Other Discretionary Programs ......................................................... 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .............................................. 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050) ........................... 7,576,135 7,576,135 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ......................................... 607,359,785 5,203,103 612,562,888 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .......................................... 17,962,373 –162,000 17,800,373 

Defense-Related Activities (054) .................................................... 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary ................ 632,729,158 5,041,103 637,770,261 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (OMB Estimates) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 

Fund ............................................................................................ 6,970,000 6,970,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory .................................... 1,156,000 1,156,000 

Offsetting receipts ........................................................................... –1,752,000 –1,752,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .............................................. 6,374,000 6,374,000 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs 

and other .................................................................................... 1,281,000 1,281,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .............................................. 1,281,000 1,281,000 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ................................. 76,000 76,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other .................................... 514,000 514,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .............................................. 590,000 590,000 

Total National Defense Mandatory (050) ...................................... 8,245,000 8,245,000 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ......................................... 613,733,785 5,203,103 618,936,888 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .......................................... 19,243,373 –162,000 19,081,373 

Defense-Related Activities (054) .................................................... 7,997,000 7,997,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory ......................................................................................... 640,974,158 5,041,103 646,015,261 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
369 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

001 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................... 1 19,730 1 19,730 002 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) ................................................................. 4 142,050 4 142,050 003 MQ–1 UAV ............................................................................................................. 15 518,460 4 19 518,460 004 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ..................................................................................................... 10,772 10,772 

ROTARY 

005 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ........................................................................ 10 96,227 21 135,100 31 231,327 

Program increase for additional aircraft ..................................................... [21] [115,100 ] Program increase for fielding ...................................................................... [20,000 ] 

006 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN ...................................................................... 42 608,469 42 608,469 007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 150,931 150,931 011 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ................................................................... 65 1,046,976 65 1,046,976 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 116,001 116,001 013 CH–47 HELICOPTER .............................................................................................. 28 801,650 28 801,650 014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 98,376 98,376 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

015 MQ–1 PAYLOAD—UAS .......................................................................................... 97,781 97,781 016 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ........................................................................................ 10,262 10,262 017 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ........................................................................ 12,467 12,467 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
370 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

018 AH–64 MODS ......................................................................................................... 53,559 53,559 019 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ............................................................ 149,764 149,764 020 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ........................................................................... 17,500 17,500 021 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ................................................................................... 167 74,095 167 74,095 022 KIOWA MODS WARRIOR ......................................................................................... 3 184,044 3 184,044 023 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ............................................................................... 152,569 152,569 024 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE ................................................................................ 92,779 92,779 025 GATM ROLLUP ........................................................................................................ 65,613 65,613 026 RQ–7 UAV MODS ................................................................................................... 121,902 121,902 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

027 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 47,610 47,610 028 SURVIVABILITY CM ................................................................................................ 5,700 5,700029 CMWS .................................................................................................................... 126,869 126,869 

OTHER SUPPORT 

030 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 705 6,809 705 6,809 031 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 65,397 65,397 032 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 45,841 45,841 033 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................................... 79,692 79,692 034 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .......................................................................................... 1,615 1,615 035 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ...................................................................................... 2,877 2,877 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 1,040 5,024,387 25 135,100 1,065 5,159,487 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

002 MSE MISSILE ......................................................................................................... 56 540,401 56 540,401 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
371 

003 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 4,464 4,464 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

004 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ................................................................. 449 110,510 449 110,510 005 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................................... 988 49,354 988 49,354 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 19,965 19,965 007 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ........................................................................... 1,788 237,216 1,788 237,216 008 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .......................................... 2,412 19,022 2,412 19,022 

MODIFICATIONS 

010 PATRIOT MODS ...................................................................................................... 256,438 256,438 011 STINGER MODS ...................................................................................................... 37,252 37,252 012 ITAS/TOW MODS ..................................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 013 MLRS MODS ........................................................................................................... 11,571 11,571 014 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 6,105 6,105 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

015 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 11,222 11,222 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

016 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS .......................................................................................... 3,530 3,530 017 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MISSILES) .................................................................... 1,748 1,748 018 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 5,285 5,285 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................... 5,693 1,334,083 5,693 1,334,083 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 STRYKER VEHICLE ................................................................................................. 374,100 374,100 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

002 STRYKER (MOD) ..................................................................................................... 20,522 20,522 003 FIST VEHICLE (MOD) .............................................................................................. 29,965 29,965 004 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ................................................................................... 158,000 158,000 005 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ................................................... 4,769 4,769 006 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ........................................................... 18 260,177 18 260,177 007 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ........................................... 111,031 75,000 186,031 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [75,000 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
372 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

008 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................ 2,500 2,500 009 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ............................................................................... 14 62,951 7 31,000 21 93,951 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [7] [31,000 ] 

010 M88 FOV MODS ..................................................................................................... 28,469 28,469 011 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ......................................................................................... 2,002 2,002 012 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ...................................................................................... 178,100 178,100 013 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ............................................................................... 168,000 168,000 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [168,000 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

014 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 1,544 1,544 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

015 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY .............................................. 1,424 69,147 –1424 –61,000 8,147 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–1,424] [–50,000 ] Transfer to PE 64601A per Army’s request ................................................. [–11,000 ] 

018 MORTAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 5,310 5,310 019 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ....................................................... 5,061 24,049 5,061 24,049 021 CARBINE ................................................................................................................ 41,897 70,846 –22,000 41,897 48,846 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–22,000 ] 

023 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ............................................ 242 56,580 242 56,580 024 HANDGUN ............................................................................................................... 300 300 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

026 M777 MODS ........................................................................................................... 39,300 39,300 027 M4 CARBINE MODS ............................................................................................... 10,300 10,300

028 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ......................................................................... 33,691 33,691 029 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .......................................................................... 7,608 7,608 030 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS .................................................................... 2,719 2,719 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
373 

031 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 7,017 7,017 032 M119 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 18,707 18,707 033 M16 RIFLE MODS .................................................................................................. 2,136 2,136034 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................ 1,569 1,569 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

035 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................... 2,024 2,024 036 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ........................................................ 10,108 10,108 037 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................. 459 459 038 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) .................................................. 1,267 1,267 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................................... 48,656 1,597,267 –1,417 191,000 47,239 1,788,267 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

002 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 112,167 –25,000 87,167 

Unit cost efficiencies—Army requested reduction ..................................... [–25,000 ] 

003 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 58,571 –5,000 53,571 

Unit cost efficiencies—Army requested reduction ..................................... [–5,000 ] 

004 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 9,858 9,858 005 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 80,037 –25,000 55,037 

Unit cost efficiencies—Army requested reduction ..................................... [–25,000 ] 

007 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 16,496 16,496 008 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 69,533 –19,500 50,033 

Unit cost efficiencies—Army requested reduction ..................................... [–19,500 ] 

009 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 55,781 55,781 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

010 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 38,029 38,029 011 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 24,656 24,656 012 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................. 60,781 60,781 

TANK AMMUNITION 

013 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................... 121,551 121,551 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

014 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ....................................... 39,825 39,825 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
374 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

015 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 37,902 37,902 016 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ................................................................. 802 67,896 802 67,896 017 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL .......................................... 71,205 71,205 

ROCKETS 

020 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .................................................... 1,012 1,012 021 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 108,476 108,476 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

022 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 24,074 24,074 023 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 33,242 33,242 024 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 7,609 7,609025 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 5,228 5,228 

MISCELLANEOUS 

026 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 16,700 16,700 027 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ................................................................. 7,366 7,366 028 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 3,614 3,614 029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) ................................................................ 12,423 12,423 030 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 16,604 16,604 031 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) .................................................... 14,328 14,328 032 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES ........................................................................................... 108 108 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

033 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .................................................................. 242,324 242,324 034 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ..................................................... 179,605 179,605 035 ARMS INITIATIVE .................................................................................................... 3,436 3,436 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................................... 802 1,540,437 –74,500 802 1,465,937 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
375 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

001 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .......................................................................... 25 4,000 25 4,000 002 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: ...................................................................................... 40 6,841 40 6,841 003 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) ........................................................... 837 223,910 837 223,910 004 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................ 11,880 11,880 005 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ..................................................... 220 14,731 220 14,731 006 PLS ESP ................................................................................................................. 74 44,252 74 44,252 009 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ........................................... 77 39,525 77 39,525 011 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ................................................... 746 51,258 –25,300 746 25,958 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–25,300 ] 

012 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP ........................................................................... 34 49,904 34 49,904 013 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ......................................... 2,200 2,200 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

014 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ....................................................................................... 400 400 015 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 716 716 016 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ........................................................................... 5,619 5,619 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

018 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK .................................................... 2,139 973,477 2,139 973,477 019 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 14,120 14,120 020 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ........................................... 7,869 7,869 021 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ............................................................................. 5,296 5,296 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

022 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .......................................... 31 147,212 31 147,212 023 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ................................... 7,998 7,998 024 SHF TERM .............................................................................................................. 7,232 7,232 025 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................ 3,308 3,308 026 SMART-T (SPACE) .................................................................................................. 13,992 13,992 028 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ................................................................................. 94 28,206 94 28,206 029 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ......................................................................... 15 2,778 15 2,778 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

031 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) .................................................... 17,590 17,590 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
376 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

032 ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) ............................................... 786 786 033 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10,523 382,930 10,523 382,930 034 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) .............................................. 130 19,200 130 19,200 035 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) ...................................................................... 1,438 1,438 036 SINCGARS FAMILY ................................................................................................. 9,856 9,856037 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................ 2,066 14,184 2,066 14,184 038 TRACTOR DESK ...................................................................................................... 6,271 6,271 040 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS .................................... 1,030 1,030 041 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM ...................................... 15,967 31,868 15,967 31,868 042 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ..................................................................................... 18,000 18,000 044 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ................................................................... 1,166 1,166 045 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ....................................... 22,867 22,867 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

048 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................ 1,512 1,512 049 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 323 61,096 323 61,096 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

050 TSEC—ARMY KEY MGT SYS (AKMS) ..................................................................... 13,890 13,890 051 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP ................................................ 1,133 23,245 1,133 23,245 052 BIOMETRICS ENTERPRISE ...................................................................................... 3,800 3,800 053 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) ............................................................... 877 24,711 877 24,711 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

055 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................... 43,395 43,395 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

057 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 104,577 104,577058 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) ...................................................................... 612 612 059 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................... 39,000 39,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
377 

060 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ........................................ 248,477 248,477 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

064 JTT/CIBS-M ............................................................................................................ 824 824 065 PROPHET GROUND ................................................................................................. 10 59,198 10 59,198 067 DCGS-A (MIP) ........................................................................................................ 2,717 267,214 2,717 267,214 068 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .......................................................... 5 9,899 5 9,899 069 TROJAN (MIP) ......................................................................................................... 24,598 24,598 070 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ............................................................ 1,927 1,927 071 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ................................................. 6,169 6,169 072 MACHINE FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M ..................................... 2,924 2,924 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

074 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR .............................................................. 18 40,735 18 40,735 075 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) .................................................. 13 13 076 ENEMY UAS ........................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 079 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ...................................... 1,237 1,237 080 CI MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................... 1,399 1,399 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

082 SENTINEL MODS .................................................................................................... 86 47,983 86 47,983 083 SENSE THROUGH THE WALL (STTW) ...................................................................... 142 142 084 NIGHT VISION DEVICES .......................................................................................... 6,879 202,428 6,879 202,428 085 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................... 5,183 5,183 086 NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT .................................................................... 14,074 14,074 087 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF ................................................ 1,491 22,300 1,491 22,300 089 GREEN LASER INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS) ....................................................... 1,016 1,016 090 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ............................................... 5 55,354 5 55,354 091 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................ 800 800 092 PROFILER ............................................................................................................... 3,027 3,027 093 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ..................................................... 1,185 1,185 094 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) .................................................... 3,866 103,214 3,866 103,214 096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .............................................................................. 167 26,037 167 26,037 097 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .......................................................................... 120 23,100 120 23,100 098 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .......................................................................................... 19 312,727 19 312,727 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
378 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ..................................................................................... 574 43,228 574 43,228 102 BATTLE COMMAND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................... 167 14,446 167 14,446 103 FAAD C2 ................................................................................................................ 4,607 4,607 104 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS ................................................ 8 33,090 8 33,090 105 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND SYSTEM ......................................................................... 21,200 21,200 107 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) .............................................................. 1,795 1,795 109 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ........................................ 54,327 54,327 110 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ................................................................... 2,959 59,171 2,959 59,171 111 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) ........................................... 83,936 83,936 113 LOGISTICS AUTOMATION ........................................................................................ 25,476 25,476 114 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ......................................... 212 19,341 212 19,341 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

115 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ......................................................................... 11,865 11,865 116 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................................. 219,431 219,431 117 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ....................................... 6,414 6,414 118 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ........................................................ 62,683 62,683 120 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) ................................................. 34,951 34,951 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

121 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (A/V) ............................................................................. 7,440 7,440 122 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................ 16 1,615 16 1,615 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

123 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) ...................................................................... 554 554 124 BCT EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................ 20,000 20,000 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

124A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 3,558 3,558 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
379 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ......................................................... 762 762 127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................ 3,759 20,630 3,759 20,630 128 CBRN DEFENSE ..................................................................................................... 24,530 22,151 24,530 22,151 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

130 TACTICAL BRIDGING .............................................................................................. 2 14,188 2 14,188 131 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ........................................................................ 34 23,101 34 23,101 132 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP .................................................... 15,416 15,416 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

134 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ............................................ 311 50,465 311 50,465 135 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ....................................................... 6,490 6,490 136 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 1,563 1,563 137 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) ...................................... 6,774 20,921 6,774 20,921 138 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 100 100 139 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 70 2,271 70 2,271 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

140 HEATERS AND ECU’S ............................................................................................. 464 7,269 464 7,269 141 LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES .................................................................. 200 200 142 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ....................................................................................... 1,468 1,468 143 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ............................................... 31,530 26,526 31,530 26,526 144 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM .................................................................................... 5,547 81,680 –10,000 5,547 71,680 

Unjustified unit cost growth ........................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

147 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 217 28,096 217 28,096 148 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM .................................... 6,904 56,150 6,904 56,150 149 MORTUARY AFFAIRS SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 248 3,242 248 3,242 150 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ......................................... 289 38,141 289 38,141 151 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................ 210 5,859 210 5,859 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

152 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER .................................................. 508 60,612 508 60,612 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

153 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ................................................................................. 3,258 22,042 3,258 22,042 154 MEDEVAC MISSON EQUIPMENT PACKAGE (MEP) ................................................... 88 35,318 88 35,318 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
380 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

155 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS ...................................................... 25 19,427 25 19,427 156 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ................................................................... 347 3,860 347 3,860 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

157 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) ................................................................ 2,000 2,000 159 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING .................................................................................... 52 36,078 52 36,078 160 MISSION MODULES—ENGINEERING ...................................................................... 13 9,721 13 9,721 162 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ........................................................................................ 109 50,122 109 50,122 163 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ...................................................................................... 84 28,828 84 28,828 164 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ........................................................................................... 19 19,863 19 19,863 166 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) .................................................... 34 23,465 34 23,465 168 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ............................................. 109 13,590 109 13,590 169 CONST EQUIP ESP ................................................................................................. 80 16,088 80 16,088 170 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ............................................................. 66 6,850 66 6,850 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

171 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ....................................................................................... 38,007 –19,000 19,007 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–19,000 ] 

172 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) ................................................................. 10,605 10,605 

GENERATORS 

173 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................................. 5,239 129,437 5,239 129,437

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

174 ROUGH TERRAIN CONTAINER HANDLER (RTCH) ................................................... 1,250 1,250 175 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ........................................................................................... 60 8,260 60 8,260 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

176 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT ................................................................. 309 121,710 309 121,710 177 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ........................................................................... 8,181 225,200 8,181 225,200 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
381 

178 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER ...................................................................... 15 30,063 15 30,063 179 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER .................................................... 2 34,913 2 34,913 180 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING ...................................... 9,955 9,955 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

181 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3 8,241 3 8,241 182 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ................................................. 1,810 67,506 1,810 67,506 183 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ........................................................ 2,105 18,755 2,105 18,755 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

184 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR ................................................................................ 647 5,110 647 5,110185 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................... 5,110 5,110 186 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) .................................................................. 62,904 62,904 187 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 1,427 1,427 188 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ................................................... 1,936 96,661 1,936 96,661 189 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ...................................................................... 2,450 2,450 190 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ............................................................. 69 11,593 69 11,593 191 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS OPA3 ................................................................................... 1,597 8,948 1,597 8,948 192 TRACTOR YARD ...................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 

OPA2 

195 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .......................................................................................... 15 59,700 15 59,700 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ...................................................... 162,339 6,465,218 –54,300 162,339 6,410,918 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

001 EA–18G .................................................................................................................. 21 2,001,787 –45,000 21 1,956,787 

Program adjustment .................................................................................... [–45,000 ] 

003 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .............................................................................. 206,551 206,551 004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 75,000 75,000 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [75,000 ] 

005 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ..................................................................................... 4 1,135,444 4 1,135,444 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 94,766 94,766 007 JSF STOVL .............................................................................................................. 6 1,267,260 6 1,267,260 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 103,195 103,195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
382 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

009 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ............................................................................................. 18 1,432,573 18 1,432,573 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 55,196 55,196 011 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) ........................................................................... 25 749,962 25 749,962 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 71,000 71,000 013 MH–60S (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 18 383,831 18 383,831 014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 37,278 37,278 015 MH–60R (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 19 599,237 1 20 599,237 016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 231,834 231,834 017 P–8A POSEIDON .................................................................................................... 16 3,189,989 16 3,189,989 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 313,160 313,160 019 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ............................................................................................. 5 997,107 –35,000 5 962,107 

Unjustified CRI Funding ............................................................................... [–35,000 ] 

020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 266,542 266,542 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

021 JPATS ..................................................................................................................... 29 249,080 29 249,080 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

022 KC–130J ................................................................................................................ 2 134,358 2 134,358 023 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 32,288 32,288 025 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 52,002 52,002 026 MQ–8 UAV ............................................................................................................. 1 60,980 1 60,980 028 OTHER SUPPORT AIRCRAFT ................................................................................... 1 14,958 1 14,958 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

029 EA–6 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 18,577 18,577 030 AEA SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 48,502 48,502 031 AV–8 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 41,575 41,575 032 ADVERSARY ........................................................................................................... 2,992 2,992 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
383 

033 F–18 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 875,371 875,371 034 H–46 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 2,127 2,127 036 H–53 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 67,675 67,675 037 SH–60 SERIES ....................................................................................................... 135,054 135,054 038 H–1 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 41,706 41,706 039 EP–3 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 55,903 12 22,000 12 77,903 

12th Aircraft Spiral 3 Upgrade .................................................................... [8,000 ] Multi-INT Sensor Kits & Installation ............................................................ [12] [14,000 ] 

040 P–3 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 37,436 37,436 041 E–2 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 31,044 31,044 042 TRAINER A/C SERIES ............................................................................................. 43,720 43,720 

043 C–2A ...................................................................................................................... 902 902 044 C–130 SERIES ....................................................................................................... 47,587 47,587 045 FEWSG ................................................................................................................... 665 665 046 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................ 14,587 14,587 047 E–6 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 189,312 189,312 048 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ......................................................................... 85,537 85,537 049 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ................................................................................. 3,684 4 13,000 4 16,684 

Engineering and Technical Services Support .............................................. [8,000 ] Multi-INT Sensor Kits & Installation ............................................................ [4] [5,000 ] 

050 T–45 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 98,128 98,128 051 POWER PLANT CHANGES ....................................................................................... 22,999 22,999 052 JPATS SERIES ........................................................................................................ 1,576 1,576 053 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ............................................................................. 6,267 6,267 054 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 141,685 141,685 055 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ............................................................................... 120,660 120,660 056 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM ................................................................ 3,554 3,554 057 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 41,800 41,800 058 P–8 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 9,485 9,485 059 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION ...................................................................................... 14,431 14,431 060 MQ–8 SERIES ........................................................................................................ 1,001 1,001 061 RQ–7 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 26,433 26,433 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
384 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

062 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ........................................................................ 160,834 160,834 063 F–35 STOVL SERIES .............................................................................................. 147,130 147,130 064 F–35 CV SERIES .................................................................................................... 31,100 31,100 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

065 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 1,142,461 1,142,461

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

066 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 410,044 410,044 067 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 27,450 27,450 068 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 28,930 28,930 069 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 5,268 5,268 070 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 60,306 60,306 071 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 1,775 1,775 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 165 17,927,651 17 30,000 182 17,957,651 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

001 TRIDENT II MODS ................................................................................................... 1,140,865 –14,100 1,126,765 

Equipment related to New START treaty implementation ........................... [–14,100 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

002 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................ 7,617 7,617 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

003 TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................................ 196 312,456 196 312,456 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

004 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 54 95,413 54 95,413 005 SIDEWINDER .......................................................................................................... 225 117,208 225 117,208 006 JSOW ...................................................................................................................... 328 136,794 328 136,794 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
385 

007 STANDARD MISSILE ............................................................................................... 81 367,985 81 367,985 008 RAM ....................................................................................................................... 66 67,596 66 67,596 009 HELLFIRE ............................................................................................................... 363 33,916 363 33,916 010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .......................................... 50 6,278 50 6,278 011 AERIAL TARGETS .................................................................................................... 41,799 41,799 012 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 3,538 3,538 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

013 ESSM ..................................................................................................................... 53 76,749 53 76,749 014 HARM MODS .......................................................................................................... 143 111,902 143 111,902 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

015 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 1,138 1,138 016 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON .................................................................... 23,014 23,014 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

017 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 84,318 84,318 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

018 SSTD ...................................................................................................................... 3,978 3,978 019 ASW TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 8,031 8,031 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

020 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ........................................................................................ 150 125,898 150 125,898 021 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ............................................................................ 108 53,203 108 53,203 022 QUICKSTRIKE MINE ................................................................................................ 7,800 7,800

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

023 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 59,730 59,730 024 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 4,222 4,222 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

025 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 3,963 3,963 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

026 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ................................................................................. 12,513 12,513 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

027 CIWS MODS ........................................................................................................... 56,308 56,308 028 COAST GUARD WEAPONS ....................................................................................... 10,727 10,727 029 GUN MOUNT MODS ................................................................................................ 72,901 72,901


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
386 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

030 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS .................................................................... 1,943 1 1 1,943 031 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ........................................................ 19,758 19,758 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

033 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 52,632 52,632 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 1,817 3,122,193 1 –14,100 1,818 3,108,093 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 37,703 37,703 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................... 65,411 65,411 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION .................................................................................. 20,284 20,284 004 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 37,870 37,870 

005 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................ 53,764 53,764 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................. 67,194 67,194 007 JATOS ..................................................................................................................... 2,749 2,749 008 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ....................................................... 3,906 3,906 

009 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................ 24,151 24,151 010 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .......................................................... 33,080 33,080 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 40,398 40,398 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ............................................................... 61,219 61,219 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ........................................................................... 10,637 10,637 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................... 4,578 4,578 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION .................................................................................... 26,297 26,297 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 6,088 6,088 017 40 MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 7,644 7,644


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
387 

018 60MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 3,349 3,349020 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 13,361 13,361 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 2,149 2,149 023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 27,465 27,465026 FUZE, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 26,366 26,366 028 AMMO MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................... 8,403 8,403 029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 5,201 5,201 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ....................................... 589,267 589,267 

SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

001 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 944,866 944,866 003 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ................................................................................. 2 2,930,704 492,000 2 3,422,704 

Increase to Virginia class ............................................................................ [492,000 ] 

004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 2,354,612 2,354,612 005 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS ................................................................................ 1,705,424 1,705,424 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 245,793 245,793 007 DDG 1000 .............................................................................................................. 231,694 79,300 310,994 

Increase to DDG 1000 .................................................................................. [79,300 ] 

008 DDG–51 ................................................................................................................. 1 1,615,564 1 1,615,564 009 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 388,551 388,551 010 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ........................................................................................ 4 1,793,014 4 1,793,014 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

012 AFLOAT FORWARD STAGING BASE ......................................................................... 1 524,000 1 524,000 014 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ................................................................................... 2,732 2,732 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 183,900 183,900 017 OUTFITTING ............................................................................................................ 450,163 450,163 019 LCAC SLEP ............................................................................................................. 4 80,987 4 80,987 020 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS .................................................... 625,800 363,000 988,800 

DDG–51 ........................................................................................................ [332,000 ] Joint High Speed Vessel ............................................................................... [7,600 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
388 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MTS ............................................................................................................... [23,400 ] 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY ......................................... 12 14,077,804 934,300 12 15,012,104 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

001 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ........................................................................................ 10,180 10,180 002 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE ................................................................................. 5,536 5,536 003 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ............................................................................ 16,956 16,956 

GENERATORS 

004 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E ................................................................................ 19,782 19,782 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

005 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 39,509 39,509 

PERISCOPES 

006 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP .................................................................... 52,515 52,515 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

007 DDG MOD ............................................................................................................... 285,994 285,994 008 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 14,389 14,389 009 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ............................................................. 2,436 2,436 010 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ................................................................................................... 12,700 12,700 011 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM ................................................... 40,329 40,329 012 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 19,603 19,603 013 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 8,678 8,678 014 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 74,209 74,209 015 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 47,078 47,078 016 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ......................................................................................... 37,000 37,000 017 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 25,053 25,053 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
389 

018 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 12,986 12,986 019 DSSP EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 2,455 2,455020 CG MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 10,539 1 1 10,539 021 LCAC ...................................................................................................................... 14,431 14,431 022 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 36,700 36,700 023 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 119,902 119,902 024 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ......................................................................... 3,678 3,678 025 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 8,292 8,292 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

027 REACTOR COMPONENTS ........................................................................................ 286,744 286,744 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

028 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 8,780 8,780 

SMALL BOATS 

029 STANDARD BOATS .................................................................................................. 36,452 36,452 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

030 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 36,145 36,145 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

031 OPERATING FORCES IPE ........................................................................................ 69,368 69,368 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

032 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ......................................................................................... 106,328 106,328

033 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ..................................................... 45,966 45,966 034 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ............................................................................... 59,885 59,885 035 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES ................................................................................ 37,168 37,168 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

036 LSD MIDLIFE .......................................................................................................... 77,974 1 1 77,974 

SHIP SONARS 

038 SPQ–9B RADAR ..................................................................................................... 27,934 27,934 039 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ............................................................. 83,231 83,231 040 SSN ACOUSTICS ..................................................................................................... 199,438 199,438 041 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 9,394 9,394 042 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ................................................................. 12,953 12,953 043 ELECTRONIC WARFARE MILDEC ............................................................................ 8,958 8,958 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
390 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

044 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................ 24,077 24,077 045 SSTD ...................................................................................................................... 11,925 11,925 046 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 94,338 94,338 047 SURTASS ................................................................................................................ 9,680 9,680 048 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE ............................................... 18,130 18,130 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

049 AN/SLQ–32 ............................................................................................................ 203,375 1 1 203,375 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

050 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ........................................................................................ 123,656 1 1 123,656 051 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .......................................................... 896 896 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

052 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ............................................................. 49,475 49,475 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

053 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .............................................................. 34,692 34,692 054 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) .................................................................. 396 396 055 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ..................................... 15,703 15,703 056 ATDLS .................................................................................................................... 3,836 3,836 057 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ................................................. 7,201 7,201 058 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ............................................................... 54,400 54,400 059 SHALLOW WATER MCM .......................................................................................... 8,548 8,548 060 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) ....................................................................... 11,765 11,765 061 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ........................................................ 6,483 6,483 062 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 7,631 7,631 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

063 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 53,644 53,644 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
391 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

064 MATCALS ................................................................................................................ 7,461 7,461 065 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................... 9,140 9,140 066 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ............................................................... 20,798 20,798 067 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 19,754 19,754 068 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................ 8,909 8,909 069 LANDING SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 13,554 13,554 070 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 38,934 38,934 071 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .................................................................... 14,131 14,131 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

072 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL .......................................................... 3,249 3,249 073 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ....................................................... 11,646 11,646 074 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 18,189 18,189 075 DCGS-N .................................................................................................................. 17,350 17,350 076 CANES .................................................................................................................... 340,567 1 1 340,567 077 RADIAC .................................................................................................................. 9,835 9,835 078 CANES-INTELL ........................................................................................................ 59,652 59,652 079 GPETE .................................................................................................................... 6,253 6,253 080 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY ................................................................ 4,963 4,963 081 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ......................................................................... 4,664 4,664 082 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 66,889 66,889 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

084 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ................................................................... 23,877 1 1 23,877 086 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ................................................................. 28,001 28,001 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

087 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ....................................................................... 7,856 7,856 088 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 74,376 74,376 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

089 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 27,381 27,381 090 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) ...................................................................... 215,952 1 1 215,952 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

091 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 4,463 4,463 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
392 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

092 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 778 778 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

094 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) .......................................................... 133,530 133,530 095 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ............................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

096 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ............................................................... 12,251 12,251 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

097 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 2,893 2,893 

SONOBUOYS 

099 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 179,927 179,927 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

100 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 55,279 55,279 101 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS .................................................................................... 8,792 8,792 102 AIRCRAFT REARMING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 11,364 11,364 103 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & RECOVERY EQUIPMENT ...................................................... 59,502 59,502 104 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 19,118 19,118 105 DCRS/DPL .............................................................................................................. 1,425 1,425 106 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 29,670 29,670 107 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................... 101,554 101,554 108 LAMPS MK III SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 18,293 18,293 109 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE AIDS ........................................................ 7,969 7,969 110 OTHER AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 5,215 5,215 111 AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS INFORMATION SYSTEM (ALIS) .......................................... 4,827 4,827 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

112 NAVAL FIRES CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................................... 1,188 1,188 113 GUN FIRE CONTROL EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 4,447 4,447 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
393 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

114 NATO SEASPARROW ............................................................................................... 58,368 58,368115 RAM GMLS ............................................................................................................. 491 491 116 SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 51,858 51,858 117 AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 59,757 59,757 118 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 71,559 71,559 119 VERTICAL LAUNCH SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 626 626 120 MARITIME INTEGRATED PLANNING SYSTEM-MIPS ................................................. 2,779 2,779 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

121 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP .................................................................... 224,484 –25,919 198,565 

New START treaty implementation ............................................................... [–25,919 ] 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

122 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 85,678 85,678 123 SUBMARINE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 3,913 3,913 124 SURFACE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 3,909 3,909 125 ASW RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 28,694 28,694 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .............................................................. 46,586 46,586 127 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 11,933 11,933 

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

128 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM ...................................................................... 62,361 1 1 62,361 129 SURFACE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ........................................................................ 41,813 41,813 130 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ................................................................... 26,672 26,672 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

131 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 5,600 5,600 132 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ................................................................................. 3,717 3,717 133 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP ............................................................... 10,881 10,881 134 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 14,748 14,748 135 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 5,540 5,540136 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,741 5,741 137 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 3,852 3,852 138 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION .................................................................................... 25,757 25,757 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
394 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

139 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ............................................................................. 1,182 1,182 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

140 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 14,250 14,250 141 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 6,401 6,401 142 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 5,718 5,718 143 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ................................................................... 22,597 22,597 

TRAINING DEVICES 

144 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 22,527 22,527 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

145 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 50,428 50,428 146 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 2,292 2,292 147 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 4,925 4,925 149 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 3,202 3,202 151 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 24,294 24,294 152 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 4,287 4,287153 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 18,276 18,276 154 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 134,495 134,495 155 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 324,327 324,327 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

156A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 12,140 12,140 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

157 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 317,234 –275 316,959 

New START treaty implementation ............................................................... [–275 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ....................................................... 6,310,257 8 –26,194 8 6,284,063 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
395 

TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 AAV7A1 PIP ............................................................................................................ 32,360 32,360 002 LAV PIP .................................................................................................................. 6,003 6,003 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

003 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................... 589 589 004 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .............................................................. 3,655 3,655 005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ........................................................ 5,467 5,467 006 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ....................................... 20,354 20,354 

OTHER SUPPORT 

007 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 38,446 38,446 008 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................... 4,734 4,734 

GUIDED MISSILES 

009 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .............................................................................. 15,713 15,713 010 JAVELIN .................................................................................................................. 219 36,175 219 36,175 012 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ............................................... 1,136 1,136 

OTHER SUPPORT 

013 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 33,976 33,976 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

014 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER .................................................................................... 16,273 16,273 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 41,063 41,063 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

016 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 2,930 2,930 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

018 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ......................................................... 1,637 1,637 019 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 18,394 18,394 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

020 RADAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 114,051 114,051 021 RQ–21 UAS ............................................................................................................ 25 66,612 25 66,612 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

022 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 3,749 3,749 023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 75,979 75,979 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
396 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

026 RQ–11 UAV ............................................................................................................ 1,653 1,653 027 DCGS-MC ............................................................................................................... 9,494 9,494 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

028 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 6,171 6,171 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

029 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................ 121,955 121,955 030 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 83,294 83,294 031 RADIO SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 74,718 74,718 

032 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................. 47,613 47,613 033 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ......................................................... 19,573 19,573 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

033A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 5,659 5,659 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

034 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES .................................................................... 1,039 1,039 035 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................ 31,050 31,050 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

036 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) .................................................................................. 36,333 36,333 037 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 3,137 3,137 040 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ............................................................................. 27,385 27,385 

OTHER SUPPORT 

041 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 7,016 7,016 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

042 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT ........................................................... 14,377 14,377 043 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 24,864 24,864 044 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 21,592 21,592 045 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ............................................................................. 61,353 61,353 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
397 

046 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 4,827 4,827 047 EOD SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 40,011 40,011 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

048 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 16,809 16,809 049 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .............................................. 3,408 3,408 050 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP .................................................................................. 48,549 48,549 051 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 190 190 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

052 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 23,129 23,129 053 TRAINING DEVICES ................................................................................................ 8,346 8,346

054 CONTAINER FAMILY ............................................................................................... 1,857 1,857 055 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 36,198 36,198 056 RAPID DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN ................................................................................ 2,390 2,390 

OTHER SUPPORT 

057 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 6,525 6,525 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

058 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 13,700 13,700 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS .................................................. 244 1,343,511 244 1,343,511 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

001 F–35 ...................................................................................................................... 19 3,060,770 19 3,060,770 

002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 363,783 363,783 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

005 C–130J .................................................................................................................. 6 537,517 6 537,517 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 162,000 162,000 007 HC–130J ................................................................................................................ 1 132,121 1 132,121 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 88,000 88,000 009 MC–130J ................................................................................................................ 4 389,434 4 389,434 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 104,000 104,000 

HELICOPTERS 

015 CV–22 (MYP) ......................................................................................................... 3 230,798 3 230,798 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
398 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

017 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ........................................................................................... 6 2,541 6 2,541 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

020 TARGET DRONES .................................................................................................... 41 138,669 41 138,669 022 AC–130J ................................................................................................................ 5 470,019 5 470,019 024 RQ–4 ..................................................................................................................... 27,000 27,000 027 MQ–9 ..................................................................................................................... 12 272,217 6 80,000 18 352,217 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [6] [80,000 ] 

028 RQ–4 BLOCK 40 PROC .......................................................................................... 1,747 1,747 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

029 B–2A ...................................................................................................................... 20,019 20,019 030 B–1B ..................................................................................................................... 132,222 132,222 031 B–52 ...................................................................................................................... 111,002 –500 110,502 

B–52 conversions related to New START treaty implementation ............... [–500 ] 

032 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES ................................................ 27,197 27,197 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

033 A–10 ...................................................................................................................... 47,598 47,598 034 F–15 ...................................................................................................................... 354,624 354,624 035 F–16 ...................................................................................................................... 11,794 11,794 036 F–22A .................................................................................................................... 285,830 285,830 037 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 157,777 157,777 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

038 C–5 ........................................................................................................................ 2,456 2,456 039 C–5M ..................................................................................................................... 1,021,967 1,021,967 042 C–17A .................................................................................................................... 143,197 143,197 043 C–21 ...................................................................................................................... 103 103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
399 

044 C–32A .................................................................................................................... 9,780 9,780 045 C–37A .................................................................................................................... 452 452 046 C–130 AMP ........................................................................................................... 8 47,300 8 47,300 

LRIP Kit Procurement ................................................................................... [8] [47,300 ] 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

047 GLIDER MODS ........................................................................................................ 128 128 048 T–6 ........................................................................................................................ 6,427 6,427 049 T–1 ........................................................................................................................ 277 277 050 T–38 ...................................................................................................................... 28,686 28,686 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

052 U–2 MODS ............................................................................................................. 45,591 45,591 053 KC–10A (ATCA) ...................................................................................................... 70,918 70,918 054 C–12 ...................................................................................................................... 1,876 1,876 055 MC–12W ................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 056 C–20 MODS ........................................................................................................... 192 192057 VC–25A MOD ......................................................................................................... 263 263 058 C–40 ...................................................................................................................... 6,119 6,119 059 C–130 .................................................................................................................... 58,577 15,700 74,277 

C–130H Propulsion System Engine Upgrades ............................................. [15,700 ] 

061 C–130J MODS ........................................................................................................ 10,475 10,475 062 C–135 .................................................................................................................... 46,556 46,556 063 COMPASS CALL MODS ........................................................................................... 34,494 34,494 064 RC–135 ................................................................................................................. 171,813 171,813 065 E–3 ........................................................................................................................ 197,087 197,087 066 E–4 ........................................................................................................................ 14,304 14,304 067 E–8 ........................................................................................................................ 57,472 57,472 068 H–1 ........................................................................................................................ 6,627 6,627 069 H–60 ...................................................................................................................... 27,654 27,654 070 RQ–4 MODS ........................................................................................................... 9,313 9,313 

071 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 16,300 16,300 072 OTHER AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................... 6,948 6,948 073 MQ–1 MODS .......................................................................................................... 9,734 9,734 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
400 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

074 MQ–9 MODS .......................................................................................................... 102,970 102,970 076 RQ–4 GSRA/CSRA MODS ....................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 077 CV–22 MODS ......................................................................................................... 23,310 23,310 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

078 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 463,285 25 176,000 25 639,285 

F100–229 spare engine shortfall ................................................................ [25] [165,000 ] MQ–9 spares ................................................................................................ [11,000 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

079 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ........................................................... 49,140 49,140 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

081 B–1 ........................................................................................................................ 3,683 3,683 083 B–2A ...................................................................................................................... 43,786 43,786 084 B–52 ...................................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 087 C–17A .................................................................................................................... 81,952 81,952 089 C–135 .................................................................................................................... 8,597 8,597 090 F–15 ...................................................................................................................... 2,403 2,403 091 F–16 ...................................................................................................................... 3,455 3,455 092 F–22A .................................................................................................................... 5,911 5,911 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

094 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .............................................................................. 21,148 21,148 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

095 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 94,947 94,947 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

096 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 1,242,004 1,242,004 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

101A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 75,845 –8,300 67,545 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
401 

Program Decrease ........................................................................................ [–8,300 ] 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................ 97 11,398,901 39 310,200 136 11,709,101 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

001 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC .................................................................. 39,104 39,104 

TACTICAL 

002 JASSM .................................................................................................................... 183 291,151 183 291,151 003 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .......................................................................................... 225 119,904 225 119,904 004 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 199 340,015 199 340,015 005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ............................................................................... 413 48,548 413 48,548 006 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 144 42,347 144 42,347 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

007 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION ........................................................... 752 752 

CLASS IV 

009 MM III MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 21,635 21,635010 AGM–65D MAVERICK ............................................................................................. 276 276 011 AGM–88A HARM .................................................................................................... 580 580 012 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ................................................................... 6,888 6,888 013 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

014 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 72,080 –703 71,377 

Spares and repair parts related to New START treaty implementation ..... [–703 ] 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

015 ADVANCED EHF ...................................................................................................... 379,586 379,586 016 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ........................................................... 38,398 38,398 017 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ....................................................................................... 2 403,431 2 403,431 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 74,167 74,167 019 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ............................................................................ 5,244 5,244 020 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .............................................................................. 55,997 55,997 021 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ............................................................ 95,673 95,673 022 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ....................................................... 5 1,852,900 5 1,852,900 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
402 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

023 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 583,192 583,192 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

029 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 36,716 36,716 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

029A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 829,702 829,702 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................... 1,171 5,343,286 –703 1,171 5,342,583 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

001 ROCKETS ................................................................................................................ 15,735 15,735 

CARTRIDGES 

002 CARTRIDGES .......................................................................................................... 129,921 129,921 

BOMBS 

003 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 30,840 30,840 004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 187,397 187,397 005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .......................................................................... 6,965 188,510 6,965 188,510 

OTHER ITEMS 

006 CAD/PAD ................................................................................................................ 35,837 35,837 007 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ............................................................... 7,531 7,531 008 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 499 499 009 MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 480 480 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 9,765 9,765 

FLARES 

011 FLARES .................................................................................................................. 55,864 55,864 

FUZES 

013 FUZES .................................................................................................................... 76,037 76,037 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
403 

SMALL ARMS 

014 SMALL ARMS ......................................................................................................... 21,026 21,026 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............................. 6,965 759,442 6,965 759,442 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 2,048 2,048 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE .................................................................................. 8,019 8,019 003 CAP VEHICLES ....................................................................................................... 946 946 004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 7,138 7,138 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

005 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................... 13,093 13,093 006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 13,983 13,983 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

007 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ............................................................ 23,794 23,794 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 8,669 8,669 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ......................................................... 6,144 6,144 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,580 1,580 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

012 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................. 149,661 149,661 013 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) .................................................................................... 726 726 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

014 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 2,789 2,789 015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 31,875 31,875 016 ADVANCE TECH SENSORS ..................................................................................... 452 452 017 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 14,203 14,203 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

018 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................ 46,232 46,232 019 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 11,685 11,685 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
404 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

020 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ....................................................................... 19,248 19,248 021 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... 19,292 19,292 022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ...................................................................... 17,166 17,166 023 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................... 22,723 22,723 024 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX ........................................................................... 27,930 27,930 025 TAC SIGNIT SPT ..................................................................................................... 217 217 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 49,627 49,627 028 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ............................................................... 13,559 13,559 029 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ..................................................................... 11,186 11,186 030 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ............................................................. 43,238 43,238 031 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .................................................................................. 10,431 10,431 032 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................................................ 13,769 13,769 033 GCSS-AF FOS ......................................................................................................... 19,138 19,138 034 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ....................................................................... 8,809 8,809 035 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ............................................................ 26,935 26,935 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

036 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 80,558 80,558 038 AFNET .................................................................................................................... 97,588 97,588 039 VOICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 8,419 8,419 040 USCENTCOM .......................................................................................................... 34,276 34,276 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

041 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE ................................................................. 28,235 28,235 042 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ............................................................................................ 2,061 2,061 043 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ............................................................................. 4,415 4,415 044 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ............................................................ 30,237 30,237 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
405 

045 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................ 98,062 98,062 046 MILSATCOM SPACE ................................................................................................ 105,935 105,935 047 SPACE MODS SPACE ............................................................................................. 37,861 37,861 048 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 7,171 7,171 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

049 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 83,537 83,537 050 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER .................................................................. 11,884 11,884 051 RADIO EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 14,711 14,711 052 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 10,275 10,275 053 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................. 50,907 50,907 

MODIFICATIONS 

054 COMM ELECT MODS .............................................................................................. 55,701 55,701 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

055 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ........................................................................................ 14,524 14,524 056 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 28,655 28,655 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

057 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ............................................................ 9,332 9,332 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

058 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 16,762 16,762 059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 33,768 33,768 060 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT .................................................................... 2,495 2,495 061 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 12,859 12,859062 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,954 1,954 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

064 DARP RC135 .......................................................................................................... 24,528 24,528 065 DCGS-AF ................................................................................................................ 137,819 137,819 067 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM .................................................................................. 479,586 479,586 068 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. ........................................................... 45,159 45,159 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

068A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 14,519,256 14,519,256 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

069 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 25,746 25,746 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
406 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................. 16,760,581 16,760,581 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

038 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ....................................................................................... 37,345 37,345 039 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE ....................................................................... 16,678 16,678 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

037 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ........................................... 14,363 14,363 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

041 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS ...................................................................................... 35,259 35,259 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

008 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................ 16,189 16,189 011 TELEPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 66,075 66,075 012 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 83,881 83,881 013 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ...................................................... 2,572 2,572 014 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .......................................................... 125,557 125,557 016 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................. 16,941 16,941 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

017 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 13,137 13,137 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

021 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 5,020 5,020 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

001 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,291 1,291 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

040 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ........................................................................................ 14,792 14,792 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
407 

025 THAAD .................................................................................................................... 36 581,005 36 581,005 026 AEGIS BMD ............................................................................................................ 52 580,814 52 580,814 027 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ...................................................................................... 62,000 62,000 028 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III ...................................................................................... 1 131,400 1 131,400 030 IRON DOME ............................................................................................................ 1 220,309 1 220,309 032 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 107,000 107,000 

Advanced Procurement of 14 GBIs, beginning with booster motor sets .... [107,000 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

003 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................... 47,201 47,201 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

022 VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 2 100 2 100 023 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 3 13,395 3 13,395 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 

020 EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................................ 978 978 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

019 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ............................................. 1,454 1,454 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 5,711 5,711 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

018 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 5 15,414 5 15,414 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

041A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 544,272 544,272 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

043 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT ...................................................... 112,456 112,456 044 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 81,457 81,457 045 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ..................................................................................... 2,650 2,650 046 U–28 ...................................................................................................................... 56,208 56,208 047 MH–47 CHINOOK ................................................................................................... 19,766 19,766 

048 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ..................................................................... 850 850 049 CV–22 MODIFICATION ............................................................................................ 3 98,927 3 98,927 050 MQ–1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ...................................................................... 20,576 20,576 051 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ...................................................................... 1,893 1,893 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
408 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

053 STUASL0 ................................................................................................................ 13,166 13,166 054 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE ................................................................................. 107,687 107,687 055 AC/MC–130J .......................................................................................................... 51,870 51,870 057 C–130 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 71,940 71,940 

SHIPBUILDING 

059 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 37,439 37,439 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

061 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ....................................................................................... 159,029 159,029 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

064 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 79,819 79,819 066 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ........................................... 14,906 14,906 068 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .............................................................................................. 81,711 81,711069 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 35,053 35,053 072 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .............................................................................................. 41,526 41,526073 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 43,353 43,353 074 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M .................................................................................... 210,540 210,540 076 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 20,000 20,000 080 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 6,645 6,645 081 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ...................................................... 25,581 25,581 087 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ............................................................................. 191,061 191,061 

CBDP 

089 INSTALLATION FORCE PROTECTION ....................................................................... 14,271 14,271 090 INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ....................................................................................... 101,667 101,667092 JOINT BIO DEFENSE PROGRAM (MEDICAL) ............................................................ 13,447 13,447 093 COLLECTIVE PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 20,896 20,896 094 CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ................................................................................. 144,540 144,540 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
409 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................. 103 4,534,083 107,000 103 4,641,083 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .......................................................... 98,800 –98,800 0 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–98,800 ] 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ................................. 98,800 –98,800 0 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................. 229,104 98,227,168 –1,327 1,439,003 227,777 99,666,171 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
410 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

001A SATURN ARCH (MIP) ....................................................................................... 4 48,000 4 48,000 

003 MQ–1 UAV ....................................................................................................... 4 31,988 4 31,988 

ROTARY 

008 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ......................................................... 4 142,000 4 142,000 010 KIOWA WARRIOR WRA ..................................................................................... 14 163,800 14 163,800013 CH–47 HELICOPTER ........................................................................................ 10 386,000 10 386,000 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .......................................... 36 771,788 36 771,788 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

002 MSE MISSILE ................................................................................................... 25,887 25,887

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [25,887 ] 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

003 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ................................................................................ 550 54,000 550 54,000 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

007 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ..................................................................... 383 39,045 383 39,045 

009A ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM ........................................... 38 35,600 38 35,600 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................. 971 128,645 25,887 971 154,532 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
411 

033 M16 RIFLE MODS ............................................................................................ 15,422 15,422 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [15,422 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ......................................... 15,422 15,422 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

002 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 4,400 4,400 004 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 1,500 1,500 005 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 5,000 5,000 10,000 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [5,000 ] 

008 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 60,000 60,000 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

010 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

014 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ................................. 10,000 20,000 30,000 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [20,000 ] 

015 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES .................................................. 10,000 10,000 016 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ........................................................... 120 11,000 120 11,000 

MINES 

018 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ..................................................... 9,482 9,482 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [9,482 ] 

ROCKETS 

021 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 57,000 57,000 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

022 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................................. 4,000 4,000 023 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 024 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 

MISCELLANEOUS 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
412 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

028 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ................................ 120 180,900 34,482 120 215,382 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

003 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .................................................... 2,500 2,500 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [2,500 ] 

005 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ............................................... 2,050 2,050 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [2,050 ] 

013 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ................................... 321,040 241,556 562,596 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [241,556 ] 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

060 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM .................................. 25,000 25,000 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

067 DCGS-A (MIP) .................................................................................................. 7,200 7,200 071 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ........................................... 5,980 5,980 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

074 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ....................................................... 67 57,800 25,455 67 83,255 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [25,455 ] 

078 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ..................................... 15,300 15,300 079 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ................................ 4,221 4,221 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
413 

091 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ......................................................................... 34 1,834 34 1,834 093 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ............................................... 8,400 8,400 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [8,400 ] 

096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) ........................................................................ 137 21,000 137 21,000 098 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .................................................................................... 4 85,830 4 85,830 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

110 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ............................................................. 3,200 3,200 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [3,200 ] 

112 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE (SALE) ................................................ 5,160 5,160 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [5,160 ] 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) .................................................. 15,000 15,000 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [15,000 ] 

127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ..................................................................... 24,932 24,932 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [24,932 ] 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

137 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) ................................ 3,565 3,565 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [3,565 ] 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

146 FORCE PROVIDER ............................................................................................ 3 51,654 3 51,654147 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 18 6,264 18 6,264 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

152 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ............................................ 2,119 2,119 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [2,119 ] 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
414 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

176 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .......................................................... 7,000 7,000 

Restoral of funds based on offsets used for April 2013 reprogramming. [7,000 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................ 263 603,123 340,937 263 944,060 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

001 ATTACK THE NETWORK .................................................................................... 417,700 417,700 

JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 

002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE ........................................................................................ 248,886 248,886 

FORCE TRAINING 

003 TRAIN THE FORCE ........................................................................................... 106,000 106,000 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

004 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................... 227,414 227,414 

TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND .......................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

011 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .................................................................... 1 29,520 1 29,520 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

026 MQ–8 UAV ....................................................................................................... 1 13,100 1 13,100 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

031 AV–8 SERIES ................................................................................................... 57,652 57,652033 F–18 SERIES ................................................................................................... 35,500 35,500039 EP–3 SERIES ................................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 049 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ........................................................................... 3,375 3,375 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
415 

054 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 49,183 49,183 055 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ......................................................................... 4,190 4,190 059 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION ................................................................................ 20,700 20,700 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

065 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 24,776 24,776 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................... 2 240,696 2 240,696 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

009 HELLFIRE ......................................................................................................... 270 27,000 270 27,000 

009A LASER MAVERICK ............................................................................................ 500 58,000 500 58,000 

010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .................................... 9 1,500 9 1,500 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................... 779 86,500 779 86,500 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 11,424 11,424 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .................................................................... 30,332 30,332 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ........................................................................... 8,282 8,282 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................... 31,884 31,884 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ....................................................................... 409 409 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ......................................................... 11,976 11,976 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ..................................................................... 2,447 2,447 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ............................................................. 7,692 7,692 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 13,461 13,461 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ......................................................................... 3,310 3,310 017 40 MM, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 6,244 6,244 018 60MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 3,368 3,368 019 81MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 9,162 9,162 020 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 10,266 10,266 021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 1,887 1,887 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
416 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 1,611 1,611 023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 37,459 37,459 024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 970 970 025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................................. 418 418 026 FUZE, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................. 14,219 14,219 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ................................. 206,821 206,821 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

135 TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................ 17,968 17,968 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................ 17,968 17,968 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 

010 JAVELIN ............................................................................................................ 180 29,334 180 29,334 011 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ..................................................................................... 105 105 

OTHER SUPPORT 

013 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 16,081 16,081 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 16,081 16,081 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

017 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

018 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ................................................... 8,170 8,170 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 2,700 2,700 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
417 

026 RQ–11 UAV ..................................................................................................... 2,830 2,830 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

029 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES .................................................................. 4,866 4,866 030 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 265 265 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

042 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .................................................... 114 114 043 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 523 523 044 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 365 365 045 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ....................................................................... 2,004 2,004 047 EOD SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 42,930 42,930 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

055 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 385 385 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................ 180 129,584 180 129,584 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

032 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 94,050 94,050 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

052 U–2 MODS ....................................................................................................... 11,300 11,300 

059 C–130 ............................................................................................................. 1,618 1,618 064 RC–135 ........................................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

079 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ..................................................... 6,000 6,000 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................. 115,668 115,668 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ......................................................................... 211 24,200 211 24,200 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 211 24,200 211 24,200 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
418 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

001 ROCKETS ......................................................................................................... 326 326 

CARTRIDGES 

002 CARTRIDGES .................................................................................................... 17,634 17,634

BOMBS 

004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 37,514 37,514 005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .................................................................... 2,879 84,459 2,879 84,459 

FLARES 

011 FLARES ............................................................................................................ 14,973 14,973 012 FUZES .............................................................................................................. 3,859 3,859 

SMALL ARMS 

014 SMALL ARMS ................................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ....................... 2,879 159,965 2,879 159,965 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ................................................................ 1,800 1,800 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

046 MILSATCOM SPACE .......................................................................................... 5,695 5,695 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 60,600 60,600 061 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 68,000 68,000 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

068 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .................................................... 58,250 58,250 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

068A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 2,380,501 2,380,501 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 2,574,846 2,574,846 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
419 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

011 TELEPORT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 4,760 4,760 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

041A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 78,986 78,986 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

060 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT ........................................................................... 25 2,841 25 2,841 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

064 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 1 13,300 1 13,300 082 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS ............................................ 53 8,034 53 8,034 087 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ....................................................................... 126 3,354 126 3,354 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE ............................................ 205 111,275 205 111,275 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................... 15,000 –15,000 0 

Program reduction ................................................................................. [–15,000 ] 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ........................... 15,000 –15,000 0 

NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 400,000 400,000 

Program increase ................................................................................... [400,000 ] 

TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT ........................... 400,000 400,000 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ....................................................................... 5,646 6,366,979 801,728 5,646 7,168,707 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
420 

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 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH .................................................................................... 21,803 21,803 

002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 221,901 221,901 003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 79,359 79,359 004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS ..................................................................................... 113,662 113,662 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 436,725 436,725 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 26,585 26,585 

006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................... 43,170 43,170 007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ............................................................................................................................................... 36,293 36,293 008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 55,615 55,615 009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 17,585 17,585 010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 51,528 51,528 011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 26,162 26,162 012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................... 24,063 24,063 013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 64,589 64,589 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
421 

014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 68,300 68,300 015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 4,490 4,490 016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 7,818 7,818 017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 37,798 37,798 018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES .................................................................................................. 59,021 59,021 019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 43,426 43,426 020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................. 20,574 20,574 021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 21,339 21,339 022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 20,316 20,316 023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 34,209 34,209 024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 10,439 10,439 025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 70,064 70,064 026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................... 17,654 17,654 027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 31,546 31,546 028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 93,340 93,340 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 885,924 885,924 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 56,056 56,056 

030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 62,032 62,032 031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 81,080 81,080 032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 63,919 63,919 033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 97,043 97,043 034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 5,866 5,866 035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 7,800 7,800 036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 40,416 40,416 037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ............................................................................................................................................. 9,166 9,166 038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 13,627 13,627 039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ........................................................................................................................................... 10,667 10,667 041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 15,054 15,054 042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL ............................................................................................................................................. 3,194 3,194 043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ........................................................................................................................................... 2,367 2,367 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
422 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 25,348 25,348 045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 64,009 64,009 046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 11,083 11,083 047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .................................................................. 180,662 180,662 048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 22,806 22,806 049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 5,030 5,030 050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 36,407 36,407 051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ...................................................................... 11,745 11,745 052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 23,717 23,717 053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 33,012 33,012 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 882,106 882,106 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................ 15,301 15,301 

055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ......................................................................................................... 13,592 13,592 056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV ......................................................................................... 10,625 10,625 058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ................................................................................................ 30,612 30,612 059 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) ............................................................................................ 49,989 49,989 060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ...................................................................................................... 6,703 6,703 061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ...................................................................... 6,894 6,894 062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9,066 9,066 063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL .................................................................................. 2,633 2,633 064 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK-TACTICAL—DEM/VAL ..................................................................... 272,384 272,384 065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 3,874 3,874 066 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ................................................................................................................................... 5,018 5,018 067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV .................................................................................... 11,556 11,556 069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ................................................................................................................... 15,603 15,603 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
423 

070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 14,159 14,159 071 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE ............................................................................................................. 79 79 072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................... 55,605 55,605 074 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ............................................ 79,232 79,232 075 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4) ................................................................................... 4,476 4,476 076 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS ....................................................................................................................................... 28,991 –28,000 991 

LEMV program reduction ................................................................................................................... [–28,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 636,392 –28,000 608,392 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

077 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS .................................................................................................................................... 76,588 76,588 

078 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS ...................................................................................................................... 73,309 73,309 079 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 154,621 154,621 080 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ................................................................................................................................ 31,826 31,826 081 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................................................... 23,341 23,341 082 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 4,839 4,839 083 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 23,841 23,841 084 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS .................................................................................................................... 79,855 11,000 90,855 

Transfer from WTCV line 15—XM25 development ........................................................................... [11,000 ]

085 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................................................................... 2,140 2,140 086 0604611A JAVELIN ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,002 5,002 087 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................................................... 21,321 21,321 088 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ................................................................................................................................ 514 514 093 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ............................................................................................................ 43,405 43,405 094 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 1,939 1,939 095 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV ............................................................................................. 18,980 18,980 097 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV ......................................................... 18,294 18,294 098 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 17,013 17,013 099 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 6,701 6,701 100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ...................................................................... 14,575 14,575 101 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ................................................................................... 27,634 27,634 102 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................................. 193,748 193,748 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
424 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

103 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ....................................................................................................... 15,721 15,721 104 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................................................................... 41,703 41,703 105 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................ 7,379 7,379 106 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................... 39,468 39,468 107 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ................................................................................................. 92,285 92,285 108 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS—EMD ..................................................................................................................... 8,209 8,209 109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ........................................................... 22,958 22,958 110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. 1,549 1,549 111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ......................................................................... 17,342 17,342 112 0604823A FIREFINDER ................................................................................................................................................. 47,221 47,221 113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL .................................................................................................... 48,477 48,477 114 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ........................................................................................................................ 80,613 80,613 117 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 68,814 68,814 118 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) ..................................................................... 137,290 137,290 119 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ............................................................................................. 116,298 116,298 120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ................................................................................................. 68,148 68,148 121 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) .............................................................................................. 33,219 33,219 122 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ...................................................................................................... 15,127 15,127 124 0605456A PAC–3/MSE MISSILE ................................................................................................................................... 68,843 68,843 125 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ........................................................................... 364,649 364,649 126 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ......................................................................................................................... 592,201 592,201 127 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR ........................................................................................................................... 10,382 10,382 128 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) .............................................................................................. 21,143 21,143 129 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH ............. 84,230 84,230 130 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ........................................................................................................................................... 3,465 3,465 131 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 10,806 10,806 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 2,857,026 11,000 2,868,026 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
425 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

132 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 16,934 16,934 

133 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 13,488 13,488 134 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 46,672 46,672 135 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ............................................................................................................................... 11,919 11,919 136 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL ............................................................................................................................. 193,658 193,658 137 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 37,158 37,158 139 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 340,659 340,659 140 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ........................................................................ 66,061 66,061 141 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 43,280 43,280 143 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ 6,025 6,025 144 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 7,349 7,349 145 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 19,809 19,809 146 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS .............................................................................................................. 5,941 5,941 147 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING .......................................................................................................... 55,504 55,504 148 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ........................................................................................................................ 65,274 65,274 149 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ....................................................................... 1,283 1,283 150 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................... 82,035 82,035 151 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 33,853 33,853 152 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ................................................................... 53,340 53,340 153 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT ......................................................................... 5,193 5,193 154 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ............................................................................................................................ 54,175 54,175 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 1,159,610 1,159,610 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

156 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 110,576 110,576 

157 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION .............................................................................................................................. 3,717 3,717 159 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 70,053 70,053 160 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE .............................................................................................................. 98,450 –30,000 68,450 

JLENS program reduction ................................................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

161 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 30,940 30,940 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
426 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

162 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................................................................ 177,532 177,532 163 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 36,495 36,495 164 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .............................................................. 257,187 257,187 165 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 315 315 166 0203758A DIGITIZATION ............................................................................................................................................... 6,186 6,186 167 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................... 1,578 1,578 168 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 62,100 62,100 169 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ........................................................................................................................................... 18,778 18,778 170 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 7,108 7,108 173 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 7,600 7,600 174 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 9,357 9,357 175 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 41,225 41,225 176 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ................................................................................................. 18,197 18,197 177 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................... 14,215 14,215 179 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................... 33,533 33,533 180 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 27,622 27,622 181 0305219A MQ–1C GRAY EAGLE UAS ........................................................................................................................... 10,901 10,901 182 0305232A RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................................................. 2,321 2,321 183 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 12,031 12,031 185 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ......................................................................................................... 12,449 12,449 186 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 56,136 56,136 

186A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 4,717 4,717 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 1,131,319 –30,000 1,101,319 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .............................................................. 7,989,102 –47,000 7,942,102 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
427 

BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 112,617 10,000 122,617 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH .................................................................................... 18,230 18,230 003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 484,459 484,459 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 615,306 10,000 625,306 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 104,513 104,513 

005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 145,307 145,307 006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 47,334 47,334 007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 34,163 34,163 008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 49,689 49,689 009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 97,701 97,701 010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 45,685 18,000 63,685 

AGOR mid life refit ............................................................................................................................ [18,000 ] 

011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 6,060 6,060 012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................. 103,050 103,050 013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 169,710 169,710 014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................ 31,326 31,326 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 834,538 18,000 852,538 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 48,201 48,201 

016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 28,328 28,328 019 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 56,179 56,179 020 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ........................................................................... 132,400 132,400 021 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 11,854 11,854 022 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 247,931 247,931 023 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 4,760 4,760 025 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ....................................................................... 51,463 51,463 026 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................ 2,000 2,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
428 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 583,116 583,116 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

027 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 42,246 42,246 

028 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 5,591 5,591 029 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ........................................................................................... 3,262 3,262 030 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 74 74 031 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7,964 7,964 032 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE ..................................................................................................... 5,257 5,257 033 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 1,570 1,570 034 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 168,040 168,040 035 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ............................................................................................................. 88,649 88,649 036 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 83,902 83,902 037 0603525N PILOT FISH ................................................................................................................................................... 108,713 108,713 038 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .......................................................................................................................................... 9,316 9,316 039 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ....................................................................................................................................... 77,108 77,108 040 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ............................................................................................................................. 762 762 041 0603553N SURFACE ASW ............................................................................................................................................. 2,349 2,349 042 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 852,977 22,000 874,977 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Development .................................................................................... [22,000 ] 

043 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 8,764 8,764 044 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 20,501 20,501 045 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES .................................................................................. 27,052 27,052 046 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 428,933 428,933 047 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 27,154 27,154 048 0603576N CHALK EAGLE .............................................................................................................................................. 519,140 519,140 049 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) .................................................................................................................... 406,389 406,389 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
429 

050 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .................................................................................................................. 36,570 36,570 051 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8,404 8,404 052 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 136,967 136,967 053 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................ 1,489 1,489 054 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 38,422 38,422 055 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 69,312 69,312 056 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9,196 9,196 057 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .................................................................................................................... 18,850 18,850 058 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 45,618 45,618 059 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 3,019 3,019 060 0603734N CHALK CORAL .............................................................................................................................................. 144,951 144,951 061 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY .................................................................................................................... 5,797 5,797 062 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .......................................................................................................................................... 308,131 308,131 063 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 195,189 195,189 064 0603751N RETRACT ELM .............................................................................................................................................. 56,358 56,358 065 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ........................................................................................................................................ 55,378 55,378 066 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ................................................................................................................................... 48,842 48,842 067 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,509 7,509 068 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 5,075 5,075 069 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ....................................................................................................... 51,178 51,178 070 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ............................................................ 205,615 205,615 072 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ................................................... 37,227 37,227 073 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ........................................................................................................ 169 169 074 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) .............................................. 20,874 –10,000 10,874 

Schedule delay ................................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

075 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................ 2,257 2,257 076 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ................................. 38,327 38,327 077 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 135,985 135,985 078 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH ............. 50,362 50,362 079 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP .......................................................................................................... 8,448 8,448 080 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................. 153 153 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 4,641,385 12,000 4,653,385 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
430 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

081 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 40,558 40,558 

082 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ...................................................................................................................... 35,825 35,825 083 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................... 99,891 99,891 084 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 17,565 17,565 085 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................ 4,026 4,026 086 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 1,791 1,791 087 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 11,725 11,725 088 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 68,463 68,463 089 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE .................................................................................................................................. 152,041 152,041 090 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ........................................................................................................................................... 47,123 47,123 091 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 30,208 30,208 092 0604262N V–22A .......................................................................................................................................................... 43,084 43,084 093 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................... 11,401 11,401 094 0604269N EA–18 .......................................................................................................................................................... 11,138 11,138 095 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 34,964 34,964 096 0604273N VH–71A EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 94,238 94,238 097 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) .............................................................................................................. 257,796 257,796 098 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ................................................................................ 3,302 3,302 099 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ............................................................................. 240,298 240,298 100 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ...................................................................................................... 1,214 1,214 101 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ................................................................................................................... 46,007 46,007 102 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 75,592 75,592 103 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM .......................................................................................................................................... 117,854 117,854 104 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION ........................ 10,080 10,080 105 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ........................................... 21,413 21,413 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
431 

106 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM .................. 146,683 146,683 107 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 275,871 275,871 108 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 89,672 89,672 109 0604504N AIR CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................. 13,754 13,754 110 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 69,615 69,615 112 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ........................................................................................................................................ 121,566 121,566 113 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 49,143 49,143 114 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ................................................................................................... 155,254 155,254 115 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 3,689 3,689 116 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 5,041 5,041 117 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 26,444 26,444 118 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 8,897 8,897 119 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS .................................................................... 6,233 6,233 120 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 442 442 121 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) ............................................................................................... 130,360 130,360 122 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) ................................................................................................ 50,209 50,209 123 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ........................................................................................... 164,799 164,799 124 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ....................................................................................................................... 1,984 1,984 125 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................. 9,458 9,458 126 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................... 51,430 51,430 127 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ........................................................................................................... 512,631 512,631 128 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ............................................................................................................ 534,187 534,187 129 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 5,564 5,564 130 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 69,659 69,659 132 0605212N CH–53K RDTE ............................................................................................................................................. 503,180 503,180 133 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ...................................................................................................... 5,500 5,500 134 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) .............................................................................................. 317,358 317,358 135 0204202N DDG–1000 ................................................................................................................................................... 187,910 187,910 136 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ........................................................................................................... 2,140 2,140 137 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................. 9,406 9,406 138 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 22,800 22,800 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 5,028,476 5,028,476 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
432 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

139 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 43,261 43,261 

140 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 71,872 71,872 141 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 38,033 38,033 142 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ...................................................................... 1,352 1,352 143 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ................................................................................................. 5,566 5,566 144 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ................................................................................................................... 48,345 48,345 146 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 637 637 147 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ............................................................................ 76,585 76,585 148 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 3,221 3,221 149 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 72,725 72,725 150 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 141,778 141,778 151 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 331,219 331,219 152 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY ..................................................................................... 16,565 16,565 153 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ....................................................................... 3,265 3,265 154 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 7,134 7,134 155 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 24,082 24,082 156 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................... 497 497 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 886,137 886,137 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

159 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 699 699 

160 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT ..... 20,961 20,000 40,961 

X–47B Aerial Refueling Test & Evaluation ....................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

162 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 35 35 163 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY (COD) FOLLOW ON ..................................................................................... 2,460 2,460 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
433 

164 0605555N STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 9,757 9,757 165 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 98,057 23,900 121,957 

Reentry System Applications and Strategic Guidance Applications ................................................. [23,900 ] 

166 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 31,768 31,768 

167 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 1,464 1,464 168 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 21,729 21,729 169 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION (RTT) ...................................................................................................... 13,561 13,561 170 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS .................................................................................................................................... 131,118 131,118 171 0204152N E–2 SQUADRONS ......................................................................................................................................... 1,971 1,971 172 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) .................................................................................................. 46,155 46,155 173 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 2,374 2,374 174 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ............................................................ 12,407 12,407 175 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 41,609 41,609 176 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) ............................................................. 7,240 7,240 177 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ......................................................................................... 78,208 78,208 178 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 45,124 45,124 179 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 2,703 2,703 180 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ................................................................................... 19,563 19,563 181 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 13,586 13,586 182 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ................................................................................................................................. 197,538 197,538 183 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .......................................................................................... 31,863 31,863 184 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP ............................................................................................................................................. 12,806 12,806 185 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 88,607 88,607 187 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 116,928 116,928 188 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 178,753 178,753 189 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .............................................................. 139,594 –25,800 113,794 

Marine personnel carrier—funding ahead of need .......................................................................... [–20,800 ] Precision extended range munition program reduction .................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

190 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 42,647 42,647 191 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ................................................................... 34,394 34,394 192 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES .............................................................................................................................. 39,159 39,159 193 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) ..................................................................... 2,613 2,613 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
434 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

194 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV) .............................................................................................................. 986 986 199 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ....................................................................................................... 66,231 66,231 200 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) ......................................................... 24,476 24,476 201 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 23,531 23,531 206 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) .............................................................. 742 742 207 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 4,804 4,804 208 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................... 8,381 8,381 211 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 5,535 5,535 212 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 19,718 19,718 213 0305220N RQ–4 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 375,235 375,235 214 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 48,713 48,713 215 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................................................. 102 102 216 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 710 710 217 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ............................................................................................... 5,013 5,013 219 0305239M RQ–21A ....................................................................................................................................................... 11,122 11,122 220 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 28,851 28,851 221 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 5,116 5,116 222 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ................................................................................................................... 28,042 28,042 223 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ....................................................................................................................... 50,933 50,933 224 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .......................................................................................................... 4,998 4,998 

224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 1,185,132 1,185,132 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 3,385,822 18,100 3,403,922 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .............................................................. 15,974,780 58,100 16,032,880 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
435 

001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 373,151 373,151 002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 138,333 138,333 003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................ 13,286 13,286 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 524,770 524,770 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602102F MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 116,846 116,846 

005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................................... 119,672 119,672 006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................................. 89,483 89,483 007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ............................................................................................................................ 197,546 197,546 008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................................................. 127,539 127,539 009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 104,063 104,063 010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 81,521 81,521 011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 112,845 112,845 012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS .................................................................................. 138,161 138,161 013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 40,217 40,217 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 1,127,893 1,127,893 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 39,572 10,000 49,572 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) ...................................................................................... 12,800 12,800 016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS .............................................................................................................. 30,579 30,579 017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ........................................................................................................ 77,347 77,347 018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 149,321 149,321 019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 49,128 49,128 020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 68,071 68,071 021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ............................................................................................ 26,299 26,299 022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 20,967 20,967 023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 33,996 33,996 024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 19,000 19,000 025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 41,353 41,353 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
436 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................ 49,093 49,093 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 617,526 10,000 627,526 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

028 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 3,983 3,983 

029 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................ 3,874 3,874 032 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 27,024 27,024 033 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 15,899 15,899 034 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 4,568 4,568 035 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D ................................................................................................ 379 379 036 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM (SPP) ......................................................................................................... 28,764 28,764 038 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ................................................................................... 86,737 86,737 040 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ........................................................................................................... 953 953 042 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ................................................................................................................................... 379,437 379,437 044 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ............................................................................................................................. 2,606 2,606 045 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM ............................................. 103 103 047 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ............................................................................................. 16,018 16,018 049 0604458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER ......................................................................................................................... 58,861 58,861 050 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ................................................................................................................ 2,500 2,500 051 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 21,175 21,175 053 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 13,636 13,636 054 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 2,799 2,799 055 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) ............................................................................... 70,160 70,160 056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) ...................................................... 137,233 137,233 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 876,709 876,709 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
437 

058 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 977 977 061 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING ...................................................................................... 3,601 3,601 062 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 1,971 1,971 064 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE .................................................................................................... 51,456 51,456 065 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................ 50 50 066 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ....................................................................................................... 115,000 115,000 067 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................... 23,930 23,930 068 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 400,258 400,258 069 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ................................................................................................................. 4,575 4,575 070 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD ............................................................................... 352,532 20,000 372,532 

Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) Data Exploitation ............................................................... [20,000 ] 

071 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 16,284 16,284 

072 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,564 2,564 073 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................ 17,036 17,036 074 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................. 7,273 7,273 075 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ........................................................................................................................ 33,200 33,200 078 0604800F F–35—EMD ................................................................................................................................................ 816,335 816,335 079 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—EMD .......................................................................................... 145,442 145,442 080 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ....................................................... 27,963 27,963 081 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ............................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 082 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ....................................................................................................................... 129,411 129,411 083 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ................................................................................................... 131,100 131,100 084 0605221F KC–46 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,558,590 1,558,590 085 0605229F CSAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ................................................................................................................ 393,558 393,558 086 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ......................................................................................................................... 6,242 6,242 087 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) ......................................................................................................... 272,872 272,872 088 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ....................................................................................................................... 124,805 124,805 089 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ........................................................................................................ 13,948 13,948 090 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 303,500 303,500 091 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................... 67,874 67,874 094 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ............................................................................................................... 4,663 4,663 097 0401318F CV–22 ......................................................................................................................................................... 46,705 46,705 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
438 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 5,078,715 20,000 5,098,715 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

099 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 17,690 17,690 

100 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 34,841 34,841 101 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE ......................................................................................................................... 32,956 32,956 103 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 13,610 13,610 104 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 742,658 742,658 105 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 14,203 14,203 106 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) ...................................................................................................................... 13,000 13,000 107 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................ 44,160 44,160 108 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................... 27,643 27,643 109 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE ................................................................................... 13,935 13,935 110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ...................................................................... 192,348 192,348 111 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 28,647 28,647 112 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................... 315 315 114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 3,785 3,785 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 1,179,791 1,179,791 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ..................................................... 383,500 383,500 

117 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE ......................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 118 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) ......................................................................... 90,097 90,097 119 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ....................................................................................... 32,086 32,086 121 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ...................................................................................................................................... 24,007 24,007 122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) .................................................................................................... 450 450 123 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ...................................................................................................................................... 19,589 19,589 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
439 

124 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................................ 100,194 100,194 125 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ........................................................................................ 37,448 37,448 128 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ............................................ 1,700 1,700 130 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID ACQUISITION PROCESS (WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION FUND ......................................... 3,844 3,844 131 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 128,328 128,328 133 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ....................................................................................................................................... 9,614 9,614 134 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ....................................................................................................................................... 177,298 177,298 135 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS ..................................................................................................................................... 244,289 244,289 136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ........................................................................................................ 13,138 13,138 137 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS ..................................................................................................................................... 328,542 328,542 138 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ....................................................................................................................................... 33,000 33,000 139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES .............................................................................................................................. 15,460 15,460 140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) ..................................................................... 84,172 84,172 142 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY .............................................................................................................. 2,582 2,582 143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE ............................................................................................................... 542 542 144 0207247F AF TENCAP .................................................................................................................................................. 89,816 89,816 145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................ 1,075 1,075 146 0207253F COMPASS CALL ........................................................................................................................................... 10,782 10,782 147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 139,369 139,369 149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ................................................................................. 6,373 6,373 150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ................................................................................................. 22,820 22,820 151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ................................................................................................. 7,029 7,029 152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) .............................................................................. 186,256 186,256 153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 743 743 156 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 4,471 4,471 158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .......................................................................................................... 10,250 10,250 159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ........................................................................................................................ 1,431 1,431 160 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) CONSTELLATION ........................................................................................ 7,329 7,329 161 0207452F DCAPES ....................................................................................................................................................... 15,081 15,081 162 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) .............................................................. 13,248 13,248 163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................................ 24,342 24,342 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION ............................................................................................................. 10,448 10,448 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
440 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS .................................................................................................... 5,512 5,512 166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES .................................................................................................... 3,301 3,301 167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................... 62,605 62,605 169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 68,099 68,099 170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .................................................................................................. 14,047 14,047 171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .................................................................................................. 5,853 5,853 179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................................ 12,197 12,197 180 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ......................................................................... 18,267 18,267 181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) ............................................... 36,288 36,288 182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 90,231 90,231 183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 725 725 185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS .............................................................................................................................. 140,170 140,170 187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ................................................................................................................... 117,110 117,110 190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) .............................................................................................. 4,430 4,430 191 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 2,048 2,048 192 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER ....................................................................................................................... 288 288 193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ..................................................................................................... 35,698 35,698 194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................... 24,667 24,667 195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ...................................................... 35,674 35,674 196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS ......................................................................................................................................... 21,186 21,186 199 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 195 195 200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 1,430 1,430 201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 330 330 206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER ................................................................................ 3,696 3,696 207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 2,469 2,469 208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ................................................................................................... 8,289 8,289 209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ........................................................................................................... 13,345 13,345 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
441 

211 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ............................................................................................................................................... 18,700 18,700 212 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 213 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 37,828 37,828 214 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 13,491 13,491 215 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 7,498 7,498 216 0305219F MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV ............................................................................................................................. 3,326 3,326 217 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 134,406 134,406 218 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ....................................................................................... 7,413 7,413 219 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL) ......................................................................................................................... 40,503 40,503 220 0305238F NATO AGS .................................................................................................................................................... 264,134 264,134 221 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ................................................................................................................. 23,016 23,016 222 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 221,276 221,276 223 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................. 58,523 58,523 224 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ......................................................................................................................... 2,218 2,218 226 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) .......................................................................................................... 50,547 50,547 227 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 18,807 18,807 229 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ................................................................................................................. 1,079 1,079 230 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON ......................................................................................................................... 400 26,000 26,400 

C–130H Propulsion System Propeller Upgrades ............................................................................... [26,000 ] 

231 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ..................................................................................................................... 61,492 61,492 232 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) .................................................................................................................................... 109,134 109,134 233 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 22,443 22,443 234 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) .................................................................................. 4,116 4,116 238 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ................................................................................................................. 44,553 44,553 239 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 6,213 6,213 240 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ................................................................................................................... 1,605 1,605 242 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) ......................................................................................... 95,238 95,238 243 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 10,925 10,925 244 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................. 1,347 1,347 245 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 65 65 246 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ...................................................................................................... 1,083 1,083 247 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 1,577 1,577 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
442 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

248 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................................... 5,990 5,990 249 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY ............................................................................................. 786 786 250 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION—ADMINISTRATIVE .................................................................................................. 654 654 251 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 135,735 135,735 

252A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 11,874,528 20,000 11,894,528 

Program Increase ............................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 16,297,542 46,000 16,343,542 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ................................................................... 25,702,946 76,000 25,778,946 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................. 45,837 45,837 

002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 315,033 315,033 003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ..................................................................................................................... 11,171 11,171 004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE .................................................................................. 49,500 49,500 005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 84,271 5,000 89,271 

Restore PK–12 funding ...................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .......................................... 30,895 5,000 35,895 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 51,426 51,426 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 588,133 10,000 598,133 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 20,065 –6,500 13,565 

Decrease to insensitive munitions program ..................................................................................... [–6,500 ] 

009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 114,790 114,790 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
443 

011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 46,875 46,875 013 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ............................................................ 45,000 45,000 014 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 413,260 413,260 015 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 16,330 16,330 017 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ................................................................................................................. 24,537 24,537 018 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 227,065 –10,000 217,065 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

020 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 18,908 18,908 022 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 225,977 225,977 023 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 166,654 166,654 024 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 243,469 243,469 025 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 175,282 175,282 026 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................. 11,107 11,107 027 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 29,246 29,246 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 1,778,565 –16,500 1,762,065 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

028 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 26,646 26,646 

029 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 19,420 500 19,920 

Program increase for future information operations strategy .......................................................... [500 ] 

030 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 77,792 77,792 

031 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ................................. 274,033 274,033 

032 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 309,203 –70,000 239,203 

Decrease in funding of Common Kill Vehicle Technology Program .................................................. [–70,000 ] 

034 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 19,305 19,305 

035 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ................................... 7,565 7,565 036 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 40,426 40,426 037 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 149,804 149,804 038 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 172,546 172,546 039 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 170,847 170,847 040 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 9,009 9,009 041 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ................................................................................... 174,428 –7,000 167,428 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
444 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Decrease to Strategic Capabilities Office efforts ............................................................................. [–7,000 ] 

042 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ........................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 045 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 19,668 19,668 047 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................ 34,041 34,041 048 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 61,971 –8,000 53,971 

Decrease to Strategic Capabilities Office efforts ............................................................................. [–8,000 ] 

050 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ....................................................................... 20,000 20,000 051 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 30,256 30,256 052 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................... 72,324 72,324 053 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ............................................................ 82,700 82,700 054 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 8,431 8,431 055 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................................. 117,080 117,080 057 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 239,078 239,078 059 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 259,006 259,006 060 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 286,364 286,364 061 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 12,116 12,116 062 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ........................................................................................................... 19,008 19,008 063 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ......................................................................................................... 78,532 78,532 065 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION ............................................................................................................................. 12,667 12,667 066 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE .......................................................................... 41,370 41,370 069 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 92,508 92,508 070 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................... 52,001 8,000 60,001 

Operational Energy Capability Improvement Fund ............................................................................ [8,000 ] 

071 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................................... 52,053 52,053 072 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 46,809 46,809 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 3,109,007 –76,500 3,032,507 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
445 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

075 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P ..................................... 63,641 63,641 

076 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .......................................................................................................................................... 19,152 19,152 077 0603600D8Z WALKOFF ...................................................................................................................................................... 70,763 70,763 079 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS APPLICATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 17,230 17,230 080 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ........................................................... 71,453 71,453 081 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ..................................................................... 268,990 268,990 082 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ................................................................. 1,033,903 140,400 1,174,303 

Planning and Design (35% to 100% design) .................................................................................. [50,000 ] RDT&E Ground Systems Development ............................................................................................... [70,000 ] RDT&E Site Activities, including EIS ................................................................................................. [20,400 ] 

082A 0603XXXC COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................... 70,000 70,000

Common Kill Vehicle Technology Program ........................................................................................ [70,000 ] 

083 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL .................................................................... 196,237 196,237 084 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ...................................................................................................... 315,183 315,183 086 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 377,605 377,605 087 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ........................................................................................................................ 286,613 286,613 088 0603892C AEGIS BMD .................................................................................................................................................. 937,056 937,056 089 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 44,947 44,947 090 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 6,515 6,515 091 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI ...... 418,355 418,355 092 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ...................................................................... 47,419 47,419 093 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ........................................................... 52,131 52,131 094 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ................................................................................................................................... 13,864 13,864 095 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .............................................................................................................. 44,478 44,478 096 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 95,782 188,000 283,782 

Development of increased capabilities for Iron Dome ...................................................................... [15,000 ] 

Increase Israeli Cooperative Programs .............................................................................................. [173,000 ] 

097 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST ............................................................................................................. 375,866 375,866 098 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ....................................................................................................... 495,257 495,257 099 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ........................................................................................................................... 11,704 11,704 100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ................................................................................................................................... 9,842 9,842 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
446 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM .................................................................................... 3,312 10,000 13,312 

Corrosion Prevention, Control, and Mitigation .................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 130,000 –105,000 25,000 

Decrease to SCO efforts .................................................................................................................... [–105,000 ] 

103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT .......... 8,300 8,300 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE ......................................................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 250,000 250,000 

Rapid Innovation Program ................................................................................................................. [250,000 ] 

108 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ..................................................................................................................... 7,402 7,402 110 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM ......................................................................... 7,506 7,506 111 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ...................................................................................................................... 129,374 129,374 112 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 308,522 308,522 115 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM .......................................................................... 3,169 3,169 116 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 946 946 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ................................................ 5,902,517 553,400 6,455,917 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .......................................... 8,155 8,155 

119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 65,440 65,440 120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ........................................................................... 451,306 451,306 122 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO) .................................................................... 29,138 29,138 123 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) .................................................................. 19,475 19,475 124 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES ......................................................................... 12,901 12,901 125 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 13,812 13,812 126 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................ 386 386 127 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 3,763 3,763 128 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................... 6,788 6,788 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
447 

129 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ........................................................... 27,917 27,917 130 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................... 22,297 22,297 131 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM ......................................................................... 51,689 51,689 132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ....................................................................... 6,184 6,184 133 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 12,083 12,083 134 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) ............................................................... 3,302 3,302 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION .................................................................... 734,636 734,636 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) .................................................................................... 6,393 6,393 

136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 2,479 2,479 137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) ..................................................... 240,213 240,213 138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS .............................................................................................................. 2,127 2,127 139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR .......................................................................................................................................... 8,287 8,287 140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .......................................................................... 31,000 31,000 141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 24,379 24,379 143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ................................................................................ 54,311 54,311 144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ................................................. 47,462 47,462 146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ................................................................................................................ 12,134 12,134 147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING .............................................................................................................................. 44,237 44,237 148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ................................................................................................... 5,871 5,871 149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ................................................................................................... 5,028 5,028 150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ........................................................................ 6,301 6,301 151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) ............................................................................................. 6,504 6,504 152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 92,046 92,046 158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S .......... 1,868 1,868 159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 8,362 8,362 160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) .................................................................................. 56,024 56,024 161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION ......................................................... 6,908 6,908 162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 15,451 4,000 19,451 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [4,000 ] 

164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ............................................................................................................................ 71,659 71,659 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
448 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4,083 4,083 167 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) .................................................................................. 5,306 5,306 168 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................................ 2,097 2,097 172 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES ...................................................................... 8,394 8,394 175 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................................................. 7,624 7,624 178 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2) ............................................ 43,247 43,247 179 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ............................................................................................................................ 37,712 37,712 180 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS ........................................................................................................... 607 607 

181A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 54,914 54,914 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 913,028 4,000 917,028 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

182 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ....................................................................................................... 7,552 7,552 

183 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA .......... 3,270 3,270 184 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) .................................. 287 287 185 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................... 14,000 14,000 186 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 1,955 1,955 187 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) ............. 13,250 13,250 188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) ..................................... 13,026 13,026 

190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY .............................................................................................. 12,652 12,652 191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) .......................................................................................... 3,061 3,061 192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 72,726 72,726 194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ....................................................................................... 6,524 6,524 201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 512 512 202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION .......................................................... 12,867 12,867 203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ........................................................................................................ 36,565 36,565 204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) ............................................... 13,144 13,144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
449 

205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) .......................................................................................................... 1,060 1,060 206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) ............................................................................................... 33,279 33,279 207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 10,673 10,673 208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 181,567 –2,276 179,291 

Excess to need ................................................................................................................................... [–2,276 ] 

210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 34,288 34,288 211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................................... 7,741 7,741 212 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ............................................................................................ 3,325 3,325 213 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) ..................................................................... 1,246 1,246 214 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 5,147 5,147 216 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES ............................................................................................ 17,352 17,352 220 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 3,658 3,658 221 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) ......................................................................................... 9,752 9,752 225 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................. 3,210 3,210 227 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY .......................................................................................................................................... 21,602 21,602 230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 5,195 5,195 233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 3,348 3,348 235 0305219BB MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV ............................................................................................................................. 641 641 238 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM ......................................................................... 2,338 2,338 239 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES ......................................................... 4,372 4,372 247 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ....................................................................................................................... 24,691 24,691 248 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 4,659 4,659 249 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ............................................................................................................................ 3,533 3,533 250 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 1,314 1,314 254 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 156,561 156,561 256 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 7,705 7,705 257 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 42,620 42,620 261 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 17,970 17,970 262 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 7,424 7,424 268 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................................................. 2,206 2,206 271 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 18,325 18,325 274 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 3,304 3,304 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
450 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

275 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE .................................................................................... 16,021 16,021 

275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 3,773,704 3,773,704 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 4,641,222 –2,276 4,638,946 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ................................................................. 17,667,108 472,124 18,139,232 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 75,720 75,720 

002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 48,423 48,423 003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES ......................................................................................... 62,157 62,157 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 186,300 186,300 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE .............................................................................. 186,300 186,300 TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................. 67,520,236 559,224 68,079,460 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
451 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

087 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ............................................................................ 7,000 7,000 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 7,000 7,000 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................... 34,426 34,426 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 34,426 34,426 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 34,426 34,426 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

252A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 9,000 9,000 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................... 66,208 66,208 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 66,208 66,208 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 66,208 66,208 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
452 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 116,634 116,634 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
453 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 888,114 208,600 1,096,714 

Missile Defense Deployment to Guam ..................................................................................................................... [13,100 ] Restore Army OPTEMPO to 90% .............................................................................................................................. [195,500 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 72,624 72,624 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 617,402 617,402 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 602,262 602,262 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 1,032,484 1,032,484 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,287,462 15,800 1,303,262 

Restore Army Flying Hour Program to 90% ............................................................................................................ [15,800 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 3,559,656 3,559,656 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 454,477 454,477 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 1,481,156 1,481,156 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 7,278,154 7,278,154 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 2,754,712 257,000 3,011,712 

Realignment of Arlington National Cemetary operations ....................................................................................... [–25,000 ] Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [282,000 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 425,271 425,271 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 185,064 185,064 170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 463,270 –6,676 456,594 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
454 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Realignment of SOUTHCOM Information Operations ............................................................................................... [3,100 ] Unjustified EUCOM Growth ...................................................................................................................................... [–9,776 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 21,102,108 474,724 21,576,832 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 360,240 360,240 190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS ....................................................................................................................................... 192,105 192,105 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................................................. 7,101 7,101 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 559,446 559,446 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 115,992 115,992 220 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 52,323 52,323 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................ 43,589 43,589 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ................................................................................................................. 453,745 453,745 

250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 1,034,495 1,034,495 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,016,876 1,016,876 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 186,565 186,565 280 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 652,514 652,514 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 485,500 485,500 300 EXAMINING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 170,912 170,912 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 251,523 251,523 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 184,422 184,422 330 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 181,105 181,105 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 4,829,561 4,829,561 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
455 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 690,089 690,089 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 774,120 5,000 779,120 

Corrosion Prevention, Control, and Mitigation ........................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 651,765 651,765 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 453,051 453,051 390 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 487,737 487,737 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,563,115 1,563,115 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 326,853 326,853 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 234,364 234,364 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................ 1,212,091 1,212,091 440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 243,540 243,540 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 241,101 241,101 460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 226,291 226,291 470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 426,651 31,200 457,851 

Realignment of NATO Special Operations Headquarters from O&M Defense-wide ................................................ [31,200 ] 

480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 27,248 –3,100 24,148 

Realignment of SOUTHCOM Information Operations ............................................................................................... [–3,100 ] 

525 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,023,946 1,023,946 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 8,581,962 33,100 8,615,062 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

530 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –740,300 –740,300 

Average civilian end strength above projection ..................................................................................................... [–284,300 ] 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–456,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –740,300 –740,300 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................................................................................... 35,073,077 –232,476 34,840,601 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,621 1,621 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 24,429 24,429 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
456 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 657,099 657,099 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 122,485 122,485 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 584,058 584,058 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 79,380 79,380 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 471,616 471,616 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 74,243 74,243 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 70,894 70,894 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 569,801 569,801 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 294,145 29,100 323,245 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [29,100 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 51,853 51,853 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 3,001,624 29,100 3,030,724 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 10,735 10,735 

140 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 24,197 24,197 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 10,304 10,304 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 10,319 10,319 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 37,857 37,857 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 93,412 93,412 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................................................................................... 3,095,036 29,100 3,124,136 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 800,880 800,880 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 178,650 178,650 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
457 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 771,503 771,503 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 98,699 98,699 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 38,779 38,779 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 922,503 922,503 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 761,056 761,056 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 62,971 62,971 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 233,105 233,105 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 1,019,059 1,019,059 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 712,139 74,200 786,339 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [74,200 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 1,013,715 1,013,715 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 6,613,059 74,200 6,687,259 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 10,812 10,812 

140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,551 1,551 150 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 78,284 78,284 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 46,995 46,995 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 6,390 6,390 180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 297,105 297,105 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 441,137 441,137 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................................................................................... 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4,952,522 4,952,522 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,826,404 1,826,404 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................... 38,639 38,639 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 90,030 90,030 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 362,700 362,700 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 915,881 915,881 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
458 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 35,838 35,838 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 379,914 68,500 448,414 

CLS for AVN Logistics .............................................................................................................................................. [68,500 ] 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3,884,836 3,884,836 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 734,852 734,852 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 5,191,511 5,191,511 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 1,351,274 1,351,274 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 701,316 –9,594 691,722 

New START treaty implementation, excluding verification and inspection activities ............................................ [–9,594 ] 

140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 97,710 97,710 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................................. 172,330 172,330 160 WARFARE TACTICS ............................................................................................................................................................ 454,682 454,682 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 328,406 328,406 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 946,429 946,429 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 142,249 6,000 148,249 

Corrosion Prevention, Control, and Mitigation ........................................................................................................ [6,000 ] 

200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 2,603 2,603 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 102,970 102,970 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 199,128 199,128 230 CRUISE MISSILE ................................................................................................................................................................ 92,671 92,671 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ................................................................................................................................................. 1,193,188 1,193,188 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 105,985 105,985 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 532,627 532,627 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 304,160 304,160 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................... 1,011,528 1,011,528 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 1,996,821 185,200 2,182,021 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [185,200 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
459 

300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 4,460,918 4,460,918 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 32,610,122 250,106 32,860,228 

MOBILIZATION 

310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE .................................................................................................................................. 331,576 331,576 

320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 6,638 6,638 330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 222,752 222,752 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 73,310 73,310 350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS .................................................................................................................................................... 2,675 2,675 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 23,794 23,794 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 660,745 660,745 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

370 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 148,516 148,516 

380 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 9,384 9,384 390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS .............................................................................................................................. 139,876 139,876 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 630,069 630,069 410 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 9,294 9,294 420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 169,082 169,082 430 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 164,368 164,368 440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 241,733 1,100 242,833 

Naval Sea Cadets .................................................................................................................................................... [1,100 ] 

450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 139,815 139,815 460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 94,632 94,632 470 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 51,373 51,373 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 1,798,142 1,100 1,799,242 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 886,088 886,088 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,131 13,131 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 115,742 115,742 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 382,150 382,150 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
460 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 268,403 268,403 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 317,293 317,293 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 207,128 207,128 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 295,855 295,855 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1,140,484 1,140,484 590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 52,873 52,873 600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................ 27,587 27,587 610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 75,728 75,728 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 543,026 543,026 680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES ............................................................................................................. 4,965 4,965 705 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 545,775 545,775 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 4,876,228 4,876,228 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

710 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –278,200 –278,200 

Average civilian end strength above projection ..................................................................................................... [–38,500 ] 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–239,700 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –278,200 –278,200 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................................................................................ 39,945,237 –26,994 39,918,243 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 837,012 65,000 902,012 

Crisis Response Force ............................................................................................................................................. [30,000 ] Marine Security Guard ............................................................................................................................................. [35,000 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 894,555 4,000 898,555 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
461 

Corrosion Prevention, Control, and Mitigation ........................................................................................................ [4,000 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 223,337 –2,000 221,337 

Unjustified Growth HUMVEE Modifications ............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING .............................................................................................................................................. 97,878 97,878 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................ 774,619 7,100 781,719 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [7,100 ] 

060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 2,166,661 2,166,661 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 4,994,062 74,100 5,068,162 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 17,693 17,693 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 896 896 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 100,806 100,806 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 46,928 46,928 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 356,426 356,426 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 179,747 179,747 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 52,255 52,255 140 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 23,138 23,138 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 777,889 777,889 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 43,816 43,816 160 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 305,107 305,107 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 87,500 87,500 

185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 46,276 46,276 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 482,699 482,699 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

190 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –50,000 –50,000 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–50,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –50,000 –50,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
462 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ....................................................................................... 6,254,650 24,100 6,278,750 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 586,620 586,620 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 7,008 7,008 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 100,657 100,657 050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 305 305 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 3,927 3,927 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 75,933 75,933 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 601 601 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 44,364 44,364 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 15,477 15,477 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 115,608 115,608 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 1,967 1,967 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................... 43,726 43,726 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 69,011 5,000 74,011 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 109,604 109,604 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 1,174,808 5,000 1,179,808 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,905 2,905 170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 14,425 14,425 

180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2,485 2,485 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3,129 3,129 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 22,944 22,944 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
463 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................................................................................ 1,197,752 5,000 1,202,752 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 96,244 96,244 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 17,581 1,500 19,081 

Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [1,500 ] 

030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 32,438 300 32,738 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [300 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 95,259 95,259 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 241,522 1,800 243,322 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 894 894 060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 11,743 11,743 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 9,158 9,158 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 21,795 21,795 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................................................................................... 263,317 1,800 265,117 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 3,295,814 3,295,814 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 1,875,095 1,875,095 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ........................................................................................................ 1,559,109 1,559,109 

040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,956,304 5,000 5,961,304 

Corrosion Prevention, Control, and Mitigation ........................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 1,834,424 390,030 2,224,454 

Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition project shortfalls ............................................................................... [170,530 ] Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [219,500 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,779,811 2,779,811 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
464 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ................................................................................................................................... 913,841 913,841 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 916,837 916,837 100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 720,349 720,349 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 305,275 305,275 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................... 433,658 433,658 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 1,146,016 1,100 1,147,116 

NORTHCOM VOICE program ..................................................................................................................................... [1,100 ] 

140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 231,830 231,830 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 21,968,363 396,130 22,364,493 

MOBILIZATION 

150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,015,902 2,015,902 

160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ......................................................................................................................................... 147,216 147,216 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,556,232 1,556,232 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 167,402 167,402 190 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 707,040 707,040 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 4,593,792 4,593,792 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

200 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 102,334 102,334 

210 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 17,733 17,733 220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ................................................................................................................. 94,600 94,600 230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 217,011 217,011 240 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 800,327 800,327 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 399,364 399,364 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 792,275 792,275 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 248,958 248,958 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
465 

280 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 106,741 106,741 290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 319,331 319,331 300 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 122,736 122,736 310 EXAMINING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,679 3,679 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 137,255 137,255 330 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 176,153 176,153 340 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 67,018 67,018 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 3,605,515 3,605,515 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,103,684 1,103,684 

360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 919,923 919,923 370 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 56,601 –4,000 52,601 

Heavy bomber eliminations related to New START treaty implementation ............................................................ [–400 ] 

ICBM reductions related to New START implementation ........................................................................................ [–3,600 ] 

380 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 281,061 281,061 390 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,203,305 1,203,305 400 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 593,865 593,865 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 574,609 574,609 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 1,028,600 –15,400 1,013,200 

De-MIRVing ICBMs related to New START treaty implementation .......................................................................... [–700 ] ICBM eliminations and Environmental Impact Study related to New START treaty implementation .................... [–14,700 ] 

430 CIVIL AIR PATROL ............................................................................................................................................................. 24,720 24,720 

460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 89,008 89,008 465 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,227,796 –4,800 1,222,996 

Classified Adjustment ............................................................................................................................................. [–4,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 7,103,172 –24,200 7,078,972 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

470 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –205,100 –205,100 

Average civilian end strength above projection ..................................................................................................... [–18,700 ] 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–186,400 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
466 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –205,100 –205,100 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .............................................................................................. 37,270,842 166,830 37,437,672 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 1,857,951 1,857,951 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 224,462 224,462 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 521,182 521,182 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 89,704 9,100 98,804 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [9,100 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 360,836 360,836 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 3,054,135 9,100 3,063,235 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 64,362 64,362 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 15,056 15,056 080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) .............................................................................................................. 23,617 23,617 

090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ...................................................................................................................... 6,618 6,618 100 AUDIOVISUAL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 819 819 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 110,472 110,472 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................................................................................ 3,164,607 9,100 3,173,707 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,371,871 3,371,871 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
467 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 720,305 720,305 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,514,870 1,514,870 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 296,953 26,900 323,853 

Sustainment to 90% ............................................................................................................................................... [26,900 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 597,303 597,303 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 6,501,302 26,900 6,528,202 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 32,117 32,117 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 32,585 32,585 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 64,702 64,702 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................................................................................... 6,566,004 26,900 6,592,904 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF .................................................................................................................................................... 472,239 472,239 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ..................................................................................................................................... 5,261,463 –30,752 5,230,711 

AFSOC Flying Hour Program .................................................................................................................................... [70,100 ] International SOF Information Sharing System ....................................................................................................... [–7,017 ] Ongoing baseline contingency operations ............................................................................................................... [–35,519 ] Pilot program for SOF family members .................................................................................................................. [5,000 ] Preserve the force and families—human performance program .......................................................................... [–16,605 ] Preserve the force and families—resiliency ........................................................................................................... [–8,786 ] Realignment of NATO Special Operations Headquarters to O&M, Army ................................................................ [–31,200 ] Regional SOF Coordination Centers ........................................................................................................................ [–14,725 ] SOCOM National Capitol Region ............................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] USASOC Flying Hour Program .................................................................................................................................. [18,000 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 5,733,702 –30,752 5,702,950 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY .................................................................................................................................. 157,397 157,397 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
468 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ....................................................................................................................................... 84,899 84,899 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 242,296 242,296 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................................. 144,443 21,000 165,443 

STARBASE ................................................................................................................................................................. [21,000 ] 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ................................................................................................................................ 612,207 612,207 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY ................................................................................................................... 1,378,606 1,378,606 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................................... 763,091 763,091 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ...................................................................................................................... 1,326,243 1,326,243 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 29,933 29,933 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................... 462,545 462,545 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................................. 222,979 222,979 170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE ............................................................................................................................................... 21,594 21,594 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY .................................................................................................................... 788,389 788,389 190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 546,603 546,603 210 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................ 35,151 35,151 220 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ............................................................................................................................ 438,033 438,033 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 2,713,756 2,713,756 250 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................... 256,201 256,201 270 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................................. 371,615 –153,900 217,715 

Program reduction ................................................................................................................................................... [–153,900 ] 

280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ........................................................................................................................ 2,010,176 –17,500 1,992,676 

BRAC 2015 Initiative ............................................................................................................................................... [–8,000 ] Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement Training Transformation ............................................................. [90,500 ] Procurement Technical Assistance Program—Enhanced Business Support .......................................................... [10,000 ] Realignment to Building Partnership Capacity authories ...................................................................................... [–35,000 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
469 

Reduction to Building Partnership Capacity authories .......................................................................................... [–75,000 ] 

290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 616,572 616,572 295 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 14,283,558 4,090 14,287,648 

Classified adjustment ............................................................................................................................................. [4,090 ] SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 27,021,695 –146,310 26,875,385 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

305 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –320,000 –320,000 

Section 514. Study of Reserve Component General and Flag Officers .................................................................. [3,000 ] Section 551. Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of Armed Forces who Serve in Combat Zones ............................................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Section 571 .DOD Supplementary Impact Aid ........................................................................................................ [25,000 ] Section 621. Expand the victims transitional compensation benefit .................................................................... [10,000 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–363,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –320,000 –320,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................ 32,997,693 –497,062 32,500,631 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

050 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ..................................................................................................... 109,500 109,500 

060 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 528,455 528,455 080 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ................................................................................................................................................. 256,031 256,031 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ............................................................................................................................ 298,815 298,815 160 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND ................................................................................................ 5,000 –5,000 

Program reduction ................................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 1,197,801 –5,000 1,192,801 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

100 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ............................................................................................................................. 316,103 316,103 

SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 316,103 316,103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
470 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE .................................................................................................................... 439,820 439,820 

SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 439,820 439,820 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

040 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE .......................................................................................... 13,606 –980 12,626 

Unjustified Growth ................................................................................................................................................... [–980 ] 

120 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ....................................................................................................................... 10,757 10,757 

SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 24,363 –980 23,383 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ................................................................................................. 237,443 237,443 

SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 237,443 237,443 

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 2,215,530 –5,980 2,209,550 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 175,097,941 –425,482 174,672,459 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
471 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 217,571 30,000 247,571 

Missile Defense Deployment—Other ....................................................................................................................... [15,000 ] Missile Defense Deployment to Turkey .................................................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 8,266 8,266 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 56,626 56,626 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 4,209,942 4,209,942 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 950,567 950,567 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 474,288 474,288 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 1,349,152 1,349,152 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 655,000 655,000 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 301,563 495,000 796,563 

Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance ............................................................................................................... [495,000 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 706,214 706,214 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 11,519,498 11,519,498 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 60,000 60,000 160 RESET ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,240,358 1,500,000 3,740,358 

Restore Critical Army Reset .................................................................................................................................... [1,500,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 22,749,045 2,025,000 24,774,045 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 4,601,356 4,601,356 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 17,418 17,418 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
472 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 110,000 110,000 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 94,820 94,820 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................ 54,000 54,000 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 250,000 250,000 525 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,402,994 1,402,994 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 6,530,588 6,530,588 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

530 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 91,100 91,100 

Increase to support higher fuel rates ..................................................................................................................... [91,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... 91,100 91,100 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................................................................................... 29,279,633 2,116,100 31,395,733 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 6,995 6,995 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 2,332 2,332 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 608 608 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 75,800 75,800 

Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance ............................................................................................................... [75,800 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 33,000 33,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 42,935 75,800 118,735 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................................................................................... 42,935 75,800 118,735 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
473 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 29,314 29,314 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 1,494 1,494 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 15,343 15,343 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 1,549 1,549 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 64,504 64,504 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 31,512 31,512 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 42,179 42,179 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 11,996 11,996 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 197,891 197,891 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,480 1,480 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 1,480 1,480 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................................................................................... 199,371 199,371 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,735,603 2,735,603 020 INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 278,650 278,650 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 2,180,382 2,180,382 

040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 626,550 626,550 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE .......................................................................................................................... 5,821,185 5,821,185 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

060 SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,214,995 1,214,995 080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 54,696 54,696 

090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 626,119 626,119 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ......................................................................................................................... 1,895,810 1,895,810 

DETAINEE OPS 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
474 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

110 SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 7,225 7,225 140 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

SUBTOTAL DETAINEE OPS ........................................................................................................................................ 9,725 9,725 

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ................................................................................................. 7,726,720 7,726,720 

AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 

010 POWER ............................................................................................................................................................................... 279,000 279,000 

SUBTOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ................................................................................................. 279,000 279,000 

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ................................................................................................... 279,000 279,000 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 845,169 845,169 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................... 600 600 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 17,489 17,489 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 78,491 78,491 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 162,420 40,000 202,420 

Restore critical depot maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [40,000 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 50,130 50,130 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 949,539 11,400 960,939 

Spares ...................................................................................................................................................................... [11,400 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 20,226 20,226 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,679,660 164,000 1,843,660 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
475 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [164,000 ] 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 126,000 126,000 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [126,000 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 37,760 37,760 160 WARFARE TACTICS ............................................................................................................................................................ 25,351 25,351 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 20,045 20,045 

180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,212,296 453,000 1,665,296 

Combat forces equipment ....................................................................................................................................... [148,000 ] 

Combat forces shortfall ........................................................................................................................................... [305,000 ] 

190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 10,203 10,203 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 127,972 127,972 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 221,427 221,427 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 13,386 13,386 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 110,940 110,940 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 5,585,804 794,400 6,380,204 

MOBILIZATION 

340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 18,460 18,460 

360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 227,033 227,033 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 245,493 245,493 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 50,269 50,269 430 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 5,400 5,400 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 55,669 55,669 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,418 2,418 490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 516 516 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 5,107 5,107 

520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 1,411 1,411 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2,545 2,545 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
476 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 153,427 153,427 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8,570 8,570 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 1,425 1,425 705 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 5,608 5,608 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 181,027 181,027 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

710 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 155,400 155,400 

Increase to support higher fuel rates ..................................................................................................................... [155,400 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... 155,400 155,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................................................................................ 6,067,993 949,800 7,017,793 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 992,190 992,190 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 559,574 559,574 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 570,000 56,000 626,000 

Restore High Priority Depot Maintenance ............................................................................................................... [56,000 ] 

060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 69,726 69,726 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 2,191,490 56,000 2,247,490 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 108,270 108,270 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 108,270 108,270 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
477 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 365,555 365,555 160 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,675 3,675 185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 825 825 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 370,055 370,055 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

190 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 5,400 5,400 

Increase to support higher fuel rates ..................................................................................................................... [5,400 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... 5,400 5,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ....................................................................................... 2,669,815 61,400 2,731,215 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 17,196 17,196 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 200 200 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 12,304 12,304 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 6,790 6,790 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 13,210 13,210 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 55,700 55,700 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................................................................................ 55,700 55,700 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 11,124 11,124 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 1,410 1,410 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 12,534 12,534 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................................................................................... 12,534 12,534 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
478 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 1,712,393 70,000 1,782,393 

Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [70,000 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 836,104 836,104 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ........................................................................................................ 14,118 14,118 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,373,480 100,000 1,473,480 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 122,712 122,712 060 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,520,333 1,520,333 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ................................................................................................................................... 31,582 31,582 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 147,524 147,524 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 857 857 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................... 8,353 8,353 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 50,495 50,495 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 5,817,951 170,000 5,987,951 

MOBILIZATION 

150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,091,133 50,000 3,141,133 

Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [50,000 ] 

160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ......................................................................................................................................... 47,897 47,897 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 387,179 500,000 887,179 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [500,000 ] 

180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 7,043 7,043 190 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 68,382 68,382 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 3,601,634 550,000 4,151,634 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
479 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

200 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 210 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 478 478 240 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 19,256 19,256 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 12,845 12,845 

260 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 731 731 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 607 607 280 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 720 720 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 152 152 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 34,889 34,889 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 86,273 86,273 360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 2,511 2,511 

390 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 19,887 19,887 400 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,493 3,493 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 152,086 152,086 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 269,825 269,825 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 117 117 465 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 16,558 16,558 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 550,750 550,750 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

470 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 284,000 284,000 

Increase to support higher fuel rates ..................................................................................................................... [284,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... 284,000 284,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .............................................................................................. 10,005,224 1,004,000 11,009,224 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 26,599 26,599 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
480 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,250 6,250 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 32,849 32,849 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................................................................................ 32,849 32,849 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 22,200 22,200 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 22,200 22,200 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................................................................................... 22,200 22,200 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ..................................................................................................................................... 2,222,868 2,222,868 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 2,222,868 2,222,868 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ................................................................................................................................ 27,781 27,781 

090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY ................................................................................................................... 45,746 45,746 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ...................................................................................................................... 76,348 76,348 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 99,538 99,538 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................................. 9,620 9,620 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY .................................................................................................................... 1,950,000 1,950,000 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 100,100 100,100 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ........................................................................................................................ 38,227 35,000 73,227 

Realignment to Building Partnership Capacity authories ...................................................................................... [35,000 ] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
481 

290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 2,784 2,784 295 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,862,066 1,862,066 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 4,212,210 35,000 4,247,210 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................ 6,435,078 35,000 6,470,078 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 62,829,052 4,242,100 67,071,152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
482 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................................................................................................................ 130,399,881 –180,600 130,219,281 

Flight Paramedic Training Pay and Allowances—Army Guard .......................................................................... [4,500 ] Flight Paramedic Training Pay and Allowances—Army Reserve ....................................................................... [900 ] Military Personnel unobligated balances ............................................................................................................ [–186,000 ] 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ........................................................................................................ 6,676,750 6,676,750 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
483 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................................................................................................................ 9,689,307 9,689,307 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ........................................................................................................ 164,033 164,033 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
484 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS ................................................................................................................................ 25,158 25,158 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................... 25,158 25,158 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL) ...................................................................................................................... 61,731 61,731 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................ 61,731 61,731 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ....................................................................................................................................... 46,428 46,428 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................... 46,428 46,428 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .............................................................................................................................................. 1,412,510 1,412,510 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND MPF MLP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 134,917 134,917 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING ........................................................................................................................................... 43,404 43,404 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 116,784 116,784 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 60,703 60,703 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
485 

TAH MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................................. 19,809 19,809 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 56,058 56,058 READY RESERVE FORCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 299,025 299,025 

TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ................................................................................................ 730,700 730,700 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM IN-HOUSE CARE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8,880,738 8,880,738 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,842,732 15,842,732 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 2,505,640 2,505,640 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,450,619 1,450,619 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 368,248 368,248 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................... 733,097 733,097 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1,872,660 1,872,660 R&D RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9,162 9,162 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 47,977 47,977 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 291,156 291,156 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ......................................................................................................................................... 132,430 132,430 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 161,674 161,674 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................................... 72,568 72,568 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 14,646 14,646 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ....................................................................................................................................................... 89,404 89,404 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................................... 377,577 377,577 PROC IEHR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 204,200 204,200 UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................................... –276,800 –276,800 

DHP Unobligated ................................................................................................................................................. [–440,800 ] Section 711. Future Availability of TRICARE Prime for Certain Beneficiaries Enrolled in TRICARE Prime ...... [164,000 ] 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 33,054,528 –276,800 32,777,728 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 451,572 451,572 RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 604,183 604,183 PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,368 1,368 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
486 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION .................................................................................. 1,057,123 1,057,123 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 815,965 815,965 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 122,580 122,580 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ..................................................................... 938,545 938,545 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 311,131 311,131 PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ........................................................................................... 312,131 312,131 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................................................................................. 37,638,854 –276,800 37,362,054 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
487 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS ................................................................................................................................ 44,732 44,732 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................... 44,732 44,732 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE C–17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR ..................................................................................................................................................... 78,500 78,500 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES ......................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................ 88,500 88,500 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ....................................................................................................................................... 131,678 131,678 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................... 131,678 131,678 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE IN-HOUSE CARE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 375,958 375,958 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ........................................................................................................................................................... 382,560 382,560 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 132,749 132,749 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 2,238 2,238 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 460 460 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................... 10,236 10,236 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 904,201 904,201 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
488 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 376,305 376,305 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ..................................................................... 376,305 376,305 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 10,766 10,766 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ........................................................................................... 10,766 10,766 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................................................................................. 1,556,182 1,556,182 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
489 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Army ALASKA Fort Wainwright Aviation Battalion Complex ................................................ 45,000 45,000 Army ALASKA Fort Wainwright Aviation Storage Hangar .................................................... 58,000 58,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................................. 66,000 66,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................................. 73,000 73,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Central Energy Plant .......................................................... 34,000 34,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Fire Station ......................................................................... 12,000 12,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Headquarters Building ........................................................ 33,000 33,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Runway ............................................................................... 12,000 12,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson Simulator Building .............................................................. 12,200 12,200 Army FLORIDA Eglin AFB Automated Sniper Field Fire Range ................................... 4,700 4,700 Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph2 ...................... 61,000 61,000 Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility—Admin ............................ 75,000 –10,000 65,000 Army KANSAS Fort Leavenworth Simulations Center ............................................................. 17,000 17,000 Army KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Battlefield Weather Support Facility .................................. 4,800 4,800 Army MARYLAND Aberdeen Proving Ground Operations and Maintenance Facilities .............................. 21,000 21,000 Army MARYLAND Fort Detrick Entry Control Point ............................................................. 2,500 2,500 Army MARYLAND Fort Detrick Hazardous Material Storage Building ................................ 4,600 4,600 Army MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph1 ...................... 86,000 86,000 Army MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Simulator Building .............................................................. 4,700 4,700 Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cadet Barracks, Incr 2 ....................................................... 42,000 42,000 Army NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Command and Control Facility ........................................... 5,900 5,900 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
490 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Army TEXAS Fort Bliss Control Tower ...................................................................... 10,800 10,800 Army TEXAS Fort Bliss Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Complex ..................................... 36,000 36,000 Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph3 ...................... 50,000 50,000 Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................................. 79,000 79,000 Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Airfield Operations Complex ............................................... 37,000 37,000 Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Aviation Battalion Complex ................................................ 28,000 28,000 Army WASHINGTON Yakima Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range ................... 9,100 9,100 Army WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Company Operations Complex ............................................ 33,000 33,000 Army KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Pier ...................................................................................... 63,000 63,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Host Nation Support FY14 .................................................. 33,000 –10,000 23,000

Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Minor Construction FY14 .................................................... 25,000 25,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design FY14 ................................................. 41,575 41,575 

Total Military Construction, Army ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,119,875 –20,000 1,099,875 

Navy CALIFORNIA Barstow Engine Dynamometer Facility ............................................. 14,998 14,998 Navy CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade .................................... 13,124 13,124 Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado H–60 Trainer Facility .......................................................... 8,910 8,910 Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Aircraft Engine Test Pads .................................................. 7,198 7,198 Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu BAMS Consolidated Maintenance Hangar .......................... 17,469 17,469 Navy CALIFORNIA Port Hueneme Unaccompanied Housing Conversion ................................. 33,600 33,600 Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Steam Plant Decentralization ............................................. 34,331 34,331 Navy CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms Camp Wilson Infrastructure Upgrades ............................... 33,437 33,437 Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville P–8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion ....................... 20,752 20,752 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
491 

Navy FLORIDA Key West Aircraft Crash/Rescue & Fire Headquarters ....................... 14,001 14,001 Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS Logistics Support Facility ............................................ 16,093 16,093 Navy GEORGIA Albany CERS Dispatch Facility ....................................................... 1,010 1,010 Navy GEORGIA Albany Weapons Storage and Inspection Facility .......................... 15,600 15,600 Navy GEORGIA Savannah Townsend Bombing Range Land Acq—Phase 1 ............... 61,717 61,717 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Aircraft Maintenance Hangar—North Ramp ..................... 85,673 85,673 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas BAMS Forward Operational & Maintenance Hangar .......... 61,702 61,702 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Dehumidified Supply Storage Facility ................................ 17,170 17,170 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Emergent Repair Facility Expansion ................................... 35,860 35,860 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Modular Storage Magazines ............................................... 63,382 63,382 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Sierra Wharf Improvements ................................................ 1,170 1,170 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas X-Ray Wharf Improvements ................................................ 53,420 53,420 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay 3rd Radio Bn Maintenance/Operations Complex ............... 25,336 25,336 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aircraft Maintenance Expansion ......................................... 16,968 16,968 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aircraft Maintenance Hangar Upgrades ............................. 31,820 31,820 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Armory Addition and Renovation ........................................ 12,952 12,952 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Aviation Simulator Modernization/Addition ........................ 17,724 17,724 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay MV–22 Hangar .................................................................... 57,517 57,517 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay MV–22 Parking Apron and Infrastructure .......................... 74,665 74,665 Navy HAWAII Pearl City Water Transmission Line .................................................... 30,100 30,100 Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Drydock Waterfront Facility ................................................. 22,721 22,721 Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Submarine Production Support Facility .............................. 35,277 35,277 Navy ILLINOIS Great Lakes Unaccompanied Housing .................................................... 35,851 35,851 Navy MAINE Bangor NCTAMS VLF Commercial Power Connection ...................... 13,800 13,800 Navy MAINE Kittery Structural Shops Consolidation .......................................... 11,522 11,522 Navy MARYLAND Fort Meade MARFORCYBERCOM HQ-OPS Building ................................ 83,988 83,988 Navy NEVADA Fallon Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................................. 11,334 11,334 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Landfill—Phase 4 .............................................................. 20,795 20,795 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Operations Training Complex ............................................. 22,515 22,515 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization—BEQ Nodes ................................. 18,679 18,679 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization—Camp Johnson ........................... 2,620 2,620 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Steam Decentralization—Hadnot Point ............................. 13,390 13,390 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
492 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River CH–53K Maintenance Training Facility .............................. 13,218 13,218 Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River Corrosion Control Hangar ................................................... 12,547 12,547 Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River Regional Communication Station ....................................... 20,098 20,098 Navy OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB TACAMO E–6B Hangar ........................................................ 14,144 14,144 Navy RHODE ISLAND Newport Hewitt Hall Research Center .............................................. 12,422 12,422 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston Nuclear Power Operational Training Facility ...................... 73,932 73,932 Navy VIRGINIA Dam Neck Aerial Target Operation Consolidation ............................... 10,587 10,587 Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk Pier 11 Power Upgrades for CVN–78 ................................. 3,380 3,380 Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Academic Instruction Facility TECOM Schools ................... 25,731 25,731 Navy VIRGINIA Quantico ATC Transmitter/Receiver Relocation ................................. 3,630 3,630 Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Fuller Road Improvements .................................................. 9,013 9,013 Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown Small Arms Ranges ............................................................ 18,700 18,700 Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Integrated Water Treatment Sys Dry Docks 3&4 ............... 18,189 18,189 Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Explosives Handling Wharf #2 (INC) .................................. 24,880 24,880 Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island EA–18G Facility Improvements ........................................... 32,482 32,482 Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island P–8A Hangar and Training Facilities ................................. 85,167 85,167 Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier Armory ................................................................................. 6,420 6,420 Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier Unaccompanied Housing .................................................... 22,580 22,580 Navy JAPAN Camp Butler Airfield Security Upgrades .................................................. 5,820 5,820 Navy JAPAN Yokosuka Communication System Upgrade ....................................... 7,568 7,568 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCON Design Funds ........................................................... 89,830 89,830 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 19,740 19,740 

Total Military Construction, Navy .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,700,269 0 1,700,269 

AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Field Training Detachment ........................................ 5,500 5,500 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
493 

AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Sq Ops/Aircraft Maintenance Unit #3 ...................... 21,400 21,400 AF CALIFORNIA Beale AFB Distributed Common Ground Station Ops Bldg ................. 62,000 62,000 AF FLORIDA Tyndall AFB F–22 Munitions Storage Complex ...................................... 9,100 9,100 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR—Fuel Sys Hardened Bldgs ......................................... 20,000 20,000 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR—Strike Tactical Missile Mxs Facility ......................... 10,530 10,530 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR—Tanker GP Mx Hangar/AMU/Sqd Ops ....................... 132,600 132,600 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC RED HORSE Airfield Operations Facility ................... 8,500 8,500 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC SF Fire Rescue & Emergency Mgt ............................ 4,600 4,600 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A 2–Bay Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Hangar .......... 0 82,000 82,000 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A 3–Bay General Purpose Maintenance Hangar ..... 0 80,000 80,000 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Aircraft Parking Apron Alteration ......................... 0 2,200 2,200 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Aprons Fuels Distribution System ........................ 0 12,800 12,800 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Flight Simulator Facility Phase 1 ......................... 0 2,150 2,150 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A General Maintenance Hangar ............................... 0 32,000 32,000 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Miscellaneous Facilities Alteration ....................... 0 970 970 AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Pipeline Student Dormatory .................................. 0 7,000 7,000 AF HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam C–17 Modernize Hgr 35, Docks 1&2 .................................. 4,800 4,800 AF KENTUCKY Fort Campbell 19th Air Support Operations Sqdrn Expansion .................. 8,000 8,000 AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations Center, Increment 1 ............. 85,000 85,000 AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Helicopter Operations Facility ............................................. 30,000 30,000 AF MISSOURI Whiteman AFB WSA MOP Igloos and Assembly Facility ............................. 5,900 5,900 AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement Facility, Incr 3 ........................ 136,000 136,000 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB Add RPA Weapons School Facility ...................................... 20,000 20,000 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB Dormitory (240 RM) ............................................................ 35,000 35,000 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Alt Mission Equip (AME) Storage .............................. 5,000 5,000 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Fuel Cell Hangar ....................................................... 9,400 9,400 AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Parts Store ................................................................ 9,100 9,100 AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Airmen and Family Readiness Center ................................ 5,500 5,500 AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Dormitory (144 RM) ............................................................ 22,000 22,000 AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Satellite Dining Facility ...................................................... 6,600 6,600 AF NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB F–16 Aircraft Covered Washrack and Pad ......................... 2,250 2,250 AF NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Nuclear Systems Wing & Sustainment Center (Ph ............ 30,500 30,500 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
494 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

AF NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB B–52 ADAL Aircraft Maintenance Unit ............................... 15,530 15,530 AF NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB B–52 Munitions Storage Igloos .......................................... 8,300 8,300 AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU ADAL Fuel Systems Maintenance Dock ......... 0 3,350 3,350 AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU ADAL Squad Ops/AMU ................................... 0 7,400 7,400 AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU Flight Training Center Simulators Facility 

Phase 1.

0 12,600 12,600 

AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU Fuselage Trainer Phase 1 ............................. 0 6,300 6,300 AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU Renovate Facility ........................................... 0 1,200 1,200 AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Land Acquisition ................................................... 8,600 8,600 AF TEXAS Fort Bliss F–16 BAK 12/14 Aircraft Arresting System ....................... 3,350 3,350 AF UTAH Hill AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Unit Hangar 45E Ops #1 ....................... 13,500 13,500 AF UTAH Hill AFB Fire Crash Rescue Station .................................................. 18,500 18,500 AF VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis 4–Bay Conventional Munitions Inspection Bldg ................ 4,800 4,800 AF GREENLAND Thule AB Thule Consolidation, Phase 2 ............................................. 43,904 43,904 AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR—Airport POL/Bulk Storage AST .................................. 18,500 18,500 AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR—Hazardous Cargo Pad .............................................. 8,000 8,000 AF MARIANA ISLANDS Saipan PAR—Maintenance Facility ................................................ 2,800 2,800 AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Main Gate Complex ............................................................ 12,000 –12,000 0 AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Lakenheath Guardian Angel Operations Facility .................................... 22,047 22,047 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations KC–46A FTU Facility Projects ............................................. 63,000 –63,000 0 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations KC–46A MOB #1 Facility Projects ...................................... 192,700 –192,700 0 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ............................................................. 11,314 11,314 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 20,448 20,448 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
495 

Total Military Construction, Air Force .................................................................................................................................................. 1,156,573 –17,730 1,138,843 

Def-Wide ALASKA Clear AFS BMDS Upgrade Early Warning Radar ................................. 17,204 17,204 Def-Wide ALASKA Fort Greely Mechanical-Electrical Bldg Missile Field #1 ...................... 82,000 82,000 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Brawley SOF Desert Warfare Training Center .................................. 23,095 23,095 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Defense Distribution Depot-Tracy General Purpose Warehouse ............................................... 37,554 37,554 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Miramar Replace Fuel Pipeline ......................................................... 6,000 6,000 Def-Wide COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Group Support Battalion ............................................. 22,282 22,282 Def-Wide FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF ADD/ALTER Operations Facility ................................... 7,900 7,900 Def-Wide FLORIDA Jacksonville Replace Fuel Pipeline ......................................................... 7,500 7,500 Def-Wide FLORIDA Key West SOF Boat Docks .................................................................. 3,600 –3,600 0 Def-Wide FLORIDA Panama City Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ............................ 2,600 2,600 Def-Wide FLORIDA Tyndall AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline ......................................................... 9,500 9,500 Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Benning Faith Middle School Addition ............................................. 6,031 6,031 Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Benning White Elemtary School Replacement .................................. 37,304 37,304 Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Stewart Diamond Elementary School Replacement ......................... 44,504 44,504 Def-Wide GEORGIA Hunter Army Airfield Replace Fuel Island ............................................................ 13,500 13,500 Def-Wide GEORGIA Moody AFB Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ............................ 3,800 3,800 Def-Wide HAWAII Ford Island DISA Pacific Facility Upgrades ........................................... 2,615 2,615 Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Alter Warehouse Space ....................................................... 2,800 2,800 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Fort Campbell High School Replacement ........................... 59,278 59,278 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Marshall Elementary School Replacement ......................... 38,591 38,591 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Group Special Troops Battalion .................................. 26,342 26,342 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Knox Ambulatory Health Center .................................................. 265,000 265,000 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Knox Consolidate/Replace Van Voorhis-Mudge ES ..................... 38,023 38,023 Def-Wide MARYLAND Aberdeen Proving Ground Public Health Command Lab Replacement ....................... 210,000 –100,000 110,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital Mech & Electrical Improvements ....................................... 46,800 46,800 Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital Parking Garage ................................................................... 20,000 20,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Detrick USAMRIID Replacement Stage 1, Incr 8 ............................ 13,000 –13,000 0 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade High Performance Computing Capacity Inc 3 ................... 431,000 431,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #1/Site M Inc 2 .................... 58,000 58,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Ambulatory Care Center Inc 2 ............................................ 76,200 –12,400 63,800 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
496 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Def-Wide MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Hanscom Primary School Replacement .............................. 36,213 36,213 Def-Wide NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst Replace Fuel Distribution Components .............................. 10,000 10,000 Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Medical Clinic Replacement ............................................... 60,000 60,000 Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ............................................. 21,400 21,400 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF Performance Resiliency Center ................................... 14,400 –14,400 0 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF Sustainment Training Complex ................................... 28,977 28,977 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Consolidate/Replace Pope Holbrook Elementary ................ 37,032 37,032 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Civil Affairs Battalion Annex ...................................... 37,689 37,689 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Combat Medic Skills Sustain. Course Bldg ................ 7,600 7,600 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Engineer Training Facility ........................................... 10,419 10,419 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Language and Cultural Center ................................... 64,606 64,606 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Upgrade Training Facility ............................................ 14,719 14,719 Def-Wide NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline ......................................................... 6,400 6,400 Def-Wide OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Replace Refueler Parking ................................................... 2,100 2,100 Def-Wide OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Replace Fuel Distribution Facilities ................................... 36,000 36,000 Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA Def Distribution Depot New Cumberland Upgrade Hazardous Material Warehouse ........................... 3,100 3,100 

Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA Def Distribution Depot New Cumberland Upgrade Public Safety Facility ........................................... 5,900 5,900 Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Bolden Elementary/Middle School Replacement ................ 41,324 41,324 Def-Wide TENNESSEE Arnold Air Force Base Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ............................ 2,200 2,200 Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 5 .............................................. 252,100 –100,000 152,100 Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio SAMMC Hyperbaric Facility Addition .................................. 12,600 12,600 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Dam Neck SOF Human Performance Center ........................................ 11,147 –11,147 0 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Def Distribution Depot Richmond Operations Center Phase 1 ................................................ 87,000 87,000 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base Little 

Creek—Story 

SOF LOGSU Two Operations Facility ................................... 30,404 30,404 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
497 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Boundary Channel Access Control Point ............................ 6,700 6,700 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon South Pedestrian Safety Project ......................... 1,850 1,850 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon PFPA Support Operations Center ........................................ 14,800 14,800 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Raven Rock Administrative Facility Upgrade ..................... 32,000 32,000 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Raven Rock Exterior Cooling Tower .................................... 4,100 4,100 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Quantico Quantico Middle/High School Replacement ....................... 40,586 40,586 Def-Wide WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Replace Fuel Pier Breakwater ............................................ 10,000 10,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location AN/TPY–2 Radar Site .......................................................... 15,000 15,000 Def-Wide BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement ................................... 45,400 45,400 Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Facility ................................................ 38,513 38,513 Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Fit-Out ................................................ 29,100 29,100 Def-Wide GERMANY Kaiserlautern AB Kaiserslautern Elementary School Replacement ................ 49,907 49,907 Def-Wide GERMANY Ramstein AB Ramstein High School Replacement .................................. 98,762 98,762 Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement, Incr 3 .................................. 151,545 151,545 Def-Wide GERMANY Weisbaden Hainerberg Elementary School Replacement ...................... 58,899 58,899 Def-Wide GERMANY Weisbaden Wiesbaden Middle School Replacement ............................. 50,756 50,756 Def-Wide JAPAN Atsugi Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ............................ 4,100 4,100 Def-Wide JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Hydrant Fuel System .......................................... 34,000 34,000 Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB Kadena Middle School Addition/Renovation ....................... 38,792 38,792 Def-Wide JAPAN Torri Commo Station SOF Facility Augmentation ................................................. 71,451 –7,380 64,071 Def-Wide JAPAN Yokosuka Upgrade Fuel Pumps .......................................................... 10,600 10,600 Def-Wide KOREA Camp Walker Daegu Middle/High School Replacement ........................... 52,164 52,164 Def-Wide ROMANIA Deveselu Aegis Ashore Missile Def Sys Cmplx, Increm. 2 ................ 85,000 –5,000 80,000 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall Replace Fuel Storage .......................................................... 17,732 17,732 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Airfield Pavements and Hangar/AMU ......................... 0 48,448 48,448 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Airfiled Pavements ...................................................... 24,077 –24,077 0 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Hangar/AMU ................................................................ 24,371 –24,371 0 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF MRSP and Parts Storage ............................................ 6,797 6,797 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Raf Mildenhall SOF Squadron Operations Facility ...................................... 11,652 11,652 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Lakenheath Lakenheath High School Replacement ............................... 69,638 69,638 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
498 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Contingency Construction ................................................... 10,000 –10,000 0 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Energy Conservation Investment Program ......................... 150,000 150,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Exercise Related Minor Construction .................................. 9,730 9,730 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ............................................................. 10,891 10,891 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 75,905 75,905 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 36,866 36,866 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 6,931 6,931 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 50,192 50,192 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 57,053 57,053 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 2,000 2,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 7,430 7,430 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 5,170 5,170 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 5,409 5,409 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
499 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 1,500 1,500 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 9,578 9,578 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 3,000 3,000 

Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide ........................................................................................................................................... 3,985,300 –276,927 3,708,373 

Chem Demil KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Ph XIV .................... 122,536 122,536 

Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense ...................................................................................................................... 122,536 0 122,536 

NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment Program Nato Security Investment Program ..................................... 239,700 –40,000 199,700 

Total NATO Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................................................ 239,700 –40,000 199,700 

Army NG ALABAMA Decatur National Guard Readiness Center Add/Alt ......................... 4,000 4,000 Army NG ARKANSAS Fort Chaffee Scout/RECCE Gunnery Complex .......................................... 21,000 21,000 Army NG FLORIDA Pinellas Park Ready Building ................................................................... 5,700 5,700 Army NG ILLINOIS Kankakee Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................................. 28,000 28,000 Army NG ILLINOIS Kankakee Readiness Center ................................................................ 14,000 14,000 Army NG MASSACHUSETTS Camp Edwards Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training Add ........................ 19,000 19,000 Army NG MICHIGAN Camp Grayling Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ................................ 17,000 17,000 Army NG MINNESOTA Stillwater Readiness Center ................................................................ 17,000 17,000 Army NG MISSISSIPPI Camp Shelby Water Supply/Treatment Building, Potable ........................ 3,000 3,000 Army NG MISSISSIPPI Pascagoula Readiness Center ................................................................ 4,500 4,500 Army NG MISSOURI Macon Vehicle Maintenance Shop ................................................. 9,100 9,100 Army NG MISSOURI Whiteman AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ............................................. 5,000 5,000 Army NG NEW YORK New York Readiness Center Add/Alt ................................................... 31,000 31,000 Army NG OHIO Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant Sanitary Sewer .................................................................... 5,200 5,200 Army NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Aircraft Maintenance Instructional Building ...................... 40,000 40,000 Army NG PUERTO RICO Camp Santiago Maneuver Area Training & Equipment Site Addit .............. 5,600 5,600 Army NG SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Readiness Center ................................................................ 13,000 13,000


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
500 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

Army NG SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Vehicle Maintenance Shop ................................................. 13,000 13,000 Army NG TEXAS Fort Worth Armed Forces Reserve Center Add ..................................... 14,270 14,270 Army NG WYOMING Afton National Guard Readiness Center ...................................... 10,200 10,200 Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 29,005 –5,000 24,005 

Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 12,240 12,240 

Total Military Construction, Army National Guard ............................................................................................................................... 320,815 –5,000 315,815 

Army Res CALIFORNIA Camp Parks Army Reserve Center .......................................................... 17,500 17,500 Army Res CALIFORNIA Fort Hunter Liggett TASS Training Center (TTC) ................................................ 16,500 16,500

Army Res MARYLAND Bowie Army Reserve Center .......................................................... 25,500 25,500 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun (MPMG) ................ 9,500 9,500 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst Central Issue Facility .......................................................... 7,900 7,900 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst Consolidated Dining Facility ............................................... 13,400 13,400 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst Modified Record Fire Range ............................................... 5,400 5,400 Army Res NEW YORK Bullville Army Reserve Center .......................................................... 14,500 14,500 Army Res NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Army Reserve Center .......................................................... 24,500 24,500 Army Res WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy Access Control Point/Mail/Freight Center ........................... 17,500 17,500 Army Res WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy NCO Academy Dining Facility ............................................. 5,900 5,900 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 14,212 14,212 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 1,748 1,748 

Total Military Construction, Army Reserve .......................................................................................................................................... 174,060 0 174,060 

N/MC Res CALIFORNIA March AFB NOSC Moreno Valley Reserve Training Center ................... 11,086 11,086 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
501 

N/MC Res MISSOURI Kansas City Reserve Training Center—Belton, Missouri ....................... 15,020 15,020 N/MC Res TENNESSEE Memphis Reserve Boat Maintenance and Storage Facility ............... 4,330 4,330 N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCNR Planning & Design .................................................. 1,500 1,500 N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations USMCR Planning and Design ............................................. 1,040 1,040 

Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve ............................................................................................................ 32,976 0 32,976 

Air NG ALABAMA Birmingham IAP Add to and Alter Distributed Ground Station F ................. 8,500 8,500 Air NG INDIANA Hulman Regional Airport Add/Alter Bldg 37 For Dist Common Ground Sta .............. 7,300 7,300 Air NG MARYLAND Fort Meade 175th Network Warfare Squadron Facility ......................... 4,000 –4,000 0 Air NG MARYLAND Martin State Airport CYBER/ISR Facility .............................................................. 8,000 –8,000 0 Air NG MONTANA Great Falls IAP Intra-Theater Airlift Conversion .......................................... 22,000 22,000 Air NG NEW YORK Fort Drum MQ–9 Flight Training Unit Hangar .................................... 4,700 4,700 Air NG OHIO Springfield Beckley-Map Alter Intelligence Operations Facility ................................. 7,200 7,200 Air NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Communications Operations and Training Facili ............... 7,700 7,700 Air NG RHODE ISLAND Quonset State Airport C–130J Flight Simulator Training Facility ......................... 6,000 6,000 Air NG TENNESSEE Mcghee-Tyson Airport TEC Expansion- Dormitory & Classroom Facility ............... 18,000 18,000 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 13,400 13,400 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 13,000 13,000 

Total Military Construction, Air National Guard ................................................................................................................................... 119,800 –12,000 107,800 

AF Res CALIFORNIA March AFB Joint Regional Deployment Processing Center, .................. 19,900 19,900 AF Res FLORIDA Homestead AFS Entry Control Complex ........................................................ 9,800 9,800 AF Res OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Air Control Group Squadron Operations ............................. 12,200 12,200 AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 2,229 2,229 AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ......................................... 1,530 1,530 

Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 45,659 0 45,659 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
502 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

FH Con Army WISCONSIN Fort Mccoy Family Housing New Construction (56 units) .................... 23,000 23,000 FH Con Army GERMANY South Camp Vilseck Family Housing New Construction (29 units) .................... 16,600 16,600 FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing P & D ........................................................ 4,408 4,408 

Total Family Housing Construction, Army ............................................................................................................................................ 44,008 0 44,008 

FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ......................................................................... 33,125 33,125 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leased Housing .................................................................. 180,924 180,924FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property Facilities ............................ 107,639 107,639 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ......................................................... 54,433 54,433 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Military Housing Privitization Initiative .............................. 25,661 25,661 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous ..................................................................... 646 646 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services ............................................................................... 13,536 13,536 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ............................................................................... 96,907 96,907 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army ....................................................................................................................... 512,871 0 512,871 

FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements ..................................................................... 72,093 72,093 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
503 

FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design .......................................................... 4,267 4,267 

Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force ..................................................................................................................................... 76,360 0 76,360 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account ........................................................... 39,470 39,470 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization .......................................................... 41,436 41,436 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ............................................................................... 54,514 54,514 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance (RPMA RPMC) ................................................ 110,786 110,786 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ......................................................... 53,044 53,044 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ....................................................... 1,954 1,954 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ................................................................. 16,862 16,862 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ................................................................. 70,532 70,532

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ............................................................................................................... 388,598 0 388,598 

FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Design ................................................................................. 4,438 4,438 

FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements ..................................................................... 68,969 68,969 

Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................................................................................................. 73,407 0 73,407 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account ........................................................... 21,073 21,073 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ............................................................................... 74,962 74,962 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
504 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ............................................ 90,122 90,122 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ......................................................... 60,782 60,782 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ....................................................... 362 362 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Privatization Support Costs ................................................ 27,634 27,634 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ................................................................. 20,596 20,596 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ................................................................. 94,313 94,313

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ........................................................................................ 389,844 0 389,844 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account ........................................................... 67 67 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account ........................................................... 20 20 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account ........................................................... 3,196 3,196 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ............................................................................... 10,994 10,994 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ............................................................................... 40,433 40,433 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ............................................ 311 311 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
505 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ............................................ 74 74 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ......................................................... 418 418 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ................................................................. 32 32 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ................................................................. 288 288 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ................................................................. 12 12 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ........................................................................................................ 55,845 0 55,845 

FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing Improvement Fund .................................... 1,780 1,780 

Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund .................................................................................................................................... 1,780 0 1,780 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure .......................................... 180,401 180,401 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Navy Base Realignment & Closure ............................................. 108,300 108,300 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ......................................... 126,376 126,376 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–100: Planing, Design and Management ................... 7,277 7,277 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–101: Various Locations .............................................. 20,988 20,988 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME ........................................... 993 993 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO ..................................... 40 40 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA .......................... 5,766 5,766 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
506 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2014 Request House Change House Agreement 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP ................. 1,216 1,216 

Total Base Realignment and Closure Account .................................................................................................................................... 451,357 0 451,357 

PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—ANG Unspecified Minor Construction 0 –45,623 –45,623 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Army Bid Savings ............................. 0 –14,000 –14,000 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Army Planning and Design FY12 ..... 0 –50,000 –50,000 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Defense Wide Bid Savings ............... 0 –358,400 –358,400 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Defense Wide Unspecified Minor Construction. 0 –16,470 –16,470 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Navy Bid Savings ............................. 0 –49,920 –49,920 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Savings—Section 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, as 

amended.

0 –50,000 –50,000 

Total Prior Year Savings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –584,413 –584,413 

Total Military Construction .................................................................................................................................................................... 11,011,633 –938,340 10,073,293 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
507 

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 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ................................................................................................................ 16,000 –16,000 0 Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 94,000 0 94,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 2,140,142 0 2,140,142 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 Office of the administrator ............................................................................................................................ 397,784 –8,000 389,784 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 11,652,469 212,000 11,864,469 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,316,909 –358,000 4,958,909 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 749,080 0 749,080 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
508 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,065,989 –358,000 5,707,989 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 17,718,458 –146,000 17,572,458 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 17,828,458 –162,000 17,666,458 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 

Infrastructure security & energy restoration (HS) ............................................................................................................ 16,000 –16,000 0 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 94,000 94,000 

Weapons Activities 

Life extension programs and major alterations 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 537,044 44,000 581,044 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 235,382 9,700 245,082 W78/88–1 Life extension program .......................................................................................................................... 72,691 5,600 78,291 W88 ALT 370 ........................................................................................................................................................... 169,487 169,487 

Total, Stockpile assessment and design ....................................................................................................................... 1,014,604 59,300 1,073,904 

Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 83,536 83,536 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 47,187 47,187 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 54,381 54,381 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 50,330 50,330 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 54,948 6,000 60,948 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 101,506 101,506 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 62,600 62,600 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
509 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 454,488 6,000 460,488 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 49,264 49,264 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 321,416 29,600 351,016 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 26,349 3,200 29,549 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 191,259 18,300 209,559 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 214,187 214,187 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 156,949 9,500 166,449 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 910,160 60,600 970,760 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 2,428,516 125,900 2,554,416 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 54,730 54,730 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 109,231 109,231 

Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 116,965 116,965 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 30,509 30,509 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 86,467 86,467 

Total, Science campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 397,902 0 397,902 

Engineering campaign 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 51,771 2,500 54,271 

Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 23,727 23,727 

Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 19,504 19,504 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 54,909 4,000 58,909 

Total, Engineering campaign .......................................................................................................................................... 149,911 6,500 156,411 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80,245 80,245 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
510 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 15,001 15,001 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 59,897 59,897 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 5,024 5,024 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 8,198 8,198 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 232,678 232,678 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield campaign ....................................................................................... 401,043 0 401,043 Advanced simulation and computing campaign ............................................................................................................. 564,329 564,329 Readiness Campaign 

Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 106,085 106,085 Tritium readiness ..................................................................................................................................................... 91,695 91,695 

Total, Readiness campaign ............................................................................................................................................. 197,780 0 197,780 

Total, Campaigns ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,710,965 6,500 1,717,465 

Nuclear programs 

Nuclear operations capability ........................................................................................................................................... 265,937 265,937 Capabilities based investments ....................................................................................................................................... 39,558 39,558 Construction: 

12–D–301 TRU waste facilities, LANL .................................................................................................................... 26,722 26,722 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ........................................................................................ 30,679 30,679 07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL .................................................... 55,719 55,719 06–D–141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project Y–12 .................................................. 325,835 325,835 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 438,955 0 438,955 

Total, Nuclear programs .......................................................................................................................................................... 744,450 0 744,450 Secure transportation asset 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
511 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 122,072 122,072 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 97,118 97,118 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 219,190 0 219,190 Site stewardship 

Nuclear materials integration .......................................................................................................................................... 17,679 17,679 Corporate project management ........................................................................................................................................ 13,017 13,017 Minority serving institution partnerships program .......................................................................................................... 14,531 14,531 Enterprise infrastructure 

Site Operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,112,455 1,112,455 

Site Support ............................................................................................................................................................. 109,561 109,561 Sustainment ............................................................................................................................................................. 433,764 65,100 498,864 Facilities disposition ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

Subtotal, Enterprise infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 1,660,780 65,100 1,725,880 

Total, Site stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,706,007 65,100 1,771,107 

Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 664,981 664,981 Construction: 

14–D–710 DAF Argus, NNSS ................................................................................................................................... 14,000 14,000 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 678,981 0 678,981 NNSA CIO activities ................................................................................................................................................................... 148,441 22,500 170,941 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 279,597 279,597 

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 7,916,147 220,000 8,136,147 

Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... –47,738 –47,738 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
512 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Total, Adjustments .................................................................................................................................................................... –47,738 0 –47,738 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,868,409 220,000 8,088,409 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................................................................................................... 424,487 23,000 447,487 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 388,838 388,838 

Nonproliferation and international security ..................................................................................................................... 141,675 141,675 International material protection and cooperation .......................................................................................................... 369,625 –23,000 346,625 Fissile materials disposition 

U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition 

Operations and maintenance 

U.S. plutonium disposition .................................................................................................................... 157,557 157,557 U.S. uranium disposition ....................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 

Total, Operations and maintenance ............................................................................................................. 182,557 0 182,557 Construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ................................................. 320,000 320,000 

Total, Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 320,000 0 320,000 

Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition ................................................................................................... 502,557 0 502,557 

Total, Fissile materials disposition ................................................................................................................................ 502,557 0 502,557 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
513 

Legacy contractor pensions .............................................................................................................................................. 93,703 93,703 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,920,885 0 1,920,885 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response program ............................................................................................................... 181,293 181,293 Counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs ................................................................................................................ 74,666 74,666 Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................................... 2,176,844 0 2,176,844 Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... –36,702 –36,702 

Total, Adjustments .................................................................................................................................................................... –36,702 0 –36,702 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 2,140,142 0 2,140,142 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 455,740 –2,000 453,740 Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 419,400 419,400 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 126,400 126,400 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 144,400 144,400 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 44,404 44,404 Construction: 

14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, KAPL ............................................................................ 1,000 1,000 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 45,400 45,400 13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL ............................................................................................... 21,073 21,073 13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO .......................................................................................... 600 2,000 2,600 Naval Reactor Facility, ID ................................................................................................................................................. 1,700 1,700 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 69,773 2,000 71,773 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,260,117 0 1,260,117 

Adjustments: 

Use of prior year balances (Naval reactors) .................................................................................................................... –13,983 –13,983 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
514 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Office Of The Administrator 

Office of the administrator ....................................................................................................................................................... 397,784 –8,000 389,784 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 397,784 –8,000 389,784 Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,702 4,702 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................................................................................... 393,634 393,634 Central plateau remediation ............................................................................................................................................ 513,450 513,450 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 921,785 0 921,785 Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 362,100 362,100 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 2,910 2,910 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 365,010 0 365,010 

NNSA sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,476 1,476 Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................ 23,700 23,700 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 61,897 61,897 

Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,814 2,814 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
515 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 219,789 219,789 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 309,676 0 309,676 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ................................................................................................................................................ 73,716 73,716 OR cleanup and disposition ............................................................................................................................................. 115,855 115,855 OR reservation community and regulatory support ......................................................................................................... 4,365 4,365 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 193,936 0 193,936 Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

01–D–416 A-E/ORP-0060 / Major construction ...................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 520,216 520,216 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,210,216 0 1,210,216 

Savannah River sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations ................................................................................................................. 432,491 432,491 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,210 11,210 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 552,560 95,000 647,560 Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 92,000 92,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 92,000 0 92,000 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 644,560 95,000 739,560 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,088,261 95,000 1,183,261 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Waste isolation pilot plant ............................................................................................................................................... 203,390 203,390 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 203,390 0 203,390 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
516 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request House Change House Authorized 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 280,784 280,784 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17,979 17,979 Safeguards and Security: 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 18,800 18,800 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9,435 9,435 

Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,578 8,578 

Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 69,078 69,078 Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 121,196 121,196 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 4,977 4,977 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,015 2,015 

Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 24,091 10,000 34,091 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 4,853,909 105,000 4,958,909 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ............................................................................................................................ 463,000 –463,000 0 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,316,909 –358,000 4,958,909 

Other Defense Activities 

Health, safety and security 

Health, safety and security .............................................................................................................................................. 143,616 143,616 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 108,301 108,301 

Total, Health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................................... 251,917 0 251,917 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 196,322 196,322 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
517 

Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 163,271 163,271 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,712 13,712 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 176,983 0 176,983 Defense-related activities Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 38,979 38,979 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 79,857 79,857 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 118,836 0 118,836 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,022 5,022 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 749,080 0 749,080 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 749,080 0 749,080 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
518 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

APRIL 26, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed legislation, titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014’’, that the Department of Defense requests be enacted 

during the first session of the 113th Congress. 

The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is stated in the 

accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

The PAYGO effects of section 701 (Revisions to TRICARE cost 

sharing requirements) are: 

Fiscal Years (deficit decreases in millions of dollars) 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

Direct 

Spending Effects ..... 9 98 181 298 515 666 810 987 1,158 1,328 

The Department is currently working with the Administration on 

additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to 

transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH KING. 

Enclosure: As Stated 

MAY 7, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative 

proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each 

proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to 

the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed 

legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014’’. 

The Department is currently working with the Administration on 

additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to 

transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
519 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH KING. 

Enclosure: As Stated 

MAY 15, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative 

proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each 

proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to 

the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed 

legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014’’. 

The Department is currently working with the Administration on 

additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to 

transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH L. KING

Enclosure: As Stated 

MAY 22, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative 

proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the first session of the 113th Congress. The purpose of each 

proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to 

the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed 

legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014’’. 

The Department is currently working with the Administration on 

additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to 

transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH L. KING. 

Enclosure: As Stated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
520 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This is, of course, conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 

Further, I request your support for the appointment of Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any House-Senate conference convened on this and any similar legislation. I also 

ask that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our 

jurisdictional interest be placed in the legislative report on H.R. 

1960 and the Congressional Record during consideration of this 

measure on the House floor. 

I look forward to working with you on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. 

Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
521 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Natural Resources in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources and 

that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and 

as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

The Committee on Natural Resources also asks that you support 

our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have 

jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural 

Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
522 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The section provisions attached to this 

letter contain subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the committee waives consideration of these provisions. 

The Committee on Veterans Affairs takes this action only with 

the understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over 

this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to 

any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your 

support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 

including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1960 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

With warm personal regards I am, 

Sincerely, 

JEFF MILLER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. JEFF MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral 

in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
523 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which contains substantial matter that 

falls within the Rule X legislative jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs 

Committee. I appreciate the cooperation that allowed us to work 

out mutually agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your 

markup. 

Based on that cooperation and our associated understandings, 

the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a sequential referral 

or object to floor consideration of the bill text approved at your 

Committee markup. However, this decision in no way diminishes 

or alters the jurisdictional interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support for the appointment of House Foreign 

Affairs conferees during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. 

As the committee with legislative jurisdiction over U.S. intervention abroad and declarations of war, and as the traditional committee of sole referral for legislative authorizations for the use of 

military force (including the post-9/11 AUMF enacted as Public 

Law 107–40), the Foreign Affairs Committee requires knowledge of 

where, and against whom, such authority is used. For that reason, 

I appreciate your commitment to add the Foreign Affairs Committee as a recipient of the reporting required by section 1038 of 

the Chairman’s mark, and to include additional language in your 

Committee report to expressly note that any reports required by 

section 1041 are in addition to War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93– 

148) reporting, which should continue. 

Finally, I respectfully request that you include this letter and 

your response in your committee report on the bill, and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1960 on the House 

floor. 

Sincerely, 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC June 7, 2013. 

Hon. EDWARD R. ROYCE, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
524 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral 

in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended. 

There are certain provisions in the legislation that fall within the 

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this legislation, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This, of course, 

is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee with respect to 

the appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim 

over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation 

that fall within the Committee’s Rule X jurisdiction. I request you 

urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference committee named to consider such provisions. 

Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee report on H.R. 

1960 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the 

measure on the House floor. 

Sincerely, 

BILL SHUSTER, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. BILL SHUSTER, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
525 

Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in matters 

being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and that 

a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as 

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

The Committee on the Judiciary also asks that you support our 

request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

BOB GOODLATTE, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral 

in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
526 

is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will 

be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also asks 

that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 

which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DARRELL ISSA, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. DARRELL ISSA, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdicVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Jun 09, 2013 Jkt 081321 PO 00000 Frm 00556 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR102.XXX HR102

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
527 

tion. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Thank you for consulting with the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 

1960 on those matters within the committee’s jurisdiction. 

In the interest of expediting the House’s consideration of H.R. 

1960, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo 

further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only with the 

understanding that this procedural route will not be construed to 

prejudice my committee’s jurisdictional interest and prerogatives 

on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. 

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside 

conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with 

the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange of letters 

on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 1960 and in the 

Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House 

floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN KLINE, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
528 

Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the 

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.’’ I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will 

forgo action on H.R. 1960 so that it may proceed expeditiously to 

the House floor for consideration. 

This is done with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way 

diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the 

right to seek conferees on H.R. 1960 and requests your support 

when such a request is made. 

I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding 

with respect to H.R. 1960 and ask that a copy of our exchange of 

letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. 

Sincerely, 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the 

bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
529 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In recognition of the importance of expediting the passage of H.R. 1960, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2014,’’ the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence hereby waives further consideration of the bill. The 

Committee has jurisdictional interests in several provisions of H.R. 

1960, including intelligence and intelligence-related authorizations 

and provisions contained in the bill and provisions that may affect 

sensitive reporting with respect to covert action. 

The Committee has specific and unresolved concerns with respect 

to certain provisions of the bill, and takes this action only with the 

understanding that this procedural route should not be construed 

to prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence’s jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill 

and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters 

of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will seek 

conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 

this legislation. 

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of 

letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during the 

House debate on H.R. 1960. I appreciate the constructive work between our committees on this matter and thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE ROGERS, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. MIKE ROGERS, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
530 

Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: On June 6, 2013, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a result of your having consulted with the 

Committee on Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill 

that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our 

committee from further consideration of the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. 

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with our 

mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 

1960, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction 

over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and 

that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as 

the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 

Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference 

involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for 

any such request. 

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, as amended, 

and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter 

be included in your committee’s report to accompany the legislation 

and/or in the Congressional Record during floor consideration 

thereof. 

Sincerely, 

JEB HENSARLING, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. JEB HENSARLING, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid jurisdictional claims to a certain provision in this important legislation, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
531 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial 

Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 

which was expected to be marked up in the Committee on Armed 

Services this week. 

In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 1960, the Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This is being 

done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice 

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. 

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this 

understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, and would ask that a 

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 

Congressional Record during Floor consideration. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL RYAN, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, 

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid jurisdictional 

claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am 

most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the 

interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
532 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Agriculture in matters 

being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, and that a 

copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as 

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

I also ask that you support our request to be conferees on the 

provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

FRANK D. LUCAS, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. FRANK D. LUCAS, 

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has valid jurisdictional 

claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am 

most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the 

interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Agriculture is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
533 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write to you regarding H.R. 1960, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. There 

are certain provisions of this legislation that fall within the Rule 

X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. 

In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed Services 

to proceed expeditiously to the House floor, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1960. However, I do so only with the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Homeland Security over matters contained in this or similar legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I further request that you 

urge the Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference committee that is named to consider such provisions. 

I request that you include this letter and your response into the 

committee report on H.R. 1960 and into the Congressional Record. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013. 

Hon. MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

I am most appreciative of your support and interest in this important legislation. Further, this exchange of letters will be included 

in the committee report on the bill. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

FISCAL DATA 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2014 and each of the 

following 5 fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected in 

the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
534 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional 

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST 

ESTIMATE 

JUNE 7, 2013. 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue 

effects of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Armed Services on June 6, 2013. CBO’s complete cost estimate for 

H.R. 1960, including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly. 

Based on legislative language for H.R. 1960 that was provided to 

CBO from May 30 through June 5, CBO estimates that enacting 

this bill would decrease net direct spending by $26 million in 2014, 

$18 million over the 2014–2018 period, and $2 million over the 

2014–2023 period (see attached table). Because the bill would affect 

direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

The largest costs over that 10-year period result from a provision 

that would authorize special immigrant visas for certain Iraqi and 

Afghan allies and a provision that would increase spending from 

the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to acquire additional materials. H.R. 1960 also would increase spending for 

Tricare beneficiaries whose eligibility derives from service in the 

Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Uniformed Corps of the Public Health Service and for 

loan guarantees made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Those costs would be offset by savings from a provision that would 

modify the calculation for computing the amount of the initial retirement benefit for certain military retirees. 

Enacting H.R. 1960 also would decrease revenues by requiring 

that certain payments made to a small number of servicemembers 

be treated as nontaxable income; however, CBO estimates that 

those effects would be insignificant for each year. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman, who can 

be reached at 226–2840. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

ACT 

Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344): 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
535 

(1) This legislation does not provide budget authority subject 

to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of Public Law 

93–344; 

(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO’s projection of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget 

authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for 

fiscal year 2014 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and 

(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget authority for assistance to state and local governments by this 

measure at the time that this report was filed. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE 

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill. 

ADVISORY OF EARMARKS 

The committee finds that H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as reported, does not contain 

any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 

benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new spending or 

credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase or decrease in 

tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed 

in the estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(1) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of H.R. 

1960 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at war while 

preparing our warfighters for the threats of tomorrow wherever 

and whenever they might emerge. This legislation would meet that 

goal while taking steps to make the difficult choices of fiscal stewardship incumbent upon Congress in a time of economic stress. 

Only by providing for the common defense in an efficient, fiscally 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
536 

responsible manner can the nation address our national security 

challenges. 

The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital to 

the success of our service men and women while taking steps to 

provide them more efficiently. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee took steps to promote competition and to provide authorities to the Department of Defense to procure systems 

more cost-effectively. 

The committee bill would also modify quarterly reporting requirements for major programs, to require that the Secretary of 

Defense report not only on a program’s baseline cost estimate, but 

also to provide detailed information regarding the Department’s assessment of the risk and sensitivity associated with that estimate, 

including an identification of the primary risk parameters associated with that point estimate. By including this requirement, the 

committee hopes to identify acquisition programs that are at highest risk for cost growth early and monitor fluctuations in the Department’s confidence in its cost estimation on a quarterly basis. 

The committee would also require reporting on estimated termination liability for major weapon systems. The committee believes 

that a greater understanding of termination liability would inform 

both the Department and the Congress of likely outcomes for troubled acquisition programs. 

The committee continues to reiterate the need for fiscal accountability and transparency. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 

would note the importance of achieving a clean financial audit by 

2017 and would impose a similar requirement for 2018. 

Likewise, the committee continues to advocate for the Department to make personnel resourcing decisions within the context of 

total force management, considering the appropriate mix of military, civilians, and contractors to perform the Department’s missions. The committee bill would ensure that end strength requests 

are within the limitations for reductions set by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), 

in light of concerns that budgetary pressures will force each service 

to reduce its end strength too quickly and to divest vital battlefield 

experience and know how. At the same time, the committee takes 

steps to reduce bureaucracy within the headquarters functions of 

various agencies and combatant commands. 

On the battlefield, the committee would expand authorities 

aimed at combating contracting with the enemy, to ensure taxpayer 

dollars are not inadvertently going to opposing forces. This measure would expand efforts that have worked well within U.S. Central Command. 

The bill also would examine the strength of the national defense 

strategic planning process in order to provide a solid basis for future Quadrennial Defense Reviews. The committee would task the 

National Defense Panel, established by section 118 of title 10, 

United States Code, to also incorporate an assessment of the ongoing Strategic Choices and Management Review into the Panel’s assessment of the 2013 Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee 

believes that proper strategic planning, particularly when conducted regularly and within authorized frameworks, can reduce 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
537 

waste while protecting the joint warfighting capability of the Department of Defense from arbitrary cuts. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES 

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no Federal intergovernmental mandates. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT 

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

The committee finds that this legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

No provision of H.R. 1960 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS 

The committee estimates that H.R. 1960 requires 11 directed 

rule makings. 

COMMITTEE VOTES 

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to 

the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1960. The record of these 

votes is contained in the following pages. 

The committee ordered H.R. 1960 to be reported to the House 

with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 59–2, a quorum 

being present. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
538 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 1

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Duckworth amendment, Log 175r2. 

Description: Limitation on availability of funds for procurement 

of additional F–35 aircraft and F–135 engines. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 10 51 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
539 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 2

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 086. 

Description: Strike and replace sec. 2711 of the mark with language that would clarify that nothing in the Act shall be construed 

to authorize an additional BRAC round in 2014 and 2015. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 18 44 00 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
540 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 3

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Andrews amendment, Log 016. 

Description: Extends the limitation on aggregate annual amount 

available for contract services through FY2015. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 37 25 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
541 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 4

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Lamborn amendment, Log 142. 

Description: Would prohibit the purchase or lease of electric vehicles if a cheaper conventional vehicle option is available. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 31 31 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
542 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 5

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Enyart amendment, Log 063r1. 

Description: Shall require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 32 30 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
543 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 6

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Andrews amendment, Log 021r1. 

Description: Inclusion in the chaplain corps of persons available 

to provide guidance and counsel to members of the Armed Forces 

who are atheist, agnostic, or belong to no organized faith group. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen* .........

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 18 43 0 

*Pursuant to Rule 17(d) of the Committee on Armed Services rules, members of the committee who were 

unable to vote during the committee markup because they were in attendance at other committee, subcommittee, or conference committee meeting are noted by asterisk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
544 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 7

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Fleming amendment, Log 266. 

Description: Clarifies religious freedom protections for members 

of the Armed Forces and directs the Secretary of Defense to consult 

with official military faith-group representatives in issuing regulations for such protections. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 33 26 3 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
545 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 8

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Turner amendment, Log 003. 

Description: Additional missile defense site in the US for optimized protection of the homeland. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 33 27 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
546 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 9

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Garamendi amendment, Log 218r1. 

Description: Reduces funding for ballistic missile defense midcourse segment. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 26 36 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
547 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 10

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Turner amendment, Log 004. 

Description: Limitation on availability of funds or consolidation 

of dual-capable aircraft based in Europe. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 32 30 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
548 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 11

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Lamborn amendment, Log 106. 

Description: Limitation on availability of funds for Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 33 29 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
549 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 12

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Sanchez amendment, Log 057. 

Description: Reduce the total amount of NNSA nuclear weapons 

activities to the President’s budget. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 27 35 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
550 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 13

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Larsen amendment, Log 009. 

Description: Strike section 3202. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 28 34 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
551 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 14

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Larsen amendment, Log 010. 

Description: Strike section 3112. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 27 35 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
552 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 15

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Veasey amendment, Log 138. 

Description: Would strike section 3120. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. x Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 28 34 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
553 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 16

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 244. 

Description: Would strike section 1035. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 23 38 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
554 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 17

H.R. 1960

On agreeing to the Cooper amendment, Log 275. 

Description: Increases transfer authority to $20 billion. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 16 45 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
555 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 18

H.R. 1960

Description: On motion by Mr. Thornberry to report the bill H.R. 

1960, as amended, favorably to the House, with a recommendation 

that it do pass. 

Wednesday, June 05, 2013. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mr. Andrews ........ x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mrs. Roby ................ x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 59 02 0 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
556 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

The committee has taken steps to make available the analysis of 

changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by clause 3(e) 

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and will 

make the analysis available as soon as possible. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(557) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT A. 

BRADY 

I would like to state for the record my opposition to an amendment that was offered during the committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1960, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

The amendment, number 175r2, would delay the release of FY 

2014 funding for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program. I initially 

voted in favor of this amendment because I am supportive of the 

intent to ensure accountability for this program. However, upon 

further review of the impacts that additional funding delays would 

have on the program, I believe that this amendment would actually 

increase costs, damage the supplier base, and risk over 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. 

I oppose this amendment and am pleased that it failed by a significant margin. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(558) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE HENRY C. 

‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

I congratulate the Chairman for this 52nd National Defense Authorization mark and thank him for including many good provisions in the bill. I wish, however, to outline concerns about certain 

provisions which I believe undermine national security. 

The bill blocks New START Treaty implementation, potentially 

causing potential additional cost and delays, and complicating implementation of this US binding-commitment to make prudent nuclear weapons reductions. This measure also sends a dangerous signal to Russia as Russia implements its commitments under the 

Treaty. The bill further prevents further nuclear weapons reductions below New START levels, setting a dangerous precedent in 

blocking progress that would reduce the dangers posed by nuclear 

weapons and that would strengthen strategic stability. 

The bill also wastes funds providing nearly $500 million increase 

above the President’s budget request for nuclear weapons 

sustainment, for missile defense interceptors and for an additional 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense site, funds that the administration likely cannot execute and did not request. Forcing the Administration to embark on a $4 billion construction project for a missile 

defense site before the system is technically reliable, proven and 

cost-effective is ill-advised, particularly in an era of sequestration 

and higher security priorities to address the most urgent threats. 

In addition, the bill fences funds for important nuclear non-proliferation efforts that reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. 

I am also concerned about provisions that may weaken oversight 

of health, safety and security at the National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons complex. As we maintain a safe, secure and reliable arsenal, we must maintain high standards for the 

safety and health of workers and the public. 

These measures waste scarce taxpayers dollars in the midst of 

sequestration challenges and do not increase our national security. 

Regarding recorded vote number 1 on amendment number 175r2 

to H.R. 1960, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014, I would like to state for the record that I oppose the 

amendment despite my yes vote, and I intend to vote no should the 

amendment come before the full House. 

The amendment would preclude the expenditure of any FY 14 

funds for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps F–35 aircraft and engine procurement until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense has 

certified certain benchmarks are met. 

While I respect and sympathize with the good government goals 

of the amendment, I believe that this amendment would lead to at 

least a one year delay in production of the F–35, causing potentially tens of thousands of layoffs across the national industrial 

base, including in my home state of Georgia. It could also increase 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
559 

F–35 unit costs at a time when unit costs have come down over 

50%. The amendment may also cause international partners and 

customers to cancel procurement plans, putting the entire program 

at risk. 

I voted yes out of concerns over the cost of the program, particularly given the fiscal climate we are in. However, upon further reflection, I am now convinced that a no vote is in the best interest 

of our national defense and workforce. 

This program is already at an advanced stage, with 96 percent 

of the F–35’s software already coded, and 88 percent of the software currently in flight and lab testing. The underlying bill satisfies my concerns about procurement costs through the creation of 

an Independent team to review the software development program 

and report back to the Committee. 

The bottom line is that this amendment would significantly delay 

the program, cause damage to the aerospace industrial base and 

prevent 5th Generation Stealth capability from reaching the 

warfighter when needed. The F–35 program is a good program 

that, like all programs, requires careful Congressional oversight. I 

am satisfied that the underlying bill provides an appropriate level 

of oversight and that the amendment would have harmful consequences for a program that I do support. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, Jr. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(560) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JACKIE SPEIER 

I strongly support the committee’s inclusion of our amendment to 

strengthen whistleblower protections for victims of sexual assault 

and whistleblowers, but believe that these provisions would be further strengthened by the restoration of language to protect witnesses who cooperate with Inspector General investigations and 

guaranteed administrative due process for corrections of the 

records of whistleblowers that have been retaliated against. 

The Judiciary Committee objected on jurisdictional grounds to a 

provision that would have ensured that witnesses and others who 

cooperate with an IG investigation are protected from retaliation. 

As Congress looks to change the culture and to prevent sexual 

assaults and other waste, fraud, and abuse in the military, all service members need to know that they have protections for providing 

information to stem abuses. The protections need to apply to individuals who first report the information. And, it is critically important that similar protections apply to those who witnessed the 

event or the waste, and are willing to cooperate and provide a 

statement in a command or IG investigation. 

Just last year, Congress unanimously passed amendments to the 

government employee whistleblower protection act. Those amendments ensured that all witnesses have the same protections for disclosing waste, fraud, and abuse in the course of an investigation, 

as do whistleblowers who first disclose this information. Every 

other whistleblower law in the U.S. Code protects supporting witnesses for those who challenge misconduct or file a retaliation 

claim. The reason is fundamental. Whistleblower rights would be 

illusory unless it is safe to bear witness in their defense. There is 

no basis for withholding the same protections for members of the 

military who may be called upon to provide open and honest testimony. 

The Judiciary Committee’s concerns about this provision were 

based on an overly-broad reading of the provision. The Judiciary 

Committee expressed concerns that the protections could apply to 

private sector investigations of misconduct. However, the amendment clearly limits the protections to whistleblower disclosures 

under this provision of title 10, and related investigations. I hope 

we can include this critical provision and address the Judiciary’s 

committee’s concerns in the final version of the legislation. 

The Judiciary Committee also expressed concerns that the three 

year statute of limitations to file a case could cause confusion with 

review by the Secretary in section 1552. I believe that for this concern to be valid there would have to be a landmark change in how 

statutes of limitation are applied. It is long-established law that, 

unless specified otherwise, a statute of limitations only applies to 

the specific provision for which it is attached. It simply is irrelevant for other due process stages. Any realistic concern easily can 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
561 

be fixed with a technical edit that the statute of limitations controls only the particular subsection or provision to which it is attached. Since 1988, corrections boards have routinely denied hearing requests. The right to a guaranteed due process day in administrative court is the foundation for meaningful reform. 

A continued Defense Department and Service Inspector General 

enforcement monopoly is unacceptable. Since 1988, every federal 

whistleblower law has included the right to administrative due 

process for either party after an initial, informal investigation. The 

Government Accountability Office has systematically condemned 

their track record of enforcement of Military Whistleblower Protections, finding that investigative and corrective action processes are 

so disconnected that only 19 percent of those with substantiated 

claims apply for relief. The Defense Inspector General has also 

criticized its own processes, disagreeing with the conclusions of its 

reprisal unit to dismiss reprisal cases more than half of the time. 

Without mandatory due process, this provision will be insufficient 

to create meaningful deterrence against retaliation. 

JACKIE SPEIER, 

Member of Congress. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(562) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JACKIE 

WALORSKI 

I greatly appreciate the efforts made by Chairman McKeon to address the disturbing prevalence of sexual violence in the military. 

This epidemic of sexual assault erodes the foundations of trust and 

camaraderie upon which our proud military tradition was firmly 

built. 

A recent report from the Pentagon is alarming. It confirms 3,604 

victims of sexual assault last year—that is 3,604 victims too many. 

Additionally, the report found 62 percent of those who reported unwanted sexual contact felt they experienced some sort of retaliation. This is simply unacceptable. Troops who have sacrificed so 

much for the cause of liberty should not be subject to reprisal from 

their chain of command after having just been subject to the emotional and physical pain of a sexual crime. 

To address the issue of underreporting and create an environment where victims feel comfortable reporting sexual violence, I 

authored a provision aimed at strengthening existing victim protections. The provision specifically includes reports of sexual assault 

as a form of communication under whistleblower protections. This 

change ensures victims can not face reprisal for reporting acts of 

sexual assault. 

I was glad to be a part of this process and to work with a number 

of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to craft serious and prudent reforms. I commend Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member 

Smith, and the staff of the House Armed Services Committee for 

their diligent work to produce this version of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and for making efforts to 

combat sexual assault in the military a cornerstone of the bill. 

H.R. 1960 represents sound policy and was crafted in an open 

process befitting of this institution. I look forward to continuing to 

work with this Committee on this issue, and am hopeful the House 

and Senate can work together to move closer to making these provisions law. 

JACKIE WALORSKI. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(563) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN 

GARAMENDI 

While I appreciated working with my colleagues on the House 

Armed Services Committee in preparing the committee version of 

the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 

2014, there are a number of improvements that need to be made 

to the bill before it is something I could feel proud of voting in 

favor of. 

The bill significantly expands our already excessive nuclear arsenal and includes wasteful spending on projects such as the overbudget MOX facilities at the Savannah River site and an extra 

$250 million for an East Coast Missile Defense Site—funds the 

DOD has specifically said it does not need. A logical next step to 

modernizing our strategic weapons capabilities would be to update 

outdated comprehensive assessments of our threats and capabilities. Unfortunately, the Committee rejected such a proposal. The 

bill also provides more than $80 billion in new funding for the war 

in Afghanistan, exceeding what the administration requested and 

almost reaching last year’s funding levels, despite the fact that 

U.S. troop levels will drop by 40 percent from last year to this. Included in this is $2.6 billion for new aircraft and military equipment for the Afghanistan National Security Force, despite their 

questionable capacity to operate or maintain these systems. Finally, the current version of the NDAA fails to ensure that the 

basic civil liberties of Americans, enshrined in our Constitution, are 

protected by barring indefinite detention, and it prevents the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, undermining America’s 

moral authority throughout the world. 

While the aforementioned concerns prevented me from voting 

Aye, there are numerous provisions in the bill I strongly support. 

Prominently among these are a 1.8 percent pay increase for our 

troops, positive steps made toward reforming the way the military 

handles sexual assault, and a requirement of a minimum of 180 

days notification for deployment for reservists. 

I am confident that through the Floor amendment and conference processes we can find ways to address these shortcomings 

and shape the current draft legislation into a bill that is consistent 

with American values and that moves us beyond both the Cold War 

and the wars of the last decade. As the representative for service 

members at Travis Air Force Base, in Fairfield, California, which 

carries out a mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near 

Marysville, which conducts an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance mission, I will continue to advocate for investing in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
564 

the technologies and military capabilities that are effective against 

21st century threats. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN GARAMENDI, Member of Congress. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS