" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

113–44 

Calendar No. 91 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1197]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 20, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

1 

81–479 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2013

113–44 

Calendar No. 91 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1197]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 20, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KRISTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

PETER K. LEVINE, Staff Director 

JOHN A. BONSELL, Minority Staff Director 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority implication ...................................................................................................... 6 

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4) ....................................................... 7 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 8 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 8 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 8 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 8 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Multiyear procurement authority for E–2D aircraft (sec. 121) ............. 8 

CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122) .................................. 8 

Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future surface 

combatants (sec. 123) ............................................................................ 11 

Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 124) .................... 11 

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125) ............................................................... 12 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 12 

Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131) ....................................... 12 

Modification of limitations on retirement of B–52 bomber aircraft 

(sec. 132) ................................................................................................. 12 

Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired KC–135E 

aircraft (sec. 133) ................................................................................... 13 

Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C–27J aircraft by the 

Air Force (sec. 134) ................................................................................ 14 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 14 

Multiyear procurement authority for C–130J aircraft (sec. 151) .......... 14 

Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial base (sec. 

152) ......................................................................................................... 14 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 14 

Army ........................................................................................................... 14 

Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance 

System ............................................................................................. 14 

UH–60M Black Hawk helicopter ...................................................... 15 

Paladin Integrated Management ...................................................... 15 

XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system ........... 15 

Carbine ................................................................................................ 15 

5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions ...................... 16 

25mm reduction .................................................................................. 16 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 16 

Sustaining capabilities of EP–3 and Special Projects Aircraft ....... 16 

Close-in weapon system modifications ............................................. 17 

Afloat forward staging base .............................................................. 17 

DDG–51 ............................................................................................... 18 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 18 

MQ–9 ................................................................................................... 18 

Reaper synthetic aperture radar ...................................................... 18 

C–130 aircraft modifications ............................................................. 18 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 19 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ...................................................... 19 

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

Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs ........................... 20 

Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle 

fuel efficiency .................................................................................. 20 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Close air support requirements ........................................................ 21 

Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program ................................................................................................. 21 

Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship program ................................................................................................. 22 

Defense ground radar programs ....................................................... 23 

Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories ......................... 24 

Ejection seats ...................................................................................... 24 

Enhanced performance round versus special operations science 

and technology round ..................................................................... 25 

F–35 production rate .......................................................................... 25 

F–35 technical issues ......................................................................... 26 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ................................ 26 

Joint high speed vessel ...................................................................... 27 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization ........ 27 

Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small form 

fit competition and contracting ..................................................... 28 

Long Range Strike Bomber ............................................................... 28 

Modernization of B–1 bomber ........................................................... 29 

Modernization of the B–52 Strategic Radar System ....................... 29 

Paladin integrated management program ....................................... 29 

Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration ................................................................................................... 29 

Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund ............... 30 

Small diameter bomb ......................................................................... 31 

UH–1N replacement strategy ........................................................... 31 

UH–72 light utility helicopter ........................................................... 32 

Uninterruptable power supply .......................................................... 32 

Use of commercially available systems to support certain Navy 

requirements ................................................................................... 32 

War readiness engine shortfall ......................................................... 33 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 35 

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

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

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

Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211) ......................... 35 

Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 212) ......................... 36 

Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced 

technology achievements (sec. 213) ...................................................... 36 

Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology protection 

features during research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 214) ........................................................................................ 36 

Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories 

for research and development of technologies for military missions 

(sec. 215) ................................................................................................. 36 

Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216) ................................................. 36 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 38 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) ......................................... 38 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232) ............................................ 40 

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233) ................................ 40 

Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the United 

States homeland (sec. 234) .................................................................... 41 

Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile defense sensor architectures (sec. 235) .................................................................................. 41 

Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program (sec. 236) ..... 42 

Subtitle D—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 42 

Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter (sec. 251) .... 42 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 42 

Army ........................................................................................................... 42 

Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project ................................... 42 

Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle ....................................... 43 

General Fund Enterprise Business Systems ................................... 43 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Internet mapping ............................................................................... 43 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 43 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development ...................... 43 

LHA–8 design effort ........................................................................... 44 

Marine personnel carrier ................................................................... 45 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 45 

Operationally Responsive Space ....................................................... 45 

Tactical data networks enterprise .................................................... 45 

Tactical exploitation of national capabilities ................................... 45 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system ................................. 46 

Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence ........ 46 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 47 

National Defense Education Program .............................................. 47 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory ........... 48 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology 

priorities .......................................................................................... 48 

Automated software code analysis tool development ...................... 48 

Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation of 

human terrain in conflict ............................................................... 49 

Combating Terrorism Technology Support ...................................... 50 

Ballistic missile defense technology programs ................................. 50 

Rapid Fielding .................................................................................... 52 

Networked Communications Capability Program ........................... 52 

Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment ............... 52 

CWMD Systems ................................................................................. 53 

Advanced sensor applications program ............................................ 53 

U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs .......................... 54 

Advanced Innovative Technologies ................................................... 54 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program 

focus areas ....................................................................................... 55 

Developmental test and evaluation .................................................. 56 

Defense Technical Information Center ............................................. 56 

Conflict Records Research Center ..................................................... 56 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ...................................................... 57 

Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar ........................ 57 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs ................. 57 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 58 

Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program ...................................... 58 

Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures strategy .... 58 

Combat casualty care research ................................................................ 59 

Common kill vehicle technology program ................................................ 60 

High energy laser weapons ....................................................................... 61 

Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition ........................................ 62 

Hybrid Airships ......................................................................................... 63 

Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan 

Recommendations .................................................................................. 64 

Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical information technology services ......................................................................... 64 

Improved turbine engine program ........................................................... 64 

Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground System analyst tool integration .................................................................. 65 

Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) 

system ..................................................................................................... 66 

Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified .................. 66 

Military Scientists and Engineers ........................................................... 67 

Scientific and technical conferences ......................................................... 68 

Tactical power grids .................................................................................. 69 

Trusted microelectronics ........................................................................... 69 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 71 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 71 

Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301) ...................................... 71 

Subtitle B—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 71 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Subtitle B—Logistics and Sustainment—Continued 

Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within Army arsenals (sec. 311) ......................................................................................... 71 

Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 312) .. 71 

Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at 

Department of Defense rates for non-Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313) ............................................................................ 72 

Subtitle C—Readiness ...................................................................................... 73 

Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for equipment 

readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321) ....................................... 73 

Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement 

of operating forces used to support overseas contingency operations 

(sec. 322) ................................................................................................. 73 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 73 

Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec. 

331) ......................................................................................................... 73 

Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 

332) ......................................................................................................... 73 

Revision to requirement for annual submission of information regarding information technology capital assets (sec. 333) ........................... 74 

Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting 

requirements (sec. 334) ......................................................................... 74 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extension of Authority .................................... 74 

Limitation on funding for United States Special Operations Command National Capital Region (sec. 341) ............................................ 74 

Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination 

Centers (sec. 342) ................................................................................... 75 

Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative 

(TRWI) (sec. 343) ................................................................................... 76 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 76 

Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms 

(sec. 351) ................................................................................................. 76 

Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection 

system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving outside the United States (sec. 352) ........................... 77 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 77 

Army readiness funding increases ........................................................... 77 

U.S. European Command funding decrease ............................................ 78 

Navy readiness funding increases ........................................................... 78 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support .................................. 79 

Marine Corps readiness funding increases ............................................. 79 

Air Force readiness funding increases ..................................................... 79 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support .................................. 79 

Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers ................................ 80 

U.S. Special Operations Command—National Capital Region .............. 80 

Department of Defense STARBASE program ......................................... 81 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 81 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 82 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request .................... 82 

Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) funding decrease ........................... 83 

Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass ......................... 83 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 83 

Additive manufacturing ............................................................................ 83 

Advanced situational awareness training ............................................... 84 

Air show support by the Department of Defense ................................... 84 

Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments ........................................... 84 

Combatant command support agent accounting ..................................... 85 

Comptroller General of the United States review of United States 

Central Command .................................................................................. 85 

Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde ................................... 86 

Contingency basing ................................................................................... 86 

Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management .......................... 87 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum 

of understanding to enhance energy security ...................................... 87 

Energy metering ........................................................................................ 88 

Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review ....... 88 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets 

and critical military language training ................................................ 89 

Full spectrum operations .......................................................................... 89 

Government Accountability Office readiness analysis ........................... 89 

Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local governments ...................................................................................................... 90 

Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, 

Title III authority .................................................................................. 90 

Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy ......................................... 91 

Meals ready to eat war reserve ................................................................ 91 

Mission compatibility reviews .................................................................. 91 

Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan .............................................. 92 

Organizational clothing and equipment .................................................. 92 

Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material shipments 93 

Readiness concerns under sequestration ................................................. 93 

Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll ............................ 94 

Report on the identification of a hollow force ......................................... 95 

Review of defense headquarters and combatant command resources .. 95 

Small modular reaction study .................................................................. 96 

Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements ....... 97 

Unfunded requirements from the Service Chiefs ................................... 97 

United States Africa Command ............................................................... 97 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 100 

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

Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

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

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 101 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations ............................................... 101 

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

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

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

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

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

Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon 

original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501) ................ 103 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 103 

Information to be provided to boards considering officers for selective 

early removal from the reserve active-status list (sec. 506) ............... 103 

Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between the active 

and inactive National Guard (sec. 507) ............................................... 103 

Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve component units within 180 days of scheduled date of deployment (sec. 

508) ......................................................................................................... 104 

National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509) ............................ 104 

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

Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected communications of members of the Armed Forces and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511) ......................................................................... 105 

Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of 

the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512) ............ 105 

Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with 

requirements for the protection of rights of conscience of members 

of the Armed Forces and their chaplains (sec. 513) ............................ 105 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training ............................................... 105 

Authority for joint professional military education Phase II instruction and credit to be offered and awarded through senior-level 

course of School of Advanced Military Studies of the United States 

Army Command and General Staff College (sec. 521) ........................ 105 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training —Continued 

Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 

to support undergraduate and other medical education and training programs for military medical personnel (sec. 522) ..................... 105 

Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523) ........................................... 106 

Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for 

purposes of certain educational assistance under laws administered 

by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 524) ................................................. 106 

Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military occupational specialties with skills and training required for 

civilian certifications and licenses (sec. 525) ....................................... 106 

Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to military information technology under pilot program on receipt of civilian 

credentials for skills required for military occupational specialties 

(sec. 526) ................................................................................................. 106 

Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 527) ............ 107 

Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North Georgia College and State University as University of North Georgia (sec. 

528) ......................................................................................................... 107 

Subtitle E—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice 

Matters .......................................................................................................... 107 

PART I—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response ............................... 107 

Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who 

have been convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 531) ........... 107 

Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member 

of the Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a sexual assault or related offense (sec. 532) ....................... 107 

Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding 

consideration of request for permanent change of station or 

unit transfer by victim of sexual assault (sec. 533) ..................... 107 

Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related 

offenses in personnel service records of members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 534) .............................................................................. 108 

Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office for Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program (sec. 535) ........................................... 108 

Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members of 

the Armed Forces on sexual assault prevention and response 

(sec. 536) .......................................................................................... 109 

Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators for members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 537) ............. 109 

Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted Reports 

and Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members 

of the armed forces (sec. 538) ........................................................ 109 

Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed 

by members of the armed forces (sec. 539) ................................... 110 

Sense of Congress on commanding officer responsibility for command climate free of retaliation (sec. 540) ................................... 110 

Commanding officer action on reports on sexual offenses involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 541) ................................ 110 

Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 

542) .................................................................................................. 110 

Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent 

panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual 

assault (sec. 543) ............................................................................ 110 

Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of 

database of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional 

duties of independent panel on review and assessment of systems to respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 544) ...................... 111 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

Subtitle E—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice 

Matters —Continued 

PART I—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response —Continued 

Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response as additional duties of 

independent panels for review and assessment of Uniform 

Code of Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual 

assault cases (sec. 545) ................................................................... 111 

Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty 

of independent panel on review and assessment of judicial 

proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 546) .............................. 112 

PART II—Related Military Justice Matters ...........................................

Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by courtmartial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes 

(sec. 551) .......................................................................................... 112 

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses 

to trial by court-martial (sec. 552) ................................................ 112 

Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence 

of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553) ................................ 112 

Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trial of such 

offenses by general courts-martial (sec. 554) ............................... 113 

Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify findings 

of a court-martial (sec. 555) ........................................................... 113 

Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase of 

courts-martial process (sec. 556) ................................................... 113 

Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between 

military instructors and trainees (sec. 557) ................................. 114 

Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain sexual 

misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-martial (sec. 558) ........................................... 114 

Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of 

members of the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559) .............................................................................. 114 

PART III—Other Military Justice and Legal Matters ...........................

Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 

561) .................................................................................................. 114 

Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (sec. 562) ................................................ 115 

Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed Forces 

for reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563) .................................... 115 

Extension of crime victims’ rights to victims of offenses under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564) .......................... 115 

Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor 

relating to character and military service of the accused in 

rule on initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565) ........................... 115 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 115 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) ..................................... 115 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) ..................... 116 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 116 

Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581) ............................. 116 

Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast 

Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582) .................................................. 116 

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert 

F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 583) ........................ 116 

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant 

First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the 

Vietnam War (sec. 584) ......................................................................... 116 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 117 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

Subtitle H—Other Matters —Continued 

Additional requirements for accounting for members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as 

missing (sec. 591) ................................................................................... 117 

Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports 

of certain recovered persons who were never placed in a missing 

status (sec. 592) ..................................................................................... 117 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 117 

Availability of Assaultive Offender’s Group Treatment program ......... 117 

Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention under 

Wounded Warrior Act authority ........................................................... 117 

Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for 

sexual assault ......................................................................................... 118 

Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and 

incorporation of civilian law enforcement best practices in sexual 

assault prevention and response .......................................................... 119 

Department of Defense child development center personnel ................. 119 

Department of Defense reports on sexual assault .................................. 119 

General and flag officer billets ................................................................. 120 

Medical management of sexual assault cases ......................................... 120 

Military dependent suicides ..................................................................... 121 

Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material ..................................... 121 

Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations 

made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission ................... 121 

Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl .................... 122 

Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities for female 

members of the Armed Forces .............................................................. 122 

Sexual assault first responder training ................................................... 123 

Suicide prevention screening .................................................................... 123 

U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and 

Families Initiatives ................................................................................ 124 

Veteran unemployment ............................................................................. 125 

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

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

Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 127 

Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay for members of the National Guard called into Federal service for less 

than 30 days (sec. 602) .......................................................................... 127 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of 

basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603) . 127 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 127 

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

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 127 

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

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 127 

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

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 128 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 128 

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

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 128 

Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for 

travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distance and additional one-year extension (sec. 616) .......... 128 

Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses 

in critical specialties under health professions stipend program 

(sec. 617) ................................................................................................. 129 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ......................................

Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of Defense 

travel and transportation authorities in connection with reform 

of such authorities (sec. 631) ................................................................ 129 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ......................... 129 

Clarification of prevention of retired pay in version in the case of 

members whose retired pay is computed using high-three (sec. 

641) ......................................................................................................... 129 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS — 

Continued 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits —Continued 

Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related 

special compensation after previous election to receive concurrent 

retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642) .............................. 129 

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established 

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

643) ......................................................................................................... 129 

Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early retirement 

credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status or 

active duty (sec. 644) ............................................................................. 130 

Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon 

death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom 

dependent status is based (sec. 645) .................................................... 130 

Subtitle E—Military Lending Matters ............................................................ 130 

Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military 

Lending Act (sec. 661) ........................................................................... 130 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 130 

Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of 

human remains that were retained by the Department of Defense 

for forensic pathology investigation (sec. 671) ..................................... 130 

Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army incentive 

to provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 672) ...................... 130 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 131 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 131 

Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements 

for health care services provided in military medical treatment 

facilities (sec. 711) ................................................................................. 131 

Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic health 

records for the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (sec. 712) .................................................................... 131 

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

Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics to members 

of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721) ....................................... 131 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 132 

Autism spectrum disorder services .......................................................... 132 

Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the TRICARE 

Management Activity ............................................................................ 132 

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury ................. 132 

Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their 

families ................................................................................................... 133 

Ribonucleic acid research .......................................................................... 133 

TRICARE appeals process ........................................................................ 133 

TRICARE emergency department utilization ......................................... 134 

Use of simulation technology in medical training .................................. 135 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 137 

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

Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear 

defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 801) .. 137 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced 

in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 

802) ......................................................................................................... 137 

Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 803) .......... 138 

Subtitle B-Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ..... 138 

Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 821) ........................................................................ 138 

Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B approval 

of major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program 

(sec. 822) ................................................................................................. 138 

Additional responsibility for product support managers for major 

weapon systems (sec. 823) ..................................................................... 138 

Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of 

Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec. 824) 139 

Subtitle C—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 139 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations—Continued 

Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor 

employees (sec. 841) ............................................................................... 139 

Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States on oversight 

of pensions offered by Department contractors (sec. 842) .................. 140 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 140 

Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United 

States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861) ................. 140 

Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862) ............................ 140 

Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863) .................. 141 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 141 

Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of athletic 

footwear in the Department of Defense ............................................... 141 

Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a 

written justification and approval ........................................................ 141 

Competition in the development and procurement of training systems ........................................................................................................ 142 

Comptroller General of the United States report on best value competitive source selection techniques ..................................................... 142 

Comptroller General of the United States report on in-line management process for the acquisition process ............................................. 143 

Comptroller General report on process and procedures for identifying 

duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement 

programs ................................................................................................. 143 

Report on the configuration steering boards ........................................... 143 

Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness reports ............................................................................................ 144 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 147 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 147 

Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901) ........................ 147 

Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the United States 

Special Operations Command by the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 902) .......................... 148 

Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, 

and Communications System (sec. 903) ............................................... 149 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from 

Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (sec. 904) ...................................................................... 149 

Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters 

(sec. 905) ................................................................................................. 149 

Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, and education 

(sec. 906) ................................................................................................. 150 

Modification of reference to major Department of Defense headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907) .............................................. 150 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 150 

Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program (sec. 921) .... 150 

Subtitle C—Intelligence-Related Matters ....................................................... 150 

Personnel security (sec. 931) .................................................................... 150 

Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 932) ........... 152 

Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933) .................. 152 

Plan for transfer of Air Force C–12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934) ................................................ 153 

Subtitle D—Cyberspace-Related Matters ....................................................... 154 

Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States Cyber Command (sec. 941) ...................................................................................... 154 

Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec. 

942) ......................................................................................................... 155 

Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for 

intelligence analysis (sec. 943) .............................................................. 156 

Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons systems 

and tactical communications systems (sec. 944) ................................. 157 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Subtitle D—Cyberspace-Related Matters—Continued 

Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

to support Department of Defense cyber missions (sec. 945) ............. 158 

Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946) ........................ 159 

Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 947) ............ 160 

Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance matters 

(sec. 948) ................................................................................................. 160 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 162 

Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites ................ 162 

Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced 

satellites ................................................................................................. 162 

Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office ................................... 162 

Estimated cost to relocate spectrum ........................................................ 163 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ....................................................... 163 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program ..................... 164 

Mainframe computer security .................................................................. 164 

Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System ... 165 

Payload processing services ...................................................................... 165 

Report on disaggregation and payload hosting ....................................... 165 

Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command Terminals for airborne platforms ............................................................... 165 

Report on North Korea’s ability to develop a functional nucleararmed long-range ballistic missile ........................................................ 166 

Report on space situational awareness ................................................... 167 

Satellite communications strategy ........................................................... 167 

Satellite control system modernization plan ........................................... 168 

Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6 ......................................... 168 

Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base ........................................... 168 

Trusted agent for spectrum ...................................................................... 168 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 171 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 171 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 171 

Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 1002) .......... 171 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 171 

Extension of authority to support the unified counter-drug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) ........................... 171 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to 

law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 

(sec. 1012) ............................................................................................... 172 

Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support 

for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 

1013) ....................................................................................................... 172 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 172 

Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021) ................................................... 172 

Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment (sec. 

1022) ....................................................................................................... 172 

Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new class 

of major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States 

Navy (sec. 1023) ..................................................................................... 174 

Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no 

cost to the Navy (sec. 1024) .................................................................. 175 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 175 

Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031) ................ 175 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United 

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

for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1032) ..................... 176 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033) ... 176 

Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on military 

commissions (sec. 1034) ......................................................................... 177 

Subtitle E—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 177 

Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041) ....................................................... 177 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Nuclear Forces—Continued 

Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 1042) .................................... 177 

Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable warhead 

(sec. 1043) ............................................................................................... 178 

Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United States 

nuclear forces (sec. 1044) ...................................................................... 178 

Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile force 

(sec. 1045) ............................................................................................... 178 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 178 

National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051) ..................................... 178 

Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic 

frequencies (sec. 1052) ........................................................................... 178 

Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed Forces 

in child custody determinations (sec. 1053) ......................................... 179 

Subtitle G—Studies and Reports .................................................................... 179 

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1061) ............ 179 

Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant Ambush 

Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062) ......................................................... 179 

Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1063) ............................................................................ 179 

Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064) ....................................................................... 180 

Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065) ............................................................... 181 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 181 

Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program (sec. 1081) ...... 181 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 182 

Airborne Nuclear Command Post ............................................................ 182 

Air Force weapons storage areas ............................................................. 182 

Army force structure and installation alignment ................................... 182 

Counter threat finance efforts .................................................................. 183 

Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas . 184 

Fiscal priorities .......................................................................................... 185 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent .......................................................... 186 

Impact of B–61 program delay ................................................................. 186 

Reforming the security classification system .......................................... 187 

Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget to meet 

the savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act ...... 187 

Strategic Automated Command Control System Modernization Plan .. 188 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 189 

Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101) ............................... 189 

Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to 

Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102) .................................... 189 

Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103) .................................................. 189 

Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for 

civilian personnel for care and treatment of wounded and injured 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 1104) ........................................... 189 

Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and 

Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec. 

1105) ....................................................................................................... 190 

Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at 

certain additional Department of Defense schools (sec. 1106) ........... 190 

Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at 

Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec. 

1107) ....................................................................................................... 190 

Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for 

purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 1108) ................................ 190 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 191 

Department of Defense civilian leadership programs ............................ 191 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 193 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 193 

Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build 

the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1201) ............................... 193 

Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1202) . 193 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training—Continued 

Training of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces 

with military and other security forces of friendly foreign countries 

(sec. 1203) ............................................................................................... 194 

United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North 

Africa (sec. 1204) .................................................................................... 194 

Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border security operations (sec. 1205) .................................................................................... 195 

Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of foreign 

countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206) ............................................................................... 195 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the 

Lord’s Resistance Army (sec. 1207) ...................................................... 196 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq .............. 196 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 

1211) ....................................................................................................... 196 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 

activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212) ... 197 

One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for 

reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213) ............................. 197 

One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 

1214) ....................................................................................................... 198 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations 

for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 

1215) ....................................................................................................... 198 

Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain 

United States military operations (sec. 1216) ..................................... 199 

Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant visa program (sec. 1217) ..................................................................................... 199 

Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa 

program (sec. 1218) ................................................................................ 199 

Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation building or large-scale infrastructure development projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219) ...................................................................................... 199 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 199 

Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231) ............................................................... 199 

Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report on military and security developments involving the People’s Republic 

of China (sec. 1232) ............................................................................... 200 

Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements 

with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233) ......................................................... 200 

Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec. 

1234) ....................................................................................................... 200 

Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special Operations 

Headquarters (sec. 1235) ....................................................................... 201 

Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 

and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa region 

(sec. 1236) ............................................................................................... 201 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 201 

Inter-American Defense College ............................................................... 201 

Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia ....................................... 202 

Status of United States military engagements with Burma ................. 203 

Taiwan air power assessment .................................................................. 204 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 205 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 205 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 205 

Extension of authority for utilization of contributions to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303) .......................................... 205 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 207 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 207 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) .......................................................... 207 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) .............................................. 207 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Military Programs—Continued 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403) ....... 207 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1404) ....................................................................................................... 207 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405) ..................................................... 207 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) ........................................................ 207 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 207 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1421) ............................................................................................... 207 

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

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

1422) ....................................................................................................... 208 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 208 

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan ........................ 208 

Defense Health Program funding ............................................................ 209 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ...................................... 209 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 209 

Army industrial operations activity group .............................................. 209 

Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel rate 

pricing ..................................................................................................... 210 

Joint Interagency Task Force—South ..................................................... 211 

National Guard Counterdrug Program ................................................... 211 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 213 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 213 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 213 

Procurement (sec. 1502) ............................................................................ 213 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503) ....................... 213 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504) .................................................. 213 

Military personnel (sec. 1505) .................................................................. 213 

Working capital funds (sec. 1506) ............................................................ 213 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507) .............................................. 213 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1508) ....... 213 

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

1509) ....................................................................................................... 214 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510) ..................................................... 214 

Defense Health program (sec. 1511) ........................................................ 214 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 214 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 214 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 214 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 214 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) ................. 214 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532) ........................................ 215 

Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability 

Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533) ................................................. 215 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 216 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters ................................................ 216 

BuckEye ..................................................................................................... 216 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization ....................... 216 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund ............................................................ 217 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 218 

Counter improvised explosive device training ........................................ 218 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 219 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 219 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 219 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 219 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 221 

Summary .................................................................................................... 221 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 221 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 221 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 221 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 221 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 222 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project 

(sec. 2106) ............................................................................................... 222 

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

2107) ....................................................................................................... 222 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 

2108) ....................................................................................................... 222 

Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109) ................................................... 222 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 223 

Access Control Point Equipment Program .............................................. 223 

Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by the Military Housing Privatization Initiative ................................................... 223 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 225 

Summary .................................................................................................... 225 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 225 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 225 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 225 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 225 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project 

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 226 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project 

(sec. 2206) ............................................................................................... 226 

One-year extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project 

(sec. 2207) ............................................................................................... 226 

Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2208) .................................................................................. 226 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 226 

Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition ........................................... 226 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 227 

Summary .................................................................................................... 227 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 227 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 228 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 228 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 228 

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

2305) ....................................................................................................... 228 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 229 

Summary .................................................................................................... 229 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 230 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 230 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) .............................. 230 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 230 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 230 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) ............................................................... 230 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................. 231 

Summary .................................................................................................... 231 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 231 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 231 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 233 

Summary .................................................................................................... 233 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 233 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 233 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 233 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES—Continued 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations— 

Continued 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 234 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 234 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 

(sec. 2611) ............................................................................................... 234 

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

2612) ....................................................................................................... 234 

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

2613) ....................................................................................................... 234 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 235 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 235 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 235 

Precondition for any future base realignment and closure round (sec. 

2702) ....................................................................................................... 235 

Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing initiative 

(sec. 2703) ............................................................................................... 235 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 237 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 237 

Modification of authorities to fund military construction through payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind (sec. 

2801) ....................................................................................................... 237 

Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority to use 

operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802) ................................ 238 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 238 

Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses 

associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811) ....... 238 

Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec. 

2812) ....................................................................................................... 238 

Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts for receipt 

of utility services as consideration for utility systems conveyances 

(sec. 2813) ............................................................................................... 238 

Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, California (sec. 2814) .................................................................................... 238 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment ......... 239 

Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region (sec. 

2821) ....................................................................................................... 239 

Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment 

(sec. 2822) ............................................................................................... 239 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 239 

Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 

2831) ....................................................................................................... 239 

Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832) ............................. 239 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 239 

Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the 

Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec. 

2841) ....................................................................................................... 239 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 239 

Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings ........................ 239 

Homeowners Assistance Program ............................................................ 240 

Military Construction Project Data Sheets ............................................. 241 

Scope of work variations for military construction projects .................. 242 

Traffic safety .............................................................................................. 242 

U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific ........................ 243 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 245 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 245 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations Overview ............. 245 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 246 

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 246 

Directed stockpile work ..................................................................... 246 

Campaigns .......................................................................................... 247 

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations ....................................... 248 

Secure transportation asset ............................................................... 248 

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer ............... 248 

Naval Reactors ................................................................................... 249 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs ................................... 249 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ........ 249 

Nonproliferation and international security .................................... 250 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation .......... 250 

Fissile Materials Disposition program ............................................. 250 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................... 251 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .................................... 251 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 251 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 251 

Savannah River Site .......................................................................... 251 

Waste Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 252 

Hanford Site ....................................................................................... 252 

Idaho National Laboratory ................................................................ 252 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ...................................................... 252 

Oak Ridge Reservation ...................................................................... 252 

Office of River Protection .................................................................. 253 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................... 253 

Security ............................................................................................... 253 

Technology Development ................................................................... 253 

Program Direction .............................................................................. 253 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 253 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 254 

Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111) ........... 254 

Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of 

nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112) ................................................ 254 

Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense facilities 

(sec. 3113) ............................................................................................... 255 

Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114) ....................................................................... 255 

Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115) .............................................. 256 

Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the 

replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 

Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116) 256 

Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117) ............................ 256 

Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life extension 

programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3118) ................................. 256 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 256 

Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121) ............................................ 256 

Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of management and operating contracts of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (sec. 3122) .................................................................... 256 

Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on 

scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3123) ....................... 257 

Modification of certain reports on cost containment for uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124) ................................................ 257 

Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory Panel on 

the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125) ........ 257 

Subtitle D—Technical Corrections .................................................................. 257 

Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (sec. 3131) ................................................................................ 257 

Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3132) .... 257 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 257 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund ................................................................................................ 257 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 258 

B–61 Mod 12 life extension program ................................................ 258 

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital 

Projects ............................................................................................ 258 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project ....................... 259 

Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that 

will be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management .............................................................................. 260 

Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences 

and other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission .............................. 260 

Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act ............................................................................................ 260 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 261 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 261 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 263 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 263 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 265 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 265 

Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal Year 2014 

Table ....................................................................................................... 267 

National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table .......................... 273 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 277 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 278 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 317 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 327 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 328 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 359 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 361 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 362 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 377 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 387 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 388 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 388 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 391 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 391 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 395 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 397 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 398 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 415 

Department of Energy national security authorizations (sec. 4701) ..... 416 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 427 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 427 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 427 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 429 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 429 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 430 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ............................................................................................. 431 

Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe ................................................................ 431 

Additional Views of Mr. McCain .............................................................. 438 

Additional Views of Mr. Ayotte ................................................................ 442 

Additional Views of Mr. Vitter ................................................................. 448 

Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Messrs. Vitter, Blunt, and Cruz ........ 450 

Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe and Sessions, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. 

Fischer, and Mr. Vitter ......................................................................... 453 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81–479 

Calendar No. 91 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 113–44 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 20, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1197] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2014 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 

construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 

and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2014; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2014; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2014. 

Committee overview 

The United States armed forces have been involved in armed 

conflict since September 11, 2001. Now, after almost twelve years 

of continuous conflict, U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan 

and are no longer deployed in Iraq. By the end of 2014, the United 

States plans to have completed the transition of security responsibility in Afghanistan to the Afghanistan National Security Forces 

(ANSF). Already, there are clear signs that Afghan security forces 

are capable of taking the fight to the Taliban, and are doing so effectively. 

Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious security 

challenges around the globe. 

In the Middle East, the situation in Syria continues to grow 

worse, with the death toll rising, the refugee population rapidly 

growing, the extremist al Nusrah Front expanding, the security of 

Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile in doubt, and the risk of regional instability increasing, while Iran continues to flout the international community with its unacceptable pursuit of a nuclear 

weapons program. 

In the Asia-Pacific region, the dictatorial North Korean regime 

has made a series of belligerent declarations, while announcing its 

intention to restart plutonium production, testing a nuclear device, 

putting a satellite in orbit using technologies associated with long 

range ballistic missiles, and displaying a road-mobile missile 

launcher. 

Al Qaeda continues to demonstrate an ability to mutate and exploit safe havens in areas such as North Africa, the Horn of Africa, 

and Yemen. While weakened, al Qaeda and its associated forces remain focused on carrying out terrorist activities against the United 

States and U.S. interests around the world. 

Here at home, the United States remains uniquely vulnerable to 

attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the provision of public services, and to national security. 

The men and women of our armed forces have worked honorably 

and courageously to take on these challenges on our behalf, often 

at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and 

their families. The committee, the Congress, and the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this service. 

To date in this First Session of the 113th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings and formal 

briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014, 

threats to our national security, and related matters. In order to 

provide a framework for the consideration of these matters, the 

committee identified 10 guidelines for its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows: 

1. Sustain the quality of life of the men and women of the allvolunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, 

through fair pay, policies and benefits, and address the needs of 

the wounded, ill, and injured service members and their families. 

2. Reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action aimed at 

restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services 

to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

3. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment, and authorities they will need to succeed in future combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations. 

4. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces to support the 

ANSF and Afghan Local Police as the lead responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan transitions to the ANSF. 

5. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces and the security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremist organizations. 

6. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter emerging 

and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, cyber warfare, 

and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their 

means of delivery. 

7. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials by 

strengthening nonproliferation programs, maintaining a credible 

nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure. 

8. Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and activities, 

identify efficiencies, and reduce defense expenditures in light of the 

Nation’s budget deficit problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force. 

9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels and 

seek greater energy security and independence and pursue technological advances in traditional and alternative energy storage, 

power systems, operational energy tactical advantages, renewable 

energy production, and more energy efficient ground, air, and naval 

systems. 

10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

11. At the same time, the committee remains deeply concerned 

about the continuing impact of sequestration on the United States 

armed forces, and on U.S. national security. While the committee 

has endeavored to address some of the adverse impacts of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 on the Department of Defense, the bill 

recommended by the committee uses the budget level commonly 

recommended by the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives as a guidepost. None of these budgets accounts for the 

possibility of continued sequestration in fiscal year 2014. 

12. Our senior military leaders have uniformly cautioned Congress and the American people that the continuation of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will damage our security and harm the 

troops they lead. 

The Secretary of Defense testified that continued sequestration 

will ‘‘require dramatic reductions in core military capabilities’’ and 

‘‘the scope and activities of our [armed forces around the] world.’’ 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned the committee 

that it will ‘‘severely limit our ability to implement our defense 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it 

will break faith with men and women in uniform.’’ 

The Secretary of the Army told the committee: ‘‘Simply put, to 

continue sequestration into fiscal year ’14 and beyond would not 

only be irresponsible [and] devastating to the force, but it would 

also directly hamper our ability to . . . provide sufficiently trained 

and ready forces to protect our national interests.’’ The Chief of 

Staff of the Army testified: 

‘‘The fiscal year ’13 fiscal situation will have grave and 

immediate readiness impacts on all forces not serving in 

Afghanistan or forward in Korea—impacts which will have 

a significant impact well into fiscal year ’14 and beyond. 

Just a few of the actions we will be forced to take are, for 

example, we’ll curtail training for 80 percent of ground 

forces. This will impact our units’ basic warfighting skills 

and induce shortfalls across critical specialties, including 

aviation, intelligence, engineering, and even our ability to 

recruit soldiers into our Army. . . . For fiscal year ’14 and 

beyond, sequestration will result in the loss of at least an 

additional 100,000 personnel, soldiers from the active 

Army, the Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. . . . Sequestration will result in delays to every one 

of our 10 major modernization programs, the inability to 

re-set our equipment after 12 years of war, and unacceptable reductions in unit and individual training. . . . It 

will place an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of our 

soldiers and civilians. . . . If we do not have the resources 

to train and equip the force, our soldiers, our young men 

and women, are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives.’’ 

The Chief of Naval Operations testified that sequestration 

‘‘would fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized, 

trained and equipped.’’ If sequestration is allowed to remain in 

place in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, he told the committee: 

‘‘[O]ur Navy may be a fleet of around 230 ships. That 

would be a loss of more than 50 ships, including the loss 

of at least two carrier strike groups. We would be compelled to retire ships early and reduce procurement of new 

ships and aircraft. This would result in a requisite reduction in our end strength. Every program will be affected 

and . . . programs such as the F–35 Lightning II, next 

generation ballistic missile submarine and Littoral Combat 

Ship might be reduced or terminated. Inevitably, these 

changes will severely damage our industrial base. Some 

shipyards will not be able to sustain steady construction or 

maintenance operations and may close or be inactivated. 

Aviation depots will reduce their operations or become 

idle. Aircraft and weapons manufacturers will slow or stop 

their work entirely. In particular, the small firms that are 

often the sole source for particular ship and aircraft components will quickly be forced to shut down. Once these 

companies and their engineers and craftspeople move on to 

other work, they are hard to reconstitute, sometimes imVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

possible, at a later date when our national security demands it.’’ 

Even before the imposition of further sequestration cuts in fiscal 

year 2014, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the committee, 

the Navy will have to ‘‘reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, 

defer an additional 84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight of 33 planned depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities. At our shore bases, we have deferred about 

16% of our planned FY13 shore facility sustainment and upgrades, 

about $1 billion worth of work. . . . By the end of FY13, a majority 

of our non-deployed ships and aviation squadrons—nearly two 

thirds of the fleet—will be less than fully mission capable and not 

certified for Major Combat Operations.’’ 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated: ‘‘Sequestration 

will leave ships in ports, aircraft grounded for want of necessary 

maintenance and flying hours, units only partially trained and 

reset after 12 years of continuous combat, and modernization programs canceled.’’ The result, he added, would be ‘‘a lapse in American leadership’’ that ‘‘will have a deleterious effect on the stability 

of global order, the perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence 

of our allies.’’ The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that as a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 alone: 

‘‘The Marine Corps will have 44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions 

across all type/model/series that will not occur as a result of sequestration reduction to the FY13 budget. Of the 44 aircraft, 23 are 

F/A–18A-D aircraft. This will result in less aircraft available for assignment to Marine F/A–18 squadrons and reduce the assets available for training and operational support. . . . The long term effect 

on non-deployed F/A–18 squadrons is the inability of the unit to 

achieve and maintain minimum combat readiness required for follow-on deployments.’’ 

The Secretary of the Air Force told the committee that sequestration will ‘‘severely degrade Air Force readiness.’’ He explained: 

‘‘Lost flight hours will cause unit stand downs which will 

result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. We have already ceased operations for 

one-third of our fighter and bomber force. Within 60 days 

of a stand down, the affected units will be unable to meet 

emergent or operations plans requirements. Lost currency 

training requires six months to a year to return to current 

suboptimal levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer. . . . Depot delays will 

also result in the grounding of some affected aircraft. The 

deferments mean idled production shops, a degradation of 

workforce proficiency and productivity, and corresponding 

future volatility and operational costs. It can take two-tothree years to recover full restoration of depot workforce 

productivity and proficiency. . . . All of these sequestration impacts negatively affect Air Force full-spectrum readiness at a time when we have been striving to reverse a 

declining trend in this critical area. . . . Sequestration 

cuts to Air Force modernization will impact every one of 

our investment programs. These program disruptions will, 

over time, cost more taxpayer dollars to rectify contract reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

structures and program inefficiencies, raise unit costs, and 

delay delivery of validated capabilities to warfighters in 

the field. The drastic reduction to modernization programs 

reduces our Air Force’s competitive advantage and decreases the probability of mission success. . . .’’ 

The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force warned: ‘‘Lost flight 

hours will cause unit stand-downs which will result in severe, 

rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. We have 

already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber 

force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected units will be 

unable to meet emergent or operations plans requirements. Lost 

currency training requires six months to a year to return to current 

sub-optimal levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers 

requiring even longer.’’ 

Our country relies on the men and women of our military and 

the civilians who support them to keep us safe, and to help us meet 

U.S. national security objectives around the world. We expect them 

to put their lives on the line every day, and in return we tell them 

that we will stand by them and their families, that we will provide 

them the best training, the best equipment, and the best support 

available to any military anywhere in the world. Sequestration in 

fiscal year 2013 is already undermining that commitment. The testimony of our military leaders is clear: if sequestration continues, 

our commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines—and 

our national security itself—will be severely damaged. 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority implication 

The Administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2014 was $625.2 billion. Of this 

amount, $526.6 billion was requested for base Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for overseas contingency operations, and $17.9 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy. The bill authorizes $625.1 billion for national defense discretionary programs for fiscal year 2014. This total includes $526.6 

billion for base Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion for 

overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget for national defense 

also included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that 

do not require further authorization and mandatory programs that 

are in current law. When these programs are added to the Administration’s budget the request for national defense totaled $641.1 

billion. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report summarize the direct authorizations and the 

equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2014 defense programs. The first table summarizes committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction of this committee. It includes the 

authorization for spending from the trust fund of the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home which is outside the national defense budget 

function. The second table summarizes the total budget authority 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

implication for national defense by adding funding for items that 

are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or are already authorized. 

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(9) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for procurement activities at the levels identified in 

section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Multiyear procurement authority for E–2D aircraft (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to buy E–2D aircraft under a multiyear procurement contract. The Navy estimates that it stands to achieve a 

roughly 10 percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts. 

CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) by: (1) in subsection 

(a)(1), striking ‘‘$10,500,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$12,887,000,000;’’ 

(2) in subsection (b), adding a new factor for adjustment allowing 

increases or decreases in the cost of the ship that are attributable 

to the shipboard test program; and (3) changing the heading of the 

subsection to reflect that the name of the program has changed 

from CVN–21 to CVN–78. 

The provision would require a quarterly report providing the 

CVN–79 program manager’s cost estimate for CVN–79. The provision would require the Navy to halt payment of fee on any costtype or incentive fee contract associated with CVN–79 until such 

time that the variance between the total program cost estimate and 

the mandated cost cap has been corrected. 

The changes in the CVN–78 cost cap are related to three major 

areas: 

(1) reflecting allowable changes in the original cost cap due 

to economic inflation, changes in federal, state, or local laws, 

changes in nonrecurring design and engineering costs attributable to achieving compliance with the cost limitation, and 

changes to correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the 

ship and personnel; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

(2) cost increases from the shipyard, resulting from increases 

in labor costs, material costs, and design costs, offset by a reduction in shipyard’s fee; and 

(3) cost increases in government-furnished equipment. 

The cost increases in the latter two categories are changes outside the original, allowable changes in the cost cap, and are troublesome. The Navy had envisioned the CVN–78 and CVN–79 (then 

called ‘‘CVNX–1’’ and ‘‘CVNX–2’’) as evolutionary ships that would 

implement new technologies gradually as they matured. However, 

the Department of Defense determined that planned incremental 

improvements for CVNX–1 did not justify the significant investments nor match the pace of technology, given the length of time 

needed to build the carrier. Instead, the CVNX–1 and CVNX–2 designs were combined into a single, transformational ship design, 

called ‘‘CVN–21,’’ with the intent to skip a generation of technology, while meeting operational timelines for delivery. 

This has resulted in cost increases in the shipyard, and costs increases in the new technologies developed and designed to be installed as government-furnished equipment. The shipyard has not 

been as efficient as it could be, but combining these two ships and 

maintaining the original construction schedule for operational reasons has resulted in reduced productivity and inefficiencies in the 

shipyard’s effort. All told, this has resulted in roughly 40 percent 

of the reason to raise the cost cap. 

There have also been cost increases in the equipment beyond the 

control of the shipyard. These include the ‘‘transformational’’ technologies of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), 

the dual-band radar (DBR), and advanced arresting gear (AAG). 

While each of these technologies represents an improvement in capability and promise substantial reductions in life cycle costs, collectively, these technologies resulted in roughly one third of the increase to the total construction costs of CVN–78. 

As a result of the scrutiny of the CVN–78 program, the Navy believes that they and the shipyard can deliver the CVN–79 within 

the cost cap for the program recently adjusted by the Secretary of 

the Navy. This derives from a number of factors, including: 

(1) CVN–79 construction will start with a complete design 

and a complete bill of material; 

(2) CVN–79 construction will start with a firm set of stable 

requirements; 

(3) CVN–79 construction will start with the development 

complete on a host of new technologies inserted on CVN 78 

ranging from the EMALS and DBR, to key valves in systems 

throughout the ship; and 

(4) CVN–79 construction will start with a revised construction plan that emphasizes the completion of work and ship outfitting as early as possible in the construction process to optimize cost and ultimately schedule performance. 

The Administration and Congress chose to ignore the lessons repeatedly and painfully learned in previous shipbuilding programs 

that resulted in delays and cost increases. A decision to skip a generation of technology must be accompanied by an operational assessment of the need date for the operational capability and a plan 

to ensure new generations of technologies are developed, tested, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

and ready for installation at the optimum time during the construction of the ship. Unfortunately, the decision on the construction 

cycle for CVN–78 construction was driven more by the need to replace the USS Enterprise at the end of her service life and the need 

to maintain workload and the industrial base of suppliers for the 

sole U.S. builder of aircraft carriers. The committee is committed 

to working with the Department of the Navy to ensure these lessons are not learned again in future Navy vessel construction. 

Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future 

surface combatants (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). Under section 125, the Navy was prohibited 

from obligating or expending funds for construction of, or advance 

procurement of materials for, naval surface combatants to be constructed after fiscal year 2011 until the Secretary of the Navy had 

provided specific reports to Congress. The report submitted by the 

Secretary of the Navy to Congress of February 2010 provided the 

Department of the Navy’s implementation plan to complete these 

reports. 

Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities 

(sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 112 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to require the Secretary of 

the Navy to maintain sufficient numbers of EP–3 Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (ARIES II) Spiral 3 aircraft and Special Projects Aircraft (SPA) version P909 to support 

the wartime operational plans of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), 

and to maintain the capacity to support five EP–3s for allocation 

to the combatant commands under the Global Force Management 

Allocation Plan (GFMAP), until the Navy’s multi-intelligence 

Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance System Triton aircraft with signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities reaches initial operational 

capability (IOC). The provision also would require the Secretary to 

upgrade the final (12th) EP–3 ARIES II aircraft to the Spiral 3 

configuration, and to correct electronic intelligence (ELINT) obsolescence problems on both the EP–3 and the SPA aircraft. Finally, 

the provision would require the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to coordinate with the Commanders of 

PACOM and the U.S. Special Operations Command to determine 

requirements for the special capabilities provided by the SPA aircraft, and would require the Secretary to sustain sufficient numbers of SPA aircraft to meet those requirements until the Navy 

achieves IOC of a system with capabilities greater than or equal 

to the SPA. 

Section 112 of Public Law 111–383 was intended to prevent a 

trough in capabilities as the Navy developed replacements for the 

EP–3 and the SPA intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) systems. The committee is persuaded that the terms of that 

provision have not been effective in preventing such a trough. The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

Navy is planning to remove a large number of personnel from the 

EP–3 and SPA programs and to use those billets to stand up an 

early version of the Triton program. However, this version of Triton 

is purely a complement to the P–8 Maritime Patrol aircraft, and 

does not have SIGINT capabilities. The personnel reductions in the 

EP–3 and SPA fleets will have the effect of substantially reducing 

the number of aircraft that can be supported for GFMAP allocation 

and wartime operations plans. The multi-intelligence version of 

Triton, with a capable SIGINT suite, is not planned to achieve IOC 

until very late in this decade. Clearly, there will be a trough in ISR 

support for the combatant commands for a number of years if these 

plans are implemented. 

In addition, the ELINT systems on both the SPA and EP–3 aircraft are very old and pose serious obsolescence problems. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends authorization of 

funding to address these obsolescence problems, as well as to upgrade the final (12th) EP–3 primary aircraft authorization to the 

Spiral 3 configuration. 

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on the current concept of operations and expected survivability attributes of each of the Littoral 

Combat Ship (LCS) sea frames when they would be employed according to the concept of operations. 

When addressing survivability attributes, the committee expects 

the CNO’s report to deal specifically with: (1) comparative assessments of the survivability of the LCS sea frames with the survivability of other Navy combatants and with the adversarial surface 

combatants; and (2) operational assessments of the core defensive 

capabilities of each of the LCS sea frames, especially when employed against air threats expected to face the LCS under the concept of operations. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to consider, as part of the recapitalization of the tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force: (1) upgrades to legacy C–130H aircraft designed to help such aircraft meet the fuel 

economy goals of the Air Force; and (2) retention of such upgraded 

aircraft in the tactical airlift fleet. It would also require that the 

Secretary ensure that upgrades to the C–130H fleet are made in 

a manner that is proportional to the number of C–130H aircraft in 

the force structure of the active Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, 

and the Air National Guard. 

Modification of limitations on retirement of B–52 bomber 

aircraft (sec. 132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 131(a)(1) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109–364) by striking the term ‘‘in a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

common capability configuration.’’ The lack of a definition raises 

concerns about whether it could also apply to the aircraft’s nuclear 

capabilities or other modifications and upgrades on the fleet. 

The committee notes that the President has yet to provide Congress the force reduction strategy to comply with the limits imposed by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), despite a requirement to do so by section 1042(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112—81; 

125 Stat. 1575). Without such strategic guidance, the committee is 

unable to fully perform its oversight role, as well as evaluate and 

prioritize resources designated to support U.S. strategic forces. 

During a hearing on April 17, 2013, concerning Department of 

Defense nuclear force and policies, Senator Mark Udall, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Chairman asked Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon whether 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request reflected the New START force 

structure changes. Secretary Creedon responded that ‘‘the way that 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request is structured is it allows both 

the Air Force and the Navy to continue their preparatory work that 

will support a decision that will be made in the context of fiscal 

year 2015 to implement either a reduction in the total number of 

deployed and total number of delivery systems. . . . The decision 

as to which of these options we choose has not been made yet, but 

the way that the ’14 budget structure is designed is to preserve the 

option as we get closer in time, as we understand more about the 

pros and cons of each option, and frankly also as we get more into 

where the whole geopolitical situation is going, where we’re going 

with further discussions with Russia, it allows us to maintain that 

flexibility for as long as possible before we make a decision.’’ 

With the approaching New START deadline, it is more likely 

that the committee will be asked to consider changes to U.S. strategic force structure when it meets next year to review the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request. The committee believes it is of great importance that the President provide this report, as well as other 

relevant documentation—such as the report required by section 

1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239)—so that it may fully assess any proposed changes to U.S. strategic forces. 

The committee supports the Air Force’s request that it adjust the 

current requirements relative to maintaining certain nuclear-capable bombers. However, given that the relevant strategic planning 

remains incomplete, the committee notes that any reduction, conversion, or decommissioning of nuclear-certified strategic bombers 

must comply with the requirements of section 1042 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239). 

Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired 

KC—135E aircraft (sec. 133) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

135(b) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). Section 135(b) requires 

that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain at least 74 of the KC– 

135E aircraft retired after September 30, 2006 in a condition that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

would allow recall of the aircraft to future service in the Air Force 

Reserve, Air National Guard, or active forces aerial refueling force 

structure. 

Under the Defense Department’s revised strategic guidance, the 

existing force of KC–10 and KC–135R tankers, along with modernization under the KC–46A program, the Air Force has sufficient 

tanker assets now and throughout the future years defense program to meet requirements without the need to reactivate any of 

the KC–135E aircraft. Therefore, there is little need to incur the 

expense of maintaining these 74 KC–135E aircraft in a higher 

readiness status. 

Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C–27J aircraft 

by the Air Force (sec. 134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 

Secretary of the Air Force from obligating or expending any funds 

for the procurement of C–27J aircraft not already on contract as of 

June 1, 2013. 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters 

Multiyear procurement authority for C–130J aircraft (sec. 

151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to buy C–130J aircraft under a 

multiyear procurement contract for the Department of the Air 

Force and the Department of the Navy. The Air Force estimates 

that the Department of Defense stands to achieve a roughly 9.5 

percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts. 

Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial 

base (sec. 152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should take into 

consideration the health of the U.S. helicopter industrial base when 

building the Department’s annual budget. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System 

The budget request included $142.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, to procure four Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. In section 934, 

the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force C–12 Liberty aircraft to the 

Army and terminates the EMARSS procurement program. However, the Army will require funds to convert the Air Force C–12 

Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration to meet Army requirements. The committee directs that the EMARSS funds be utilized to convert the transferred Air Force C–12 Liberty aircraft to 

the EMARSS configuration to meet Army requirements. Any funds 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

remaining after all EMARSS conversions are complete may be used 

to recapitalize current Army MARSS aircraft. 

UH–60M Black Hawk helicopter 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Army (APA), for the UH–60M Black Hawk helicopter. At the 

Army’s request, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 

million in APA for the UH–60M Black Hawk and an increase of 

$20.0 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and product 

improvement programs. 

Paladin Integrated Management 

The budget request included $260.2 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). At the Army’s request, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $40.7 million in WTCV for 

PIM and an increase of $40.7 million in PE 64854A for artillery 

systems engineering manufacturing and demonstration. 

XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system 

The budget request included $69.1 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM25 counter 

defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25 is a grenade 

launcher that fires a 25mm projectile selectively programmed to 

detonate in the air at a designated range. The XM25 is intended 

to provide infantry and other units with a more precise capability 

to engage targets fighting from behind terrain, walls, or other protections. 

The committee understands that prototypes of this weapon were 

acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed to Afghanistan for 

a forward operational assessment. A malfunction during this assessment has raised very serious questions about the safety and effectiveness of the weapon. The committee further understands that 

the Army is in the process of opening consideration of other available or developmental grenade launchers that are capable of firing 

programmable munitions. 

Given the unreliable performance of the XM25 and the Army’s 

review of alternative air burst weapon systems, the committee recommends a decrease of $69.1 million in WCTV for the XM25 

counter defilade target engagement weapon system. 

Carbine 

The budget request included $70.8 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Army’s small 

arms carbine program. The committee notes that $49.5 million of 

this would be for the procurement of a replacement carbine identified as the result of a competitive evaluation. 

The committee understands that the Army has reached a decision not to continue with the individual carbine competitive evaluation program. Therefore, the committee concludes that funds to 

procure a replacement carbine are no longer needed and recommends a decrease of $49.5 million in WTCV. The committee supports procurement of M4Al carbines as requested in the budget. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Based on the Army’s decision to terminate this effort, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to provide 

the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after 

termination, a briefing on the justification for this decision and a 

revised small arms modernization strategy. The committee believes 

that a stable small arms modernization program is essential and 

should be a key element of the Army’s overarching modernization 

strategy moving forward. A revised small arms strategy should include a description of M4A1 procurements required annually to 

sustain the force until a next generation small arms program is established. 

5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $112.1 million was for 5.56mm, 

$58.5 million was for 7.62mm, $80.0 million was for .50 caliber, 

and $69.5 million was for 30mm. 

The Department of Defense has identified specific amounts in 

these ammunition accounts, in the fiscal year 2014 base budget request, for reduction as a result of competition, reduced unit costs, 

and/or reduced requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $74.5 million in PAA: $25.0 million in 5.56mm, $5.0 million in 7.62mm, 

$25.0 million in .50 caliber, and $19.5 million in 30mm. 

25mm reduction 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $16.5 million was for 25mm. 

The committee notes that per fiscal year 2014 Army budget documentation, the XM1083 high explosive air burst (HEAB) and the 

XM1081 target practice (TP) ammunition for the Individual 

Counter Defilade Weapon System are not approved for service use. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million in PAA, 25mm: $8.8 million for XM1083 HEAB, and $1.5 million for XM1081 TP. 

Navy 

Sustaining capabilities of EP–3 and Special Projects Aircraft 

The budget request included in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 

$55.9 million for the EP–3 series aircraft, and $3.7 million for the 

Special Projects Aircraft (SPA). Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of 

the Navy to sustain these two aircraft fleets until the end of the 

decade, when replacement programs are scheduled to achieve initial operational capability. 

To sustain the ability of these systems to support the combatant 

commands with the capacity and capabilities required, several actions are necessary. One, the Navy needs to complete the Spiral 3 

upgrade to all 12 of the EP–3 primary aircraft authorization, rather than stopping at 11, as proposed in this budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $8.0 million for 

EP–3 series procurement. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Two, due to the extreme ages of the electronics on certain sensors on these aircraft, the Navy faces serious obsolescence problems 

in the EP–3 and SPA fleets. The Navy’s Multi-Intelligence Sensor 

Development project is developing sensors for the future MQ–4C 

Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system that could correct 

the obsolescence problems for the EP–3 and SPA aircraft. The committee recommends authorization of $14.0 million for EP–3 series 

procurement, and $5.0 million for SPA procurement to procure and 

install these sensors, which will introduce new capabilities into the 

fleet before the Triton multi-intelligence version achieves operational status. 

Three, the committee recommends authorization of an additional 

$5.0 million for the SPA program office in the SPA procurement 

line to sustain engineering, integration, and technical services support. 

Close-in weapon system modifications 

The budget request included $56.3 million to purchase and install various modifications for the close-in weapon system (CIWS), 

including $7.7 million for reliability, maintainability, and availability (RMA) kits. The CIWS is the primary, last ditch self defense 

system in the Navy fleet. 

The Navy has begun experiencing reliability problems with the 

latest CIWS version, the Block 1B. To deal with these issues, the 

Navy has developed the RMA kit that will fix known reliability 

problems and also deal with issues of parts obsolescence. The Navy 

can install the RMA kits dockside, without having to send the 

CIWS or its modules to the depot. In addition, installing these kits 

will allow the Navy to extend time between major CIWS overhauls, 

while still maintaining an acceptable level of operational availability. 

The committee believes that the Navy should move more expeditiously on fielding these kits to the fleet, and recommends an increase of $6.4 million to buy 24 additional RMA kits. 

Afloat forward staging base 

The budget request included $134.9 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for the third mobile landing platform 

(MLP–3) for which the bulk of the funding was provided in fiscal 

year 2012. The request also included $524.0 million in Shipbuilding 

and Conversion, Navy (SCN), to procure the fourth mobile landing 

platform (MLP–4). 

The Navy planned to use NDSF funds to complete MLP–3 as the 

first afloat forward staging base (AFSB–1) platform and use the 

SCN funds to buy MLP–4 as the second afloat forward staging base 

(AFSB–2). As a result of reviewing requirements for the AFSB program, the Navy has decided that some funding in the request 

needs to be shifted from the NDSF account to the SCN account, 

that some funds in the NDSF budget request are now not required 

to execute the AFSB program in either account. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase to SCN of 

$55.3 million and a decrease to the NDSF of $112.2 million. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

DDG–51 

The budget request for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), included $1,615.6 million to purchase one DDG–51 destroyer, and $388.6 million in advance procurement to buy DDG– 

51 destroyers in later years. This would be the second year of a 

multiyear contract for the DDG–51 program. Congress added $1.0 billion to the fiscal year 2013 budget request to purchase an additional DDG–51 beyond the two DDG–51s 

in the budget request. After the implementation of sequestration 

earlier this year, the Navy found that sequestration left the Navy 

several hundred million dollars short of having enough funds to 

award the contract for the third ship. 

The committee specifically recommended multiyear procurement 

authority last year that allowed for buying this extra ship and believes that the Navy should buy the extra ship to help meet force 

structure shortfalls. 

The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in SCN 

for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs to help buy this 

additional DDG–51. 

Air Force 

MQ–9 

The budget request included $272.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the MQ–9 program to buy 12 aircraft 

and to pay for various production support activities. According to 

program officials, the program has $30.0 million in fiscal year 2012 

APAF funds that are excess to program needs, since some planned 

aircraft procurements for fiscal year 2012 were delayed until fiscal 

year 2013. These funds could be used to pay for other activities 

within the MQ–9 program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million 

in fiscal year 2014 for procurement of MQ–9, which the Air Force 

can offset with the available prior year funds. 

Reaper synthetic aperture radar 

The budget request included $35.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of upgrades to the Lynx synthetic aperture radar system for the Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This request would be the first year of retrofits for what 

is planned to be a procurement costing $125.0 million over the future-years defense program. 

The committee recommends no funding for this program. There 

is insufficient justification for upgrading this system because field 

studies and Air Force subject matter experts acknowledge that the 

system is almost never used. Furthermore, the upgrade is intended 

to provide a rudimentary dismount moving target indication (MTI) 

capability, while the Air Force is separately funding a robust dismount MTI radar program for the Reaper UAV. 

C–130 aircraft modifications 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request did not request funding for 

the C–130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but included 

$9.9 million for communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $4.3 million for upgrading 

cockpit voice and digital data recorders (CVR/DVR) for legacy C– 

130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the legacy C–130 aircraft until the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request was the C–130 AMP. When the Air 

Force announced a decision to cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial production and had delivered five aircraft, 

four additional kits, and training devices. 

Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) prevented the Secretary of the Air 

Force from canceling or modifying the avionics modernization program for C–130 aircraft until 90 days after he submits a cost-benefit analysis comparing the original C–130 AMP with a program 

that would upgrade and modernize the legacy C–130 airlift fleet 

using a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning 

systems. Earlier this year, the Air Force contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to conduct this study. The Air 

Force indicates that the study results should be available later in 

calendar year 2013. 

The committee strongly supports modernization of the Nation’s 

legacy C–130 fleet, and fears that the delay in the awarding the 

study contract will cause the Air Force to lose another year in modernizing the legacy C–130 fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $47.3 million in APAF to fund modifications of legacy C–130 with either: (1) the original AMP upgrade; or 

(2) an alternative program that would upgrade and modernize the 

legacy C–130 airlift fleet using a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning systems. The use of these funds and 

the use of the funds for CNS/ATM and CVR/DVR upgrades included in the budget should be informed by the results of the IDA 

study. The committee directs that none of these funds be obligated 

or expended until 90 days after the Secretary submits the IDA report. The committee also reminds the Air Force that the restrictions in section 143 continue to apply. 

Defense-wide 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $1.89 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for the acquisition and support of special operationsunique mission kits for the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). 

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is responsible for 

the development and acquisition of special operations capabilities 

to, among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of 

funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to 

provide for the development, integration, and testing of additional 

capabilities to address identified technology gaps on USSOCOM 

UAVs. The committee understands that this reprogramming only 

partially addressed such technology gaps. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an additional $13.0 million in Procurement, Defensewide, to field additional capabilities for the MQ–9 UAV. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Items of Special Interest 

Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

find and take advantage of opportunities to develop joint programs 

that can reduce costs and meet service requirements. In this regard 

the committee notes that the Marine Corps has developed a weapon system that transforms the standard 2.75–inch Hydra-type rocket into laser-guided precision munitions. The advantages of a 

smaller precision-guided rocket are apparent, not just in terms of 

reduced cost but also operational effectiveness as the lower weight 

of each rocket allows an aircraft to carry more of them increasing 

the number of engagements possible per sortie. The committee recognizes, however, that a new smaller, precision-guided rocket must 

be a capability integrated with each services’ other air-to-ground 

rocket and missile portfolios. The Air Force, for example, is in the 

process of qualifying this precision rocket on a variety of its multirole combat aircraft. 

Given efforts to date by the Marine Corps and the Air Force, and 

the potential for achieving a precision engagement capability at a 

significantly reduced cost, the committee is interested to know the 

Army’s analysis of this capability as part of its portfolio of armed 

helicopter rocket and missile munitions. Accordingly, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, on the 

Army’s assessment of its current and future requirements and capabilities for air-to-ground precision-guided rocket and missile munitions. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the Government Accountability Office to provide the congressional 

defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, with an assessment of each of the services’ ground-attack rocket and missile 

programs. This assessment shall examine where there are potential 

redundancies in service air-to-ground rocket and missile programs; 

make recommendations where the services could benefit from a 

consolidation of these requirements and capabilities; and identify 

the savings, if any, associated with the consolidation of such programs. 

Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle fuel efficiency 

The committee notes the commitment of the Army and Marine 

Corps to reduce the operational fuel consumption of their current 

and future armored vehicles. The benefits of lower fuel consumption without sacrificing performance include not only reduced cost, 

but also reduced vulnerability of theater logistics storage and resupply activity, and increased operational flexibility. This is consistent with congressional intent found in section 2911 of title 10, 

United States Code, requiring consideration of fuel logistics support 

requirements in planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. 

The committee is aware of efforts on the part of the Army and 

Marine Corps to implement consideration of the fully burdened cost 

of fuel into its plans for reset, upgrade, and modernization of their 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

armored vehicle fleets as well as in the requirements determination 

and development of their next generation armored vehicles. In this 

regard the committee is interested to learn more about Army and 

Marine Corps efforts to reduce fuel consumption that could result 

in near-term savings. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, 

or their designees, to provide the congressional defense committees 

with briefings on their plans and efforts to achieve improved fuel 

efficiency in their current armored vehicle fleets. These briefings, 

by armored vehicle type, shall include, but not be limited to, the 

Army and Marine Corps priorities and objectives, plans and schedules for research and development, investments to date and 

planned over the future-years defense program, government and 

commercial research and development efforts including testing results that illustrate technological challenges and potential, and an 

assessment of the competitive environment for development and 

production of capable and affordable technologies to achieve greater 

fuel efficiency. The Secretaries shall provide these briefings not 

later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Close air support requirements 

The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to replace the F–16 and A– 

10 in the Air Force inventory. The A–10 has served as the Air 

Force’s primary close air support asset, having been designed for 

that specific mission with characteristics that permit it to operate 

and maneuver at low altitude and slow speeds. The aircraft is also 

heavily armored to ensure the highest survivability for the pilot 

and vital aircraft systems. 

To ensure that the Department of Defense is not heading toward 

a situation where there may be gaps in capability to meet close air 

support requirements when the A–10 is retired, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a study to determine whether there 

will be any shortfalls in capability that will be incurred when the 

Air Force transitions from a fleet having A–10 aircraft to a fleet 

consisting entirely of F–22 and F–35 aircraft. If there are any gaps 

between capabilities and requirements, the Secretary of the Air 

Force should present alternatives for meeting those requirements. 

The Secretary shall submit this study with the fiscal year 2015 

budget submission. 

Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program 

The Navy is developing the Ford-class nuclear powered aircraft 

carrier (CVN–78) to serve as the future centerpiece of the carrier 

strike group. Ford-class carriers will introduce several advanced 

technologies that are intended to create operational efficiencies 

while enabling higher sortie rates with reduced manpower compared to current carriers. As discussed elsewhere in this report, 

however, these new technologies have led to cost and schedule 

problems in constructing the first ship of the class. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently reported on significant technology delays, construction inefficiencies, 

testing shortfalls, and cost and schedule pressures currently facing 

CVN–78. The committee remains concerned that these issues could 

delay and limit demonstration of eventual CVN–78 capabilities and 

potentially affect cost, schedule, and performance outcomes for the 

next ship, CVN–79. 

Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Secretary of the 

Navy to report what program management and cost control measures the Navy will employ in constructing the second Ford-class 

aircraft carrier. The Secretary of the Navy’s report in response to 

that requirement identified a number of changes in the way CVN– 

79 will be built that will help improve on the performance on CVN– 

78. 

In light of these concerns, the committee directs the GAO to undertake a follow-on review of Ford-class carrier acquisition program. Specifically, the committee directs the Comptroller General 

to review: 

(1) program management and cost control measures the 

Navy plans to employ in constructing the CVN–79 ship, as 

identified in its May 2013 report to Congress, in order to determine the extent to which these may be effective in controlling 

costs. As part of this analysis, the Comptroller General should 

evaluate the Navy’s plans for executing the detail design and 

construction contract for CVN–79, and should pay particular 

attention to components of the Navy’s plan intended to accommodate remaining schedule risk in the CVN–78 building program; 

(2) sufficiency of the Navy’s post-delivery test plans for 

CVN–78 in facilitating timely demonstration of ship capabilities. As part of this analysis, the Comptroller General should 

evaluate the extent to which land-based testing delays for critical ship technologies have complicated the Navy’s planned 

post-delivery testing activities and schedule; 

(3) Department of Defense (DOD) analysis underpinning the 

Navy’s current capability estimates for CVN–78, progress 

made in meeting the ship’s capability requirements, and gaps 

that may exist between the likely performance of the ship and 

its major capability requirements; and 

(4) maturity and implementation of plans by the shipbuilder 

to manage the workforce during concurrent construction of 

CVN–78 and CVN–79. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit 

a report on his review to the congressional defense committees by 

April 30, 2014. 

Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship 

program 

The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is intended to 

be a relatively smaller, more affordable vessel than cruisers or destroyers that carries modular payloads supporting the anti-surface 

warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti-submarine warfare mission area. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently reported to the committee on significant concerns about the LCS program. 

In light of these concerns, the committee directs GAO to undertake a follow-on review of LCS acquisition program. Specifically, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General to review: 

(1) seaframe production and testing, including: 

(a) seaframe developmental test activities and changes 

made to correct deficiencies identified during testing to 

date; 

(b) weight management for both variants of the 

seaframe; 

(c) Navy plans for verifying survivability, including the 

use of surrogate aluminum structures; and 

(d) plans for achieving greater commonality between the 

variants, and progress made in executing such plans; 

(2) mission module development and testing, including developmental test activities and changes the Navy plans to correct 

deficiencies identified during testing to date; 

(3) lessons the Navy may be learning from the deployment 

of LCS–1 to Singapore; 

(4) results of Navy studies on LCS requirements and technical capabilities, and any recommendations for changes to the 

design and/or capabilities of either the current LCS configurations or potential future LCS configurations; 

(5) role of the LCS Council in overseeing LCS acquisition 

and fleet introduction. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit 

a report on his review to the congressional defense committees by 

April 30, 2014. 

Defense ground radar programs 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111–35) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) raised concerns regarding the requirements, capabilities, and affordability of the Marine Corps TPS–80 Ground/Air 

Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR). While the TPS–80 G/ATOR program has made progress recently, the committee notes that the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of March 2013 titled ‘‘Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs’’ (GAO–13–294SP) found that the G/ATOR program has 

more than doubled in unit cost, total program costs, and research 

and development costs since the program began in 2005. 

The Senate report also noted that the Marine Corps was at that 

time reviewing the G/ATOR mobile ground multi-mode radar program for possible joint development with the Army. 

Now, each of the military departments is pursuing separate 

ground radar programs, including the Army TPQ–53, the Marine 

Corps TPS–80, and the Air Force TPS–78 and TPS–703. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has failed to 

find a material solution to meet common requirements for a mobile 

ground multi-mode radar capability and may be missing an opportunity to develop a joint program that meets the majority of service 

requirements while reducing unit costs and saving money. The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

committee believes that the fiscal realities demand that the services look for every opportunity to develop joint programs, reduce 

costs, and meet valid service requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Vice Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, or designee, to provide the congressional defense committees a classified or unclassified briefing, not later than 

December 1, 2013, on the analysis, evaluation, and decision-making 

process of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council with respect 

to the validation and approval of separate requirements and acquisition programs for the Army TPQ–53, the Marine Corps TPS–80, 

and the Air Force TPS–78 and TPS–703. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 

submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2013, an assessment of each of the services’ ground radar 

programs. This assessment shall include a review of requirements 

and capabilities identifying redundancies, if any, and the degree of 

redundancy among the programs. The Comptroller General shall 

also include an assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of establishing a joint ground radar program and an estimate of program cost increases or decreases should such a joint program be established. 

Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories 

Throughout the past several years, the committee has expressed 

concern that the Navy is facing a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory 

as older F/A–18A–D retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F– 

35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter is available to replace them. In any 

case, the F/A–18E/F will be a critical part of the Navy’s fleet for 

the next 25 years, complementing the Navy’s F–35C. The F–35C is 

expected to reach initial operational capability in late 2018. 

Additionally, the Navy now intends to inspect legacy F/A–18A– 

D aircraft periodically above 8,000 flight hours, in combination 

with executing a service life extension program (SLEP) on 150 of 

those aircraft, in an effort to extend a portion of the inventory to 

10,000 hours. As yet, the Navy does not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for aircraft being inducted into the SLEP. The 

current SLEP engineering analysis has not been completed. In addition, the costs and schedules associated with the Navy’s plans remain unknown. As a result, executing the Navy’s plan could negatively impact the tactical aviation shortfall, as there are already reports of aircraft backed up at Navy depots awaiting parts and 

maintenance. The committee understands that more than 42 percent of the legacy F/A–18A–D aircraft, approximately 260 aircraft, 

are currently out of service awaiting some form of maintenance, inspection, or repair. 

The committee believes a strong carrier-based fleet is vital as 

part of the increased emphasis on the Pacific region. This emphasis 

requires the Navy to have a viable fleet of both F/A–18E/F and F– 

35C aircraft to avoid creating a risk for the Navy’s future strike 

fighter force structure. 

Ejection seats 

The committee understands that aging and heavy operating 

tempo have caused metal fatigue and corrosion in legacy ejection 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

seats. Moreover, the incorporation of helmet-mounted displays and 

devices creates a situation for pilots that the legacy seats were 

never intended to accommodate during an ejection event. This 

leads to increased risks for pilot survival during high speed ejections. 

The committee understands that newer ejection seats can effectively address these issues, while at the same time providing simplified maintenance and increasing aircraft availability. Furthermore, recent seat safety enhancement features provide for greatly 

improved safety for aircrew using current operational helmetmounted displays, thereby reducing the possibility of head, neck, 

and spinal cord injuries. 

For these reasons, the committee encourages the Air Force to 

evaluate a program or programs to replace the 1970s-designed ejection seats currently equipping most legacy fighter and bomber aircraft, paying particular attention to improving crew safety and reducing operation and support costs. 

Enhanced performance round versus special operations 

science and technology round 

The committee notes that the Army has developed and begun to 

field a 5.56mm enhanced performance round (EPR) which has the 

potential to demonstrate improved performance against hard and 

soft targets, in addition to other small caliber ammunition. The 

committee notes that the Marine Corps has begun testing on the 

use of the special operations science and technology (SOST) round 

which also has an opportunity to demonstrate similar effects. The 

committee understands the Marine Corps is conducting a review 

and comparison of the EPR versus the SOST round. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare 

a briefing or a report to the committee on the status and progress 

of the EPR versus SOST round review no later than September 1, 

2013. 

F–35 production rate 

The committee believes that the continued development and 

funding of all three variants of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter is 

critical to maintaining U.S. air dominance. The committee supported restructuring the program to keep production remaining flat 

for the past 4 years to reduce concurrency risk and allow the program to make additional progress in the testing program before 

ramping up production. 

The committee notes that the program has been executing close 

to the planned testing and development schedule. The Marine 

Corps will declare initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015 with 

the Block 2B software capability. The Air Force will declare IOC 

in 2016 with the Block 2B/3I software capability, rather than waiting for the Block 3F capability as previously planned. The Navy 

will declare IOC in late 2018 with the Block 3F software capability. 

Achieving these IOC dates depend in part on increasing production 

according to the current plan. 

With the program now achieving most testing milestones, the 

committee believes that the Department of Defense should seriVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

ously consider continuing with the current plan to increase production in fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

F–35 technical issues 

In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Airland of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the F–35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) discussed the development issues which present the 

greatest technical risks to the program. 

Regarding the software, the committee notes that a critical design review (CDR) is planned which will shed more light on 

progress of the Block 3F software against the requirements and delivery timeline. Block 3F software provides the capability that will 

allow all three services to declare full operational capability. The 

committee directs the PEO to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the results of the CDR within 30 days 

of its conclusion. 

In addition to software, the PEO also highlighted other known 

technical risks to the F–35 program, to include the helmet mounted 

display system, the tailhook, the fuel dumping system, and the autonomic logistics information system. The committee directs the F– 

35 PEO to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the status of the risk and cost reduction efforts to these 

four systems within 30 days from the completion of any major test 

objective or risk reduction effort involving these four programs. 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

In January 2012, the Air Force proposed the retirement of its 

RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft. The Secretary of the Air 

Force stated the reason for this decision was based on the operational capability and cost to operate and maintain the Global 

Hawk Block 30. Section 154 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Air 

Force to maintain the operational capability of each RQ–4 Block 30 

Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system through December 31, 

2014. 

This committee understands the strategic importance of high-altitude surveillance and increasing demands for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) by the commanders of combatant commands (COCOM) around the world, both in permissive and 

non-permissive environments. The Senate report (S. Rept. 112–173) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (S. 3254) required the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff to identify enduring requirements for persistent ISR, and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide 

a long-term investment strategy for meeting that requirement to 

the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees no later than May 2, 2013. The committee understands that the Department has had some difficulty in defining 

the terms of reference for the analytical effort that has resulted in 

delaying the report, but believes the Department of Defense should 

move expeditiously to complete these tasks. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide an update on 

the congressionally directed report immediately to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees, and the final report on COCOM peacetime and wartime 

requirements, and the long-term investment strategy for meeting 

those requirements, no later than February 1, 2014. 

Joint high speed vessel 

The Navy is procuring the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to 

serve as an intra-theater lift asset. In a prepared statement to the 

committee earlier this year, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral 

Jonathan W. Greenert, United States Navy, talked about the new 

deployments of JHSVs and Littoral Combat Ships and said, ‘‘[w]e 

will use these deployments to integrate these new, highly adaptable platforms into the fleet and evaluate the ways we can employ 

their combination of persistent forward presence and flexible payload capacity.’’ 

To better understand the Navy’s plans for the JHSV fleet, the 

committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy should identify: 

(1) the Navy’s intent for allocating JHSVs among the combatant 

commanders; and (2) any overseas basing plan to support that allocation. 

Further, the committee believes the Navy should consider additional functions or capabilities that the JHSV fleet might provide. 

Some of these could include support to counterdrug or counter piracy operations, command and control for joint task force operations, to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations. 

The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report on these 

issues with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization 

The committee is concerned about the continued long-term 

sustainment of the capability provided by the Joint Surveillance 

and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) E–8 aircraft. The aircraft and sensors may need costly upgrades to keep the system relevant to the operational environment. The Air Force has completed 

an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate potential replacement 

platforms to perform the battle management command and control 

and ground moving target indicator (BMCC/GMTI) missions. These 

missions that support ground and naval forces are critical. 

The AoA recommends as the preferred option a combined solution of modern business jets, using a fourth generation sensor system already in development by the Navy and Global Hawk Block 

40 remotely piloted vehicle. The analysis indicates that this option 

would offer the potential of significant lifecycle cost savings and 

improved sensor capabilities, if the Air Force could afford the upfront investment costs. Although the Air Force acknowledges the 

need for a JSTARS mission area replacement aircraft, the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request does not include a request for funding 

such an option. 

This committee is concerned that delays in commencing a program to replace and modernize the JSTARS capability could result 

in unfulfilled intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requireVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

ments and higher risk to operational forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report that 

would provide a detailed description of the Department of Defense 

plan to modernize the capability to satisfy the BMCC/GMTI missions. The Secretary is directed to submit that report no later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small 

form fit competition and contracting 

The committee has long supported and encouraged Army plans 

for a full and open competition at full rate production for the 

handheld and manpack radios of the Joint Tactical Radio System 

(JTRS) program. The advantages to the Army and the taxpayers of 

a communications system built upon non-proprietary, open-architecture technologies acquired through competition are apparent. 

The potential savings and technological performance improvements 

associated with competition among several tactical radio manufacturers could be significant over time. 

The committee is concerned, however, that a potential plan to 

award a 5-year contract to a single vendor will result in an uncompetitive and smaller tactical radio industrial base. This, in turn, 

could lead to the Army becoming entrapped in subsequent solesource procurements that forfeit greater savings and improved 

technical performance that come with frequent competition. 

Accordingly, the committees directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the 

Army’s handheld and manpack radio competition and contracting 

plans and provide to the congressional defense committees an assessment of how they will achieve the objectives of increased savings and performance through competition among several vendors 

over the life of the JTRS program. The Under Secretary shall submit this assessment not later than 60 days after enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Long Range Strike Bomber 

The committee is aware that the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Chief of 

Staff have called for the development of a new stealth bomber as 

our nation’s military posture transitions and focuses on emerging 

threats in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region. A new 

stealth bomber is essential to deterrence and anti-access strategies 

in these regions. A new stealth bomber will continue to ensure that 

deterrence remains a viable tool of our foreign policy by providing 

the President and combatant commanders with the ability to hold 

targets at risk with a versatile platform that combines range, persistence, payload, and survivability. A new stealth bomber will be 

an indispensable foundation of future U.S. power projection. As the 

only new aircraft development program planned for the next decade, continued development of the new bomber is essential to maintain U.S. teleological superiority and a highly specialized workforce. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Modernization of B–1 bomber 

The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the B–1 

bomber over the life of the airframe. The report shall be due to the 

congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. 

Modernization of the B–52 Strategic Radar System 

The current B–52H Strategic Radar System (SRS) is approaching 

the end of its useful life. The Air Force conducted an Analysis of 

Alternatives to evaluate potential replacements for this system. 

The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives expressed concern in their reports accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year 2013 regarding funding for the Strategic Radar Replacement (SR2) program. This committee remains concerned about lack of funding in 

the fiscal year 2014 budget, which would allow critical capability 

gaps, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a detailed plan with timeline on how it will replace the SRS on all B– 

52Hs. 

Paladin integrated management program 

The budget request included $260.2 million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles and $80.6 million in PE 64854A for the 

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzer program. The committee notes the PIM program will soon be entering 

low rate initial production (LRIP). Over the past several months, 

the committee notes that the Army has taken several fact-of-life reductions to the program. The Army explains that these reductions 

are due to the extraordinary fiscal constraints of sequestration and 

overseas contingency operations funding shortfalls. The committee 

further notes that the Army intends to hold to the program’s current schedule including the procurement of the full complement of 

the initial LRIP vehicles while still able to reduce LRIP procurement in the out-years. The committee fully supports the PIM program and expects the Army to continue to review the development 

schedule for other ways to accelerate the program while retaining 

cost and schedule. 

Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration 

The committee is aware that the Army is continuing its evaluation and consideration of the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of acquiring a new light armed scout helicopter to replace 

the current OH–58D Kiowa Warrior. Since the cancellation in 2011 

of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, the Army has been methodically working through an assessment of its light armed scout 

helicopter requirements and an analysis of alternatives across a 

wide range of operating concepts including manned helicopters, unmanned aerial systems, and manned-unmanned teaming. As part 

of a broader consideration of alternatives for what has become the 

Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), the Army conducted a voluntary flight 

demonstration of commercially available aircraft to refine its requirements determination process and explore how closely aircraft 

flying today compare to the capability of the Kiowa Warrior and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

could approach meeting the capabilities the Army has in mind for 

a light armed scout replacement. The committee is interested to 

learn more about the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration and its contribution to the ongoing analysis of the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of replacing the OH–58D 

Kiowa Warrior. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or 

designee, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2014 that details the performance metrics 

demonstrated by each participant. The report shall also provide an 

estimate of the costs associated with the development and testing 

of each participant’s aircraft for modifications and upgrades necessary to convert such aircraft to a fully militarized AAS. Finally, 

the report shall include the estimated schedule for competition, development, testing, and qualification of each aircraft overlaid on 

current timelines for Kiowa Warrior service life extension, safety 

upgrades, and modernization programs. 

The committee is aware that information regarding the performance of participants’ aircraft is competition sensitive and directs 

that the report shall not disclose their identities and shall, where 

appropriate, protect their intellectual property. The committee will 

work with the Army to ensure that such information is adequately 

protected. 

The committee further understands that Kiowa Warrior servicelife, safety, and capability upgrades are necessary under any potential replacement scenario in order to address critical near-term 

operational performance and safety requirements. The committee 

supports these Kiowa Warrior modification efforts to ensure that 

the Army’s current light armed scout helicopter, that has been 

proven in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, is ready and available 

for the 10–20 years it may take to field a replacement should an 

alternative prove feasible and affordable. 

Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund 

Section 8105 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 113–6) established the Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund, and appropriated more than $2.4 

billion to the Fund. The Fund was intended to prevent the premature retirement of seven cruisers and two dock landing ships 

during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. This reflected a concern with 

the proposed retirement plan that the plan: (1) was disconnected 

from the defense strategy; (2) created future unaffordable shipbuilding requirements; and (3) would exacerbate force structure 

shortfalls that negatively impact the Department’s ability to meet 

combatant commander (COCOM) requirements. 

The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2014, date May 10, 2013, 

proposes to retire these cruisers and amphibious ships during fiscal 

year 2015, resulting in a fleet of 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 

1917. The Navy is taking this action despite the fact that keeping 

these vessels operating until the end of 2014 will cost, according to 

the Navy, $931.1 million. The committee believes that the Navy 

should use the remaining resources in the Fund to sustain all of 

these ships. Available funds would permit the Navy to operate the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

ships during most of the period future-years defense program and 

would permit the Navy and Congress to continue evaluating options for modernizing and retaining these vessels until the end of 

their expected service lives. 

Small diameter bomb 

The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program fields a 250-pound 

bomb that provides low-cost, precision strike capability and is designed to increase weapon’s loads of fighters, bombers, and unmanned aerial systems. 

The first version of SDB, SDB–I, is an all-weather munition for 

which the requirements are defeating stationary targets. SDB–1 

uses global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation system (INS) data to achieve the required precision. This munition 

achieved initial operating capability in late 2006. 

The second version of SDB, SDB–II, would add a tri-mode seeker 

(radar, infrared, and semi-active laser) to the INS and GPS guidance of the original SDB–I. These sensors are intended to provide 

automatic target recognition features for striking mobile targets, 

such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command posts. 

The Air Force plans to start low rate initial production of SDB– 

II in 2014. Earlier this year, SDB–II flight test program was temporarily suspended due to a flight test failure, but has since resumed. Any further delays could affect the timing of Milestone C, 

currently scheduled for August 2013, and could cause a delay in 

having required assets available to outfit an F–15E squadron in 

late 2016. 

The committee is aware that there is a possible modification to 

the SDB–I that would add a semi-active laser (SAL) sensor. This 

might provide some, but not all, of the potential SDB–II capability 

against mobile targets. The Air Force may want to consider this or 

other options if there were additional flight testing difficulties that 

would cast doubt on the success of the SDB–II program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to brief the congressional defense committees on the status of the 

entire SDB program no later than 90 days after enactment of this 

Act. The briefing should include current status of SDB–II test program, potential gaps in capabilities if SDB–II testing were to be delayed, examination of the mix of SDB–1 and SDB–II weapon capabilities and costs, and recommended way ahead for SDB procurement. 

UH–1N replacement strategy 

The committee is aware that the Air Force has a long-standing 

need to replace its aging UH–1N helicopter fleet. The current UH– 

1N fleet provides the Air Force with a capability to provide security 

for Global Strike Command operations and to ensure continuity of 

government and continuity of operations in the National Capital 

Region. The committee acknowledges that the Air Force has had to 

make difficult decisions on a replacement utility helicopter, but believes that the Air Force should articulate a strategy for modernizing the capability provided by these helicopters. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 

the congressional defense committees a report, not later than FebVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

ruary 1, 2014, that assesses and categorizes the Air Force’s utility 

helicopter capabilities to meet the full range of nuclear security 

and continuity of government requirements and describes the Air 

Force’s strategy towards meeting such requirements. 

UH–72 light utility helicopter 

The budget request included $96.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the procurement of 10 UH–72 light utility 

helicopters. According to the Army this is the final year of UH–72 

purchases, truncating the total program buy at 315 aircraft instead 

of the originally planned 346. The committee notes that even 

though this ends production short of the original plan, the final buy 

fully meets the documented UH–72 requirements of the Army National Guard. 

The committee is concerned that the Army’s decision may have 

an impact on the UH–72 industrial base that increases risks over 

time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315 aircraft. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide the congressional 

defense committees with an assessment of the impact of production 

termination on the UH–72 industrial base and support for the 

fielded fleet. The Secretary’s assessment should address, but not be 

limited to, the potential impacts on the parts supply chain including mission modules, the availability of maintenance services, and 

how the replacement of aircraft will be managed in the event of 

any future losses. The Secretary shall submit this assessment not 

later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Uninterruptable power supply 

The committee is aware of a funding shortfall associated with 

procurement of the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) required 

for the new United States Strategic Command Replacement Facility. The committee also notes the UPS must be delivered no later 

than July 2014 to avoid significant construction delays and/or contract penalties. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2013, identifying specific actions the Air Force is taking 

to ensure the UPS is delivered by the construction need date. 

Use of commercially available systems to support certain 

Navy requirements 

The Navy faces growing anti-access and area denial threats 

around the world, specifically including Iranian small boat swarm 

threats in the Arabian Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition to this reality of increasing threats, the Navy faces tightening 

resources from implementation of the Budget Control Act (Public 

Law 112–25). The committee believes that the Navy, whenever possible, should seek to make maximum use of commercially available 

systems to fill capability gaps in the most affordable manner. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, including a classiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

fied annex as necessary, that would identify: (1) any gaps in Department of the Navy’s capability to deal with anti-access and area 

denial threats; (2) if there are gaps, whether those gaps are covered 

by other Department of Defense forces or systems; (3) if there are 

gaps, to what extent there may be commercially available systems 

to fill the capability gaps; (4) whether fielding commercially available systems could potentially avoid lengthy and costly research 

and development programs; and (5) whether commercially available 

systems are free from cyber threats. 

War readiness engine shortfall 

The committee understands that the Air Force faces a shortfall 

of useable engines for the F–15 and F–16 fleets as compared to the 

war readiness engine objective. Given that the Air Force will continue to rely on the F–15 and F–16 well into the foreseeable future, 

maintaining the readiness of these fleets is imperative. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to include sufficient resources in future budgets for engines to avoid degrading readiness. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(35) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211) 

The committee is supportive of the Conventional Prompt Global 

Strike (CPGS) program and realizes that efforts in developing 

intermediate- and long-range hypersonic boost-glide systems have 

the potential to provide significant military capability. However, 

the committee is concerned that the strategic policy issues regarding submarine-launched systems have not been considered adequately. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from executing any funds 

in PE 64165D8Z related to the development of a submarinelaunched CPGS capability until 60 days after the Department delivers to the congressional defense committees a report that addresses the policy considerations concerning the ambiguity problems regarding the launch of CPGS missiles from submarine platforms. 

The CPGS program is currently an event-driven technology development and demonstration program, and the committee recognizes that in the current budget environment, DOD needs to take 

a system-of-systems approach to develop an integrated strategic 

plan that addresses the cost-benefit analyses of various launch approaches. The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) shall conduct a study, to include the costs and benefits 

of maritime and ground surface versus sub-surface launched CPGS 

systems. While the committee recognizes that significant technical 

development remains, it is not too early to begin considering the 

fiscal implications of the various launch mechanisms, including integration costs. The committee notes that Section 1071 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239) required a report on the ability of national test and evaluation capabilities to support the maturation of hypersonic technologies for future defense systems development. This earlier report effort is synergistic with the CAPE report. The CAPE report 

shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the enactment of this Act on 

whether the CPGS activity should be managed under the Joint 

Technology Office on Hypersonics under the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering. The committee feels that 

the synergies and efficiencies under this office could benefit the 

broader boost-glide and air-breathing hypersonics community. 

Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan for 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 

212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make some 

modifications to the biennial strategic plan requirement for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The modifications seek to make the plan more useful and assign responsibility 

to the Director of DARPA versus the Secretary of Defense. 

Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend through 

September 30, 2017, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to 

carry out programs to award cash prizes in recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific and technical research and development. 

Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology 

protection features during research and development of 

certain defense systems (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend for an additional 5 years, to October 1, 2020, the pilot program addressing Defense Exportability Features to be incorporated in export versions 

of major defense equipment. 

Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies 

for military missions (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of section 219(c) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law (110–417) until 

September 30, 2020. Section 219 allows the Department of Defense 

laboratories to use up to 3 percent of their funds for internal competitive research and development, workforce development, and 

limited laboratory revitalization activities. 

Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to procure the currently deployed Blue 

Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft 

or to develop a plan to replace that system with a comparable or 

improved one. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

The leases for the existing Blue Devil system aircraft, deployed 

in Afghanistan, will expire in the second quarter of fiscal year 

2014. These manned aircraft are equipped with wide-area motionimagery (WAMI) cameras, which work in conjunction with a 

ground-based signals intelligence (SIGINT) network that detects 

and locates specific targets with high precision. These SIGINT 

identifications and locations are used to cue analysts to spot and 

track the targets through the motion imagery sensor. Assessments 

of the performance of this system in theater have been outstanding, 

and an operations research study conducted by the Air Force demonstrated that a system based on a longer-endurance unmanned 

aerial vehicle (UAV) that carries both the imagery and SIGINT capabilities would be even more flexible and effective. 

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), through the Air 

Force Big Safari program office, has already fielded a so-called near 

vertical direction finding (NVDF) SIGINT sensor on an airborne 

platform that replicates the capabilities of the ground-based 

SIGINT system used in Blue Devil. SOCOM is procuring a podded 

version of this sensor for deployment on Reaper UAVs. SOCOM 

has also already paired this NVDF system with a motion imagery 

camera, but that camera is a traditional full-motion video (FMV) 

camera with a narrow field of view rather than a WAMI system. 

NVDF systems can simultaneously detect and locate a very large 

number of emitters in its field of view. An FMV camera, however, 

can only track one target at a time because of its limited area coverage. A WAMI camera, in contrast, could track many targets simultaneously, which matches the capability of NVDF sensors. 

SOCOM is in discussions with the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) on partnering to transition DARPA’s 

Wide Area Network Detection (WAND) technology, which combines 

NVDF and WAMI and provides technology to track targets automatically. 

The Air Force has already fielded the DARPA-developed WAMI 

system on the Reaper UAV called Gorgon Stare Increment 2, and 

has funded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory to develop NVDF technology under the name Blue Moon. 

The Gorgon Stare pods are very large and weigh 1,500 pounds. 

However, the Blue Moon system has not been integrated with Gorgon Stare or the Reaper and has performance limitations compared 

to the SOCOM-fielded NVDF system. 

The provision the committee recommends would require the Department of Defense to integrate and rationalize all these disparate 

activities to create an important capability for a recognized requirement. 

The Air Force must work with SOCOM and DARPA to realize 

these objectives. The Air Force can procure more of the mature 

NVDF capability it has fielded for SOCOM, and integrate that with 

its fielded Gorgon Stare WAMI systems on the Reaper. DARPA’s 

WAND technology can enhance the performance of this integrated 

capability. Likewise, the Blue Moon NVDF technology has important capabilities that are lacking in the SOCOM-fielded NVDF system that should be incorporated as soon as possible. This technology needs to be transitioned to industry broadly for future competitions to improve NVDF performance. For the future, NVDF 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

technology must be improved to deal with encryption-related target 

identification limitations and next-generation signal types. Likewise, WAMI systems need to be dramatically reduced in size, 

weight, and power requirements; industry has already developed 

multiple competitive solutions. 

To implement this direction, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to the budget request of $37.8 million in PE 

35206F for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems. This increase is partially offset by a reduction of $2.5 million to the request, which reflects the difference between the amount reflected in the budget tables provided to Congress and the amount contained in the Military Intelligence Program justification volume. 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress concerning homeland ballistic missile defense, 

and require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the advantages 

and disadvantages of a range of potential future options for enhancing homeland ballistic missile defense, including the possible 

deployment of a missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast, 

and the possible deployment of an additional sensor on the East 

Coast. The provision would require the Secretary to submit a report on the evaluation, including such findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate, for potential future options for homeland ballistic missile defense. 

The United States currently has an operational homeland ballistic missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) system, with 30 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) deployed 

in Alaska and California. In appearances before the committee during 2013, numerous senior military leaders testified that they are 

confident in the ability of the current GMD system to protect the 

entire United States, including the East Coast, from limited ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran. The committee 

agrees with the Department of Defense that this homeland missile 

defense capability can and should be improved. 

The committee notes that, on March 15, Secretary of Defense 

Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland ballistic missile defense, as part of the homeland missile defense hedge strategy, to stay ahead of the evolving long-range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. These steps include: the deployment of an additional 14 GBIs at Fort Greely, Alaska—a nearly 50 percent increase—by 2017; the deployment of a second AN/ 

TPY–2 missile defense radar in Japan; the evaluation of potential 

sites in the United States for possible future deployment of a missile defense interceptor site; and the establishment of a new common kill vehicle technology development program. 

One element of the decision announced by Secretary Hagel was 

the cancelation of the previous plan to develop the Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) Block IIB interceptor missile for Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense. Twenty-four 

SM–3 IIB missiles had originally been intended for deployment at 

an Aegis Ashore interceptor site in Poland in 2020, to augment the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

GMD system in defending the United States from possible future 

long-range Iranian missiles. However, congressional funding reductions and technical challenges had delayed the program beyond 

2022, with significant uncertainties about its ability to accomplish 

the intended mission. Secretary Hagel made clear that the U.S. 

commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) missile 

defense ‘‘remains ironclad,’’ including the planned Aegis Ashore interceptor site deployments in Romania in 2015 and Poland in 2018. 

According to Secretary Hagel, these deployments ‘‘will still be able 

to provide coverage of all European NATO territory as planned by 

2018.’’ 

As Secretary Hagel and other Department of Defense officials explained, deploying the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska would provide 

additional homeland defense at least 5 years sooner against both 

North Korea and Iran, and at far less cost than the SM–3 IIB program. Funds from the canceled SM–3 IIB program were redirected 

for the deployment of the additional 14 GBIs and for the new common kill vehicle technology development program. They also explained that, before the 14 additional GBIs are deployed, the GMD 

system would have to be tested and demonstrated successfully in 

an intercept test, to provide confidence that the system would work 

as intended. 

This ‘‘fly before you buy’’ commitment is needed to demonstrate 

the successful correction of the problem that caused a GMD flight 

test failure in December 2010 with the Capability Enhancement-II 

(CE–II) kill vehicle. The Government Accountability Office estimates that correcting this problem and demonstrating its success 

in flight tests will cost more than $1.2 billion and has caused program delays of several years. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

has halted all assembly, integration, manufacture, and refurbishment of GBIs with CE–II kill vehicles until the CE–II correction 

is successfully demonstrated in flight testing, including an intercept flight test planned for early 2014. The committee commends 

MDA for this ‘‘fly before you buy’’ approach, and notes that further 

procurement of GBIs, planned to replace the 14 GBIs that will be 

deployed by 2017, would also depend upon successful demonstration that the CE–II kill vehicle will work as intended. The committee expects the GBI industry team to show the same level of 

commitment to demonstrating success in correcting the CE–II problems. 

In testimony before the committee, Vice Admiral James Syring, 

the Director of MDA, explained that improvements to the GMD 

‘‘kill chain,’’ particularly in sensors, discrimination, and kill assessment, would provide an ‘‘absolutely needed benefit’’ that would be 

‘‘equally important to interceptors’’ in staying ahead of the evolving 

threat from North Korea and Iran. The committee strongly supports Admiral Syring’s priority to improving the overall performance and effectiveness of the GMD system, and notes that these enhancements are intended to be cost-effective, timely, and affordable. Consequently, the committee directs the Director of MDA to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than March 1, 2014, explaining the specific GMD kill chain enhancements that would be most beneficial to overall GMD effectiveness, including any improvements in GBI reliability and performVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

ance, and how and when MDA proposes to achieve those enhancements. 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress concerning the importance of regional ballistic 

missile defense and would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on the status and progress of efforts to enhance regional ballistic missile defense capabilities. 

The committee notes that regional ballistic missile defenses provide a critical force protection capability for forward deployed U.S. 

forces, as well as for allies and partners, against missile threats 

from countries such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea’s public 

threats in the spring of 2013 to use ballistic missiles against South 

Korea, Japan, and Guam served as a stark reminder of the importance of regional missile defenses and the need to expand and improve U.S. regional missile defense capabilities. 

Regional missile defenses are a high priority for geographic combatant commanders. Lieutenant General Richard P. Formica, USA, 

Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 

and Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for 

Integrated Missile Defense, under U.S. Strategic Command, testified in May 2013 that the Global Ballistic Missile Defense Assessment for 2012 concluded that the operational risk for regional missile defenses is higher than the homeland missile defense risk. The 

Department of Defense is pursuing increased regional missile defense capabilities, such as the European Phased Adaptive Approach 

and similar approaches tailored to other regions, including cooperation with allies and partners. 

The committee supports the continued development, testing, and 

deployment of regional missile defense capabilities such as the 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system and its associated Standard 

Missile-3 interceptors, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems. The committee notes that missile defense tests over 

the last year have demonstrated increasing capability for these systems, including the capability to launch on remote sensor data. 

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest of the 

United States to pursue efforts at missile defense cooperation with 

Russia that would enhance the security of the United States, its 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, and Russia, particularly against missile threats from Iran. 

The provision states that such cooperation should not ‘‘in any 

way limit United States’’ or NATO’s missile defense capabilities,’’ 

and that the United States should not provide Russia with sensitive information that would compromise United States national 

security, including hit-to-kill technology and interceptor telemetry. 

It also states that such cooperation should be pursued in a manner 

that ensures that classified U.S. information is appropriately safeguarded and protected from unauthorized disclosure. 

In testimony to the committee on May 9, 2013, Madelyn Creedon, 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

stated that the United States ‘‘continues to seek cooperation with 

Russia on missile defense, both bilaterally and with our allies, 

through the NATO-Russia Council. We are pursuing this cooperation because it would be in the security interest of all parties and 

could strengthen the defensive capabilities of both NATO and Russia.’’ She also testified that the ‘‘United States has pursued missile 

defense cooperation with Russia with the clear understanding that 

we will not accept constraints on our missile defense systems, we 

will implement the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach], 

and Russia will not have command and control over NATO ballistic 

missile defense efforts.’’ 

The committee notes that the NATO Chicago Summit statement 

of May 20, 2012, reiterates NATO’s commitment to missile defense 

cooperation with Russia, ‘‘such as the recent [NATO-Russia Council] Theatre Missile Defense Exercise,’’ in order to ‘‘enhance European security.’’ The statement also says, ‘‘we look forward to establishing the proposed joint NATO-Russia Missile Data Fusion Centre and the joint Planning Operations Centre to cooperate on missile defense. We propose to develop a transparency regime based 

upon a regular exchange of information about current respective 

missile defense capabilities of NATO and Russia.’’ 

Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the 

United States homeland (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Missile Defense Agency to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable 

sensor, at a location optimized to support the defense of the United 

States homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats. The 

provision would also authorize $30.0 million for the Missile Defense 

Agency for the initial costs toward deployment of the radar. 

The committee notes that the Director of the Missile Defense 

Agency and the Commander of the Joint Functional Component 

Command for Integrated Missile Defense have indicated that their 

highest future investment priority for homeland ballistic missile 

defense is the enhancement of sensor capabilities that will improve 

threat discrimination and kill assessment, and thus permit more 

effective defense. This provision would address that future investment priority. 

The committee understands that the Missile Defense Agency has 

expressed the importance of enhanced sensor capabilities relative 

to both North Korea and Iran. 

The committee believes that the additional sensor capability required by this provision should optimize the defense of the entire 

United States homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats 

from both North Korea and Iran. 

Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile defense 

sensor architectures (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of options and alternatives for future ballistic missile defense sensor architectures in 

order to enhance U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities in a costeffective, operationally effective, timely, and affordable manner. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a report 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

to Congress with the results of the evaluation, including such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers 

appropriate. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) terminated the program to develop the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) because it concluded the acquisition risk and the cost 

were too high and that it would not be affordable. PTSS was intended to provide persistent space-based tracking of regional and 

long-range ballistic missiles from nations such as North Korea and 

Iran, particularly to permit enhanced defense against large regional missile raids. The committee notes that the military still has 

a need for improved tracking and targeting of ballistic missiles. It 

is not yet clear how DOD intends to meet the need for enhanced 

sensor coverage in the absence of PTSS. The committee expects 

DOD to take advantage of the lessons learned from PTSS in its 

evaluation of options for future sensor architectures. 

In testimony before this committee, a number of witnesses, including Vice Admiral James Syring, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, testified that enhancing our missile defense sensor 

system is a key near-term priority for improving our homeland and 

regional missile defense capability, particularly for improving discrimination and kill assessment of missile threats. 

Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program 

(sec. 236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2014 Department of Defense 

funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System. 

Subtitle D—Reports and Other Matters 

Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on 

the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter (sec. 251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to produce an annual report on the VXX presidential helicopter program until the program enters full rate production or is cancelled, whichever comes first. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project 

The budget request included $23.3 million across a number of 

program elements for the development of a new blast test manikin 

that would respond in a biofidelic manner when exposed to underbody blast conditions experienced by mounted soldiers. 

The committee notes that the development of such a test manikin would significantly improve the Department’s ability to measure the projected injuries that could be caused by various blast 

events caused by improvised explosive devices. Such information 

would lead to improved survivability of ground combat vehicles. 

Due to various programmatic issues, the program is facing a budget shortfall that would lead to a schedule slip that would adversely 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

impact the timeliness of critical design data for ground combat vehicles. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 

62618A for the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project. 

Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle 

The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 35205A for contract close-out for the now-terminated long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle. The committee notes that the amount required for 

termination costs has not been determined and should be covered 

by prior years’ appropriations. The committee recommends no funding for this activity in fiscal year 2014. 

General Fund Enterprise Business Systems 

The budget request included $17.3 million in PE 64882A for General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS). The committee 

notes that funds for the development of a classified module for 

GFEBS were provided in a prior year. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $17.1 million in PE 64882A for GFEBS. 

Internet mapping 

The budget request included $33.9 million in PE 65803A for 

Technical Information Activities. Cyberspace is a vast new operational domain that has extensive and varied topography. As the 

committee emphasized in its report (S. Rept. 112–173) accompanying S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), charting this new terrain is as 

fundamental to operations in cyberspace as maps of physical terrain have always been to military campaigns. 

Despite the obvious need, attempts to map the Internet so far 

have been very modest. The Internet has appeared to be too complex, too large in scale, and experiencing changes too rapidly. However, the committee is persuaded that commercial technology and 

data sources are now available to capture the necessary detail at 

the required speed and volume. 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence understands the need for a dynamic, comprehensive Internet mapping 

capability, and is working with the Air Force Research Laboratory 

to fund pilot projects to demonstrate the potential of commercial 

technology and data sources. The Army’s Geospatial Center under 

the Engineer Research and Development Center has also initiated 

research and development to map this 21st century terrain. 

The committee recommends authorization of an increase of $5.0 

million in PE 65803A for the Army Geospatial Enterprise project 

to enhance and expand its Internet mapping research. 

Navy 

Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development 

The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 64786N for developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon. This 

follows on an enacted funding level of $86.8 million in fiscal year 

2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to develop an OASuW 

weapon system or systems solution that can be launched from the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

air or from surface vessels against hostile surface targets. These efforts were largely in response to an urgent operational need statement (UONS) seeking immediate capability. 

In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a request 

for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping contracts, 

and establish a government program office team. The Navy also 

had planned to issue a contract for $31.5 million for an accelerated 

development effort to field an interim OASuW capability in April 

2013. That contract effort has since been suspended due to changing priorities within the Navy, and some disagreement about the 

validity of the UONS that initiated the effort. The budget exhibits 

indicate that the funds instead would be used to mature technologies applicable to an OASuW program. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Navy planned to spend the year preparing for a milestone A acquisition decision that would not occur 

until at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year 

2015, the Navy budget exhibits indicate that the Navy will be conducting competitive prototyping if required under new technology 

development contracts awarded in fiscal year 2015. It is clear to 

the committee that the Navy intends to conduct no such competitive prototyping, but will instead try to transition a developmental 

effort from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) into a program of record. 

The committee fails to see the need to invest so much in a program for which the urgency of the UONS is now in doubt, and certainly not to down select prematurely to a single program responding to a near-term requirement that would not deliver capability in 

the near term. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in PE 64786N. The committee believes it would be prudent to 

continue government support activities anticipating a successful 

milestone A graduation in fiscal year 2015, but that the Navy 

should be able to do this with $36.0 million in fiscal year 2014, an 

increase of roughly 39 percent above the fiscal year 2013 effort that 

was not related to the cancelled accelerated development program. 

The committee further expects the Navy to present a plan that: 

(1) pursues a more competitive approach; and (2) yields a program 

proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 before deciding on a 

particular technical solution. 

LHA–8 design effort 

The budget request included $155.3 million in PE 64567N for 

various ship design and research and development efforts, including $30.8 million for the next amphibious assault ship, LHA–8. 

Within the $30.8 million, $14.5 million is for LHA–8 ship design. 

Navy LHA–8 program development and design activities have involved two shipyards, among other contractors. The Navy intends 

to begin procurement funding for LHA–8 in fiscal year 2015. 

Repeated Navy shipbuilding programs have shown that failing to 

complete a ship’s design before starting construction inevitably 

leads to cost growth and schedule delays. The committee believes 

that the Navy should invest more than it is currently planning to 

invest in maturing the design of LHA–8 before starting construction activities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 64567N for maturing the LHA–8 design. 

Marine personnel carrier 

The budget request included $20.9 million in PE 26623M for the 

Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The committee notes that the 

Marine Corps has deferred acquisition of the MPC until after it 

meets more urgent requirements for a new amphibious combat vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The committee further 

notes that there are prior-year funds available to continue any 

MPC-related requirements analysis and determination or technology studies until a decision is made regarding the sequencing 

and availability of resources for this capability. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.9 million in PE 26623M for 

the MPC. 

Air Force 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The fiscal year 2014 budget requested no funding for the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) rejected the proposed termination of the ORS Office and required its 

location be separate and distinct from the headquarters of the Air 

Force Space and Missile System Center while reporting to the Director of the Center. Congress awaits the reports required from the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239) on how the Department of Defense (DOD) will implement the legislation and move ORS concepts into space acquisition programs. Most if not all of the concepts championed by the 

ORS office such as low cost launch, disaggregation, and common 

bus structures are now being embraced by DOD in times of fiscal 

constraint. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million 

to PE 64857F to continue the operations of the ORS office and 

work on a low cost weather satellite as was briefed to the congressional defense committees. 

Tactical data networks enterprise 

The budget request for tactical data networks enterprise included 

$51.5 million in PE 64281F, including $21.4 million for airborne 

networking enterprise. 

Only $6.2 million of the amount for airborne networking enterprise is explained anywhere in the unclassified or classified budget 

documentation. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction 

of $15.2 million in PE 64281F. 

Tactical exploitation of national capabilities 

The budget request included $89.8 million in PE 27247F for the 

tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP) program. Included within this amount is $48.0 million to develop a communications pod for F–15 fighters to enable 5th generation and 4th generation fighters to communicate with one another. The total also 

includes $28.8 million to procure advanced sensors and components 

for installation on these communications pods. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

The committee appreciates the fact that elements of the Air 

Force are finally responding to the serious and embarrassing problem that the 5th generation fighters (the F–22 and the F–35) cannot communicate with one another or with the 4th generation 

fighters. However, there are now multiple initiatives underway in 

the Air Force that are not coordinated or well-planned. In addition, 

there is no justification for pursuing fighter data link developments 

in the TENCAP program, especially since this initiative will not 

address the problem of relaying national-level intelligence information to the fighters or relaying tactical information from the fighters to national-level systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $76.8 million. 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system 

The budget request included $57.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E–8 modifications program and 

$13.2 million in PE 27581F within Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for Joint Surveillance/Target 

Attack Radar Systems (JSTARS). The level of the RDT&E request 

reflects a reduction of $11.0 million from the enacted level of $24.2 

million in fiscal year 2013, largely due to the planned retirement 

of the T–3 aircraft that has been a dedicated testing and development platform for the JSTARS program. 

Although there have certainly been reductions in current development activities, that does not mean that all development and integration activities are over. Losing the dedicated testing platform 

is also troublesome because the Air Force has decided it cannot afford to modernize the JSTARS capability by fielding a new platform. That means that the Air Force will be relying on the 16 operational JSTARS aircraft and 11 Global Hawk Block 40 aircraft to 

provide all of the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator (GMTI) support for ground force operations for 

the foreseeable future. Since the peacetime demand for these SAR 

and GMTI services is so high, retiring the T–3 aircraft will mean 

that operational aircraft would have to be diverted from other important tasks to support testing. 

Therefore, to avoid this situation, the committee recommends an 

increase of $9.9 million in PE 27581F for RDT&E to sustain T–3 

operations during fiscal year 2014. 

Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence 

The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 33140F for the 

Information Systems Security Program. 

The committee has stressed for several years that the cybersecurity problem is largely due to vulnerabilities in the software controlling computing devices. The Air Force established the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence (ASACOE) in 2007 in 

response to a serious breach that illuminated the software vulnerability problem in the Air Force and across the whole Department 

of Defense (DOD). Despite the seriousness of the problem, however, 

the Air Force has failed to provide the ASACOE with adequate 

funding. While funding for the ASACOE’s government personnel is 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

included in annual budget requests, funds for contractor support, 

bulk licenses for code analysis tools, and other expenses necessary 

to carry out the Center’s mission are not budgeted, forcing the Center to live precariously on periodic fund transfers from other 

sources. 

Nonetheless, despite this handicap, the ASACOE has earned a 

reputation for effectiveness and lasting impacts in improving the 

security of many applications and acquisition programs, in the Air 

Force and across DOD. In a report to Congress in July 2011, the 

Secretary of the Air Force stated that ‘‘the capabilities demonstrated by ASACOE are integral to the technical tool box’’ that 

DOD will use to implement its Supply Chain Risk Management 

strategy. 

A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software and 

software-based applications listed the ASACOE and the National 

Security Agency’s Center for Assured Software as organizations 

that would be leveraged to implement DOD’s Trusted Systems and 

Networks strategy. The report further stated that an internal DOD 

study concluded that software vulnerability detection should be ‘‘organized centrally’’ to assure ‘‘a consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive coverage’’ at least until software assurance expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the 

Department. The committee believes that the ASACOE could significantly contribute to the implementation of section 933 of the 

National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239). 

The mission of ASACOE is to educate, train, equip, and assist 

program management offices to achieve security in software developments and acquisitions. It provides these services through its expertise in software assurance requirements, design, standards, best 

practices, technology and tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, and remediation. 

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 

33140F to enable the ASACOE to fulfill this mission. These funds 

will allow ASACOE to exercise the option year on its current contract. The committee urges the Air Force to establish a regular 

funding line in future budget requests for contractor support and 

bulk license procurement, and a plan for assessment and remediation of critical software systems. 

Defense-wide 

National Defense Education Program 

The budget request included $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z for 

the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) that funds three 

activities related to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: (1) Science, Mathematics, and Research 

for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program; (2) National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF); and 

(3) pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK–12) STEM. 

In the fiscal year 2014 President’s budget request, the administration consolidated most STEM programs across the government, 

including the Department of Defense (DOD), to the Department of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

Education, the National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian 

Institution. While the consolidation was well-intended to eliminate 

unnecessary duplication of activities in this area across hundreds 

of programs, little analytical effort appeared to be expended to determine which exact programs should be transferred. In the case 

of DOD, the PK–12 program was terminated with much of the 

funding transferred to NSSEFF. Given that DOD has a vested interest in building a foundation with PK–12 activities to motivate 

and encourage children to pursue STEM careers for national security purposes, the committee directs that $10.0 million in this PE 

be transferred from NSSEFF back to PK–12 activities that have 

participation by DOD laboratories and directly benefit the children 

of DOD families. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

report to the congressional defense committees on DOD execution 

of the NDEP no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

The report will include an overall assessment of the outcomes of 

the NDEP program; a historic and projected examination of 

SMART, NSSEFF, and PK–12 STEM funding levels; a comparison 

of NDEP to other federal government funded STEM education programs; and any recommendations on improving program execution. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory 

The budget request included $46.9 million in PE 62234D8Z for 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, an 

increase of $10.0 million from the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

The committee believes the increase is unjustified and rec- ommends a decrease of $5.0 million. 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities 

The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62251D8Z for 

applied research for the advancement of science and technology 

(S&T) priorities. This program element was newly established to 

fund key research opportunities identified by the S&T Priority 

Steering Councils. 

The committee believes that this funding is more appropriate in 

the services’ S&T budgets and recommends a decrease of $15.0 million. 

Automated software code analysis tool development 

The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 62668D8Z for 

Cyber Security Research, and $19.7 million in PE 63668D8Z for 

Cyber Security Advanced Research. 

The Assuring Effective Missions projects in these two program 

elements duplicate research that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency is conducting under the Plan X program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease to the request of $2.0 

million and $3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively. 

In two National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee included provisions requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

take concrete steps to improve the security of the software that is 

the target of the cyber attacks that DOD suffers relentlessly. In the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239), Congress established mandatory requirements for 

the use of automated code analysis tools in the development and 

testing of software for DOD systems. The committee’s understanding was that DOD officials agreed that the use of such tools 

is critically important to cybersecurity. 

The most capable tools currently available are built by commercial companies with little to no government investment. These tools 

have progressed in performance, but the committee believes that 

DOD should be investing in improved tools to achieve fewer false 

positives and negatives in identifying defects and vulnerabilities. 

The committee also believes that DOD should be investing in socalled smart fuzzing tools to identify exploitable vulnerabilities in 

software. Such tools are used routinely and very effectively in the 

intelligence community, but not so far by the DOD acquisition community. The committee recommends authorization of $2.0 million and 

$3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively, to develop automated code analysis tools, including fuzzing tools. The 

committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research 

and Engineering to include funds for this purpose in future budget 

requests. 

Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation 

of human terrain in conflict 

The budget request terminated the Human Social Culture Behavior (HSCB) program. The fiscal year 2013 budget request had 

$6.8 million in PE 62670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Applied Research), 

$8.2 million in PE 63670D8Z (HSCB Advanced Development), and 

$5.1 million in PE 64670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Research and Engineering). 

The committee notes that the list of priority missions of the U.S. 

armed forces released in the fiscal year 2014 budget request had 

counter terrorism and irregular warfare as the first mission. During the course of the last 12 years of conflicts, one key lesson that 

has emerged is the need for the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

develop a rigorous comprehensive understanding of the human terrain in which it is operating. A deep understanding of the cultural, 

social, religious, and ethnic factors on the ground are vital to successful operations. While the Department claims that each of the 

services are increasing their investments in these areas, eliminating the need for defense-wide funding, the committee has not 

seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case. 

In 2008, DOD created the HSCB program to rapidly transition 

basic research to tools for military personnel to increase intelligence collection and integration, and provide our warfighters better situational awareness and capabilities on the battlefield. Since 

its establishment, the HSCB program has developed and 

transitioned operational tools to U.S. Special Operations Command, 

U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center, and International Security Agency Forces Joint Command 

Headquarters in Afghanistan. HBSC fielded tools include: data ingestion, analysis and modeling capabilities; behavioral modeling caVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

pabilities; geospatial and social network analysis tools; and automated techniques to rapidly extract persons, events and sentiments. 

In 2009, the Defense Science Board, in its report ‘‘Understanding 

Human Dynamics’’, identified a number of key gaps in the DOD’s 

knowledge of human dynamics. The HSCB program addresses a 

majority of these gaps to include: multi-domain, multi-speaker spoken conversation, transcription and translation; technologies for extracting knowledge from both structured and unstructured human 

networks; automated assessments of the human terrain with an 

emphasis on attitudes, influence networks, and the effects of strategic communication; gaming for virtual training and mission rehearsal; automated sentiment, intention, and deception detection; 

and dynamic network analysis to understand influence, attitudes, 

and beliefs. 

Given the overall importance of this area, the committee rec- ommends an increase of $5.0 million for each of the above program 

elements, for a total of $15.0 million. Furthermore, the committee 

directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the Department’s 

overall investment strategy in the field of human, social, cultural, 

and behavior research and engineering, an assessment of the operational utility of fielded HSCB tools, and a plan for transitioning 

funding for this area from defense-wide activities to those funded 

by the services. 

Combating Terrorism Technology Support 

The budget request included $77.8 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

the Combating Terrorism Technical Support (CTTS) program, a 

modest increase from $77.1 million in fiscal year 2013. 

The committee supports the mission of the CTTS program to rapidly develop and transition a wide range of technologies to the 

joint, interagency, and international communities focused on combating terrorism. However, in the current budgetary environment, 

the committee observes—based upon an analysis of CTTS programs 

completed in fiscal year 2012 and ongoing in fiscal year 2013—that 

there is a significant amount of work conducted by this program 

that is more suited to be funded by the Special Operations Command and its associated components, as well as by the services. 

Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.0 million to 

PE 63122D8Z. 

Ballistic missile defense technology programs 

The budget request included $309.2 million in PE 63175C for the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for development of ballistic missile 

defense technology, including $229.9 million for advanced technology development, and $70.0 million for the Common Kill Vehicle 

technology development program, which is a new program described elsewhere in this report. 

The committee notes that MDA has placed a number of previous 

technology development programs, which had been in separate program elements, into a single technology development program element. The committee is concerned that this consolidation of all 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

technology development projects into a single program element 

may degrade transparency and oversight, which would be contrary 

to the interests of the committee and to the MDA efforts to improve 

transparency and oversight. 

The committee also notes that advanced technology development funding for fiscal year 2014, in addition to the $70.0 million for the 

common kill vehicle technology development program, spikes at 

$230.0 million, from a level of $76.0 million in fiscal year 2013, and 

is planned to come down in fiscal year 2015 and beyond to a level 

of about $138.0 million per year. The committee observes that a 1– 

year spike in technology development funding will not create sustainable progress, and is likely to lead to significant program management and execution challenges, as well as starting work that 

would not be continued in future years. 

One of the previous MDA program elements that has been moved 

into the technology development program element in the budget request is the directed energy program within the Weapons Technology project, for which $83.5 million is requested. The committee 

notes that the MDA-directed energy research and development program, along with other Department of Defense-directed energy programs, do not have an adequate level of common metrics for oversight and program evaluation, as described elsewhere in this report. Furthermore, one of MDA’s directed energy projects, the 

Diode-Pumped Alkalai Laser System (DPALS) project, does not 

have the same level of coordination and oversight from an array of 

directed energy experts as the fiber-combining laser project, which 

includes the involvement of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency. Furthermore, the committee believes that MDA 

continues to place too much focus on high-energy laser lethality 

work for future boost-phase intercept missions, years before it is 

known whether the technology will ever permit such applications. 

Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million to the DPALS project in the directed energy portion of the 

weapons technology component of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology, and an undistributed reduction of $25.0 million across 

other portions of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology as 

unsustainable growth. The committee also directs MDA to brief the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days of the enactment 

of this Act on a strategy for broadening the DPALS effort to encourage effective peer review, competition, and increased involvement of the high-energy laser expert community. 

The committee notes that the new Common Kill Vehicle Technology research and development program is planned for consistent 

levels of funding across the future-years defense program, which 

will allow for a sustained research and development effort. The 

committee believes this stable funding approach program will permit sustainable efforts and results. 

Rapid Fielding 

The budget request included $315.0 million in Rapid Fielding 

programs spread between Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations ($174.4 million in PE 63648D8Z), Emerging Capabilities 

Technology Development ($62.0 million in 63699D8Z), and Quick 

Reaction Special Projects ($78.5 million in 63826D8Z). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense is 

shifting its Rapid Fielding operational model from primarily nearterm gaps to a renewed look at longer-term interest areas that are 

more strategic in nature. In addition, the committee supports the 

Department’s move to fund more conceptual, developmental, and 

operational prototyping. The committee urges the Rapid Fielding 

program to spearhead efforts to find innovative integrated design 

teams that can develop capabilities at far less cost than traditional 

defense contractors. The committee notes the design of the 5th 

Generation Aerial Target as one example where such a design and 

management philosophy can potentially lead to significant gains in 

affordability for the Department. 

To encourage greater quality versus quantity of its projects, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63648D8Z 

and $20.0 million in PE 63826D8Z from the Quick Reaction Fund 

and Rapid Reaction Fund. 

Networked Communications Capability Program 

The budget request included $20.0 million for the Networked 

Communications Capability Program, PE 63662D8Z. 

The committee understands the importance of the Department of 

Defense’s needs in accelerating its wireless mobile networking capabilities through both greater leveraging of commercial capabilities, as well as pursuing solutions to defense unique requirements. 

However, the committee observes that there is significant investment across all the services and the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) in this area, and questions the value of 

this program at the defense-wide level. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million and directs this activity to 

focus on coordinating wireless mobile networking capabilities 

across the services and DARPA, in coordination with the Defense 

Information Systems Agency and the Department’s Chief Information Officer. 

Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment 

The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63680D8Z for 

defense-wide manufacturing science and technology and $14.0 million in PE 67210D8Z for industrial base analysis and sustainment. 

The committee, along with other congressional defense committees, 

has been a strong supporter of programs that advance innovation 

in manufacturing and that sustain targeted sectors and capabilities 

of the defense industrial base. This view has also been expressed 

by prior studies of the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as the 

most recent Quadrennial Defense Review. In the current budgetary 

environment with an increased focus on affordability, investments 

in advancing manufacturing technologies have shown significant 

overall reductions in production and life cycle costs. 

Despite the critical importance of manufacturing technology, the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) overall manufacturing investment 

is only 0.3 percent of overall funding for Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation—well short of the 1 percent goal recommended by the DSB. Last year, Congress provided an additional 

$30.0 million to the Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF) program for advanced manufacturing technologies. Recent examples of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

IBIF projects include improved producibility of the electro-optical 

targeting system on the Joint Strike Fighter, improved transparent 

armor for soldier protection in ground combat vehicles, advanced 

high-energy batteries, and light weight cables and wires for weight 

reduction on aerospace systems. The new manufacturing techniques for the electro-optical targeting system have led to a return 

on investment in excess of a factor of 20. Given the demonstrated 

return on investment in innovative manufacturing technologies, the 

committee recommends an additional $25.0 million to continue the 

IBIF program in the 63680D8Z program element line. 

The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to continue to make 

competitive, merit-based investments in manufacturing research 

and development that address defense industrial base shortfalls, 

especially those related to more urgent production requirements 

and diminishing defense manufacturing sources and material 

shortages, and a sustainable defense design team base. Other areas 

of emphasis encouraged are those related to the emerging fields of 

model-based engineering and integrated computational materials 

engineering, as highlighted in a recent National Research Council 

report, and new innovative technologies being developed through 

public-private partnerships such as the national Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, Connecting American Manufacturing, the 

National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium, and 

the Metal Affordability Initiative. 

Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DOD to institutionalize this program with adequate resources in future years and 

consider it as an important component of its wider manufacturing 

and industrial base strategy, in part, informed by its ongoing ‘‘Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier’’ analyses. 

CWMD Systems 

Section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 established a ‘‘Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.’’ No funding was requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the advisory 

panel. The panel ends on June 1, 2014. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million to PE 0303310D8Z to carry out the functions of the advisory panel under a transfer to PE 0902198D8Z. 

Advanced sensor applications program 

The budget request included $17.2 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 2013 of 

$19.0 million. This reduction reflects a general reduction applied to 

a number of budget line items in an across-the-board manner. The 

committee believes that this reduction, while modest by some 

standards, will cause the program to postpone important testing 

and experiments. The committee believes that these efforts are too 

important to postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of $2.0 million for ASAP. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs 

The budget request included $95.8 million in PE 63913C for the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile 

defense programs, including: $10.7 million to improve the existing 

Arrow Weapon System; $52.6 million for continued development of 

the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor missile; and $32.5 million for codevelopment of a short-range missile defense system called David’s 

Sling. These systems are part of Israel’s layered defenses against 

missiles and rockets of varying ranges, from longer-range missiles 

from Iran or Syria, to short-range missiles and large caliber rockets 

fired from Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006, to the very 

short-range rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United 

States is co-managing and jointly developing these systems to ensure that they are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile 

defense systems. 

The committee recognizes that the threat to Israel from missiles 

and rockets of varying ranges is extremely serious and growing, 

particularly with the crisis in Syria, and that effective missile defenses are an essential component of Israel’s security and regional 

stability. The committee supports efforts to enhance and accelerate 

these systems, in a manner that is consistent with the terms and 

conditions of the joint Project Agreements governing the management and execution of these cooperative projects. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in PE 63913C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including: $30.0 million to improve the Arrow Weapon System; $20.0 million for the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor development program; and $100.0 million for the David’s Sling short-range 

missile defense system. The budget request also included $220.3 million in Procurement, 

Defense-wide, for MDA for Israel to procure additional Iron Dome 

batteries and missiles. This is the first year that funding for Iron 

Dome has been included in the budget request, and the committee 

commends the Department of Defense for making it part of the regular budget process. 

The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, was used 

to great effect to defend against short-range rocket attacks from 

Gaza in 2012, and had a reported operational success rate of 85 

percent. The committee recognizes that the current situation in 

Syria has added to the risk of rocket and missile attacks against 

Israel, and that Iron Dome is an important component of Israel’s 

ability to protect its population against such attacks. 

Advanced Innovative Technologies 

The budget request included $130.0 million in PE 64250D8Z for 

Advanced Innovative Technologies. 

The committee is concerned that this significant level of funding 

will not be able to be executed in fiscal year 2014 and recommends 

a decrease of $30.0 million to this program element. 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program focus areas 

The Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) is a competitive, meritbased program established by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383) that is designed to fund innovative technologies, reduce 

acquisition or life cycle costs, address technical risks, improve the 

timeliness of test and evaluation outcomes, and rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical national security needs. The committee notes that $250.0 million was appropriated for the RIP in 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 113–6); however, no funds were requested in fiscal 

year 2014. 

The RIP was first authorized and funded in 2011. Over 170 programs were selected by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2011 

to include: automated engine part inspection tools, compact antijam Global Positioning System antennas, enhanced ground vehicle 

protection, lightweight ground fire detection systems for combat 

outposts, ceramic based explosive ordnance detection tool kits, and 

improvements to mine roller wheel assemblies. All these programs 

are scheduled to be completed in November 2013. The overall response from the Services has been positive for the program, in particular, the fact that it has opened up more collaborative efforts 

with small businesses and non-traditional suppliers to DOD. The committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in 

funding for the RIP to PE 64775D8Z focusing primarily on the following three broad areas: 

(1) delivering nearer-term emerging technologies to current 

military operations to enhance capabilities in areas such as: 

electronic warfare; cybersecurity tools; robotics and autonomous systems; spectrum management; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; reducing soldier load; 

improving fixed, mobile, and dismounted force protection; and 

detecting and defeating all forms of improvised explosive devices; 

(2) contributing to breakthrough technologies for future military capabilities in areas such as: countering weapons of mass 

destruction; space systems; hypersonics; highly autonomous 

systems; large-scale data management and manipulation for 

command and control; and enhancing human performance; and 

(3) improving the affordability of defense operations in areas 

such as: advanced manufacturing; reducing the cost and footprint of energy and other logistical items; interoperability 

across platforms and systems; and innovative prototyping approaches for new platforms and systems. 

The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all such 

funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process. To ensure the integrity of this competitive process, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the execution of RIP. The report will include but not be limited to: an assessment of the RIP contract solicitation and award 

process; an assessment of RIP execution and monitoring of contracts; an overall assessment of how the RIP is meeting its goals 

and guidelines; and a complete list of all RIP awards since program 

inception to include funding organization, project, contractor, location, award amount, award date, description of project, confirmation that the contract award was competitive and merit-based, a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

description of what Joint Urgent Operational Needs or other critical national security need each RIP award addressed, and the current status of each RIP award. 

Developmental test and evaluation 

The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 65804D8Z for 

developmental test and evaluation and $44.2 million in PE 

605142D8Z for systems engineering. 

The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental 

testing organizations to ensure that design problems are understood and addressed early in the acquisition process. 

While DOD has taken great strides in improving its acquisition 

process, the committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation—dated December 2012—provided a list of 17 major defense acquisition programs—the same number as in 2011—that had discoveries of significant problems during operational test and evaluation that 

should have been detected and corrected during developmental test 

and evaluation. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department’s defense-wide systems engineering budget request is almost three 

times greater than the developmental test and evaluation budget 

request. In fiscal year 2013, the committee recommended an increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation. The 

committee believes that DOD is continuing to underfund its developmental test and evaluation activities, as evidenced by the unacceptable number of problems being discovered in operational test 

and evaluation. 

To bring more parity between the systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation activities, the committee recommends 

a transfer of $5.0 million from PE 65142D8Z to PE 65804D8Z. 

Defense Technical Information Center 

The budget request included $56.0 million in PE 65801KA for the 

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), a modest increase 

from $55.5 million in fiscal year 2013. 

The committee supports the innovation of DTIC to improve information technologies that enhance collaboration and research support and data repository services. However, the committee questions the role of all the web services and site hosting activities that 

DTIC provides as well as whether the size of the organization is 

commensurate with its mission. Hence, the committee recommends 

a decrease of $10.0 million. 

Conflict Records Research Center 

The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35186D8Z for 

Policy Research and Development programs. 

The committee notes that the Conflict Records Research Center 

(CRRC) was established to address the Secretary of Defense’s intent to enable research into captured records with complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and integrity. The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

mission of the CRRC is to facilitate the use of captured records to 

support research, both within and outside the government. 

The CRRC has made significant contributions in translating and 

facilitating the analysis of important documents in its Saddam 

Hussein and al Qaeda collections. However, the CRRC is not funded in fiscal year 2014 and there appears to not be any plans for 

a transition of the CRRC’s expertise or access to the documents. 

Hence, the committee recommends $1.0 million to the above PE for 

the CRRC and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to 

report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act on a plan to sustain the 

CRRC’s capabilities. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $1.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the development, integration, and testing of special operations-unique mission kits for 

the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is responsible for the development 

and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among other 

things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 

while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of 

funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to 

provide for the development, integration, and testing of additional 

capabilities to address identified technology gaps on USSOCOM 

UAVs. The committee understands that this reprogramming only 

partially addressed such technology gaps. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an additional $12.0 million in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the MQ–9 UAV. 

Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar 

The budget request included $1.2 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar 

(CCFLIR). Due to parts obsolescence issues with the current 

CCFLIR systems, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested 

a transfer of this funding to Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Defense-wide, for design, development, and testing of 

the next-generation CCFLIR system. The committee recommends 

this transfer. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs 

The budget request included $2.87 billion for the research and 

management activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA). Taking into account the current fiscal environment, and given some lingering questions about the agency’s ability 

to fully execute all its funding in a timely fashion, as well as concerns over certain programs, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $100.0 million from DARPA’s overall budget. 

The committee is pleased that DARPA has conducted an independent review of its Adaptive Vehicle Make ground vehicle manufacturing program, is refocusing the program, and is paying attention to how survivability considerations will be realistically taken 

into account. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

DARPA is pursuing a Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) XPlane technology program to design, develop, and demonstrate improvements in speed, hover performance, cruise efficiency, and payload. While the committee notes that the program has identified 

challenging speed goals that are significant improvements over 

rotorcraft performance today, the committee believes that the target size of a vehicle in the 10,000 to 12,000 pounds class is too 

small to be of useful military utility. Furthermore, the committee 

strongly urges DARPA to anticipate more than a single performer 

to be selected for flight tests. Competition in this program is vital, 

and there should be at least two performers carried through flight 

testing. As one source for increased funding for this program, the 

committee recommends terminating the Transformer (X) Vehicle 

program due to questions about its military utility. 

The committee expresses deep concern for how the Plan-X cybersecurity program was given a disproportionate reduction due to sequestration in fiscal year 2013. Given the potential for significant 

contributions by this program to the Department’s greater cyber-security efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to PE 62303E for this program. The committee will continue 

to monitor this program to see how its schedule will be impacted. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program 

The committee acknowledges the report that the Army provided 

to the congressional defense committees earlier this year about its 

Occupant-Centric Platform Technology Enabled Capability Demonstration research program and supports its objectives to produce 

military standards that inform future ground vehicle development 

to ensure that vehicle designs mitigate injuries due to underbody 

blasts and subsequent crash/rollover events. Noting that the program will take until the end of fiscal year 2015 to produce these 

standards, the committee encourages the Army to move as expeditiously on this program as possible and to leverage emerging technologies in the commercial sector, especially those related to vehicle restraints. 

Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures 

strategy 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing an enhanced 

strategy for rapid and cost-effective development, approval, and 

manufacturing of medical countermeasures (MCM) against chemical and biological threats, both known and validated threats, and 

emerging threats. This strategy is part of an integrated national 

bio-defense MCM strategy to produce vaccines and therapeutics 

against such high-risk threats as Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic 

fever viruses and pandemic disease outbreaks. Given the need to 

deploy U.S. forces in many parts of the world with endemic diseases and potential bio-threats, and the need to ensure our military 

can operate successfully in a chemically or biologically contaminated environment, the Department has a number of unique MCM 

requirements that cannot be met outside of the Department’s programs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

The committee notes that this strategy is a coordinated and collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated national strategy 

and guidance documents, and involves particularly close cooperation between DOD, the Department of Health and Human Services, 

and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This coordination 

permits each agency to perform its assigned tasks in a complementary fashion, reduce costs, and avoid duplication of effort. 

One key aspect of this DOD strategy is the development of an 

Advanced Development and Manufacturing (ADM) capability, formerly known as the Medical Countermeasures Initiative, which is 

intended to provide DOD an agile and flexible facility for rapid and 

affordable development and production of MCMs to protect military 

personnel, particularly prior to exposure to chemical and biological 

threats. This is a significant change from the traditional MCM development process, which is characterized by long development 

schedules, high risks, and high costs for single drugs for each validated threat. 

In contrast to the previous ‘‘one-bug, one-drug’’ approach, the Department is emphasizing the rapid development and FDA approval 

of broad-spectrum vaccines and anti-viral products that are intended to protect against a range of bio threats. The committee 

commends this more cost-effective approach and encourages the 

Department to continue with accelerated efforts to develop and 

seek FDA approval of broad-spectrum medical countermeasures, including anti-viral products that would provide improved capability 

against such threats as existing filoviruses that pose a current 

threat to forward-deployed U.S. military forces, and which could be 

weaponized by terrorist groups. 

The committee notes that the Department awarded a contract for 

the ADM facility in late 2012 and anticipates achieving full operational capability in 2015. The committee expects to be kept informed of progress with the ADM effort, including its results in 

meeting DOD objectives for cost reduction, flexibility, and agility in 

developing and producing MCMs against known and evolving 

threats, including emerging infectious diseases. 

The committee notes that section 1601 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) directed the Secretary of Defense to ‘‘carry out a program of biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to therapeutics 

and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed Forces. . .’’. The committee believes the Department’s enhanced MCM strategy, particularly its development of an ADM capability and its focus on cost 

reduction and affordability, is an important step to meet this requirement. 

Combat casualty care research 

In February 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report titled, ‘‘Actions Needed to Help Ensure Combat 

Casualty Care Research Achieves Goals.’’ The GAO recommended 

that ‘‘the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to communicate to 

DOD’s nonmedical research organizations the importance of coordination with the JPC–6 chair on combat casualty care issues, and 

require this coordination early in the research process when these 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

organizations conduct research with implications for combat casualty care.’’ Furthermore, the GAO recommended that ‘‘the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs develop and implement 

a plan to assess the extent to which combat casualty care research 

and development fills gaps in DOD’s capability to provide combat 

casualty care and achieves DOD’s other goals for this portfolio of 

research.’’ 

The committee notes that DOD concurred with GAO’s recommendations and has taken positive steps to address them. The 

committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive 

briefing to the committee, within 30 days of the enactment of this 

Act, on its progress in implementing GAO’s recommendations and 

any additional actions it plans to take to achieve combat casualty 

care research goals. 

Common kill vehicle technology program 

On March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland ballistic 

missile defense, to stay ahead of the evolving long-range missile 

threat from North Korea and Iran. One of the steps announced is 

the creation of a new program proposed in the President’s budget 

request to develop advanced and common kill vehicle technologies 

for the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) and future variants of the 

Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptor for the Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program. 

The objectives of the program are to develop common technologies, subsystems, or components that could be used in either 

kill vehicle, and to advance the state-of-the-art kill vehicle capability, including propulsion, electronics, navigation, seeker optics, 

discrimination, and communications. Advances in these kill vehicle 

technologies could provide significant improvements in the effectiveness of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Aegis 

Ballistic Missile Defense systems, and the overall Ballistic Missile 

Defense System, which are high priority objectives for the Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) and the combatant commands that rely on 

these systems. 

Given that the program was first announced in mid-March, the 

committee understands it is still at the beginning stage of program 

concept development, and does not yet have a well-defined longterm plan in place. This is understandable for a new research and 

development program, but the committee expects MDA to provide 

more definition and clarity on the long-term plan for the Common 

Kill Vehicle Technology Development program. 

Section 225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) requires the Director of MDA to 

develop a long-term plan to modify and upgrade the current GBI 

Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, and the competitive development of 

a next-generation kill vehicle for the GBI. The provision also requires the Director to report to Congress on the plan by July 2013. 

The committee expects that the new Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program will be compatible and consistent 

with the intent of Section 225. 

One key element of any future kill vehicle program will be advanced propulsion for the Divert and Attitude Control System 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

(DACS) that steer the kill vehicle into the target warhead, including solid-fueled DACS that are currently used on all SM–3 

variants. The committee notes that MDA plans to rely on the industrial base for innovation and competition for this Common Kill 

Vehicle Technology Development program. However, with the termination of the SM–3 IIB program, one of the two industry contractors with solid DACS expertise is at risk of ending their work 

and their ability to contribute to this program. 

With these concerns in mind, the committee directs MDA to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than March 1, 2014, setting forth the long-term plan and objectives 

for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program, including an explanation of how it intends to maintain a competitive 

industrial base to implement the program. 

The committee supports the efforts of MDA to develop technology 

for a next generation high performance, high reliability, and highly 

producible kill vehicle, which MDA says could be ready before the 

end of the decade. A next generation kill vehicle would have enhanced discrimination capabilities and the potential for volume kill 

capability. The committee encourages the MDA to move the program as expeditiously as possible from research and development 

into product development, based on demonstrated technical 

progress and consistent with sound acquisition practices, and to 

transfer this effort from the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 

Development program element into a new program element dedicated to the development of a next generation kill vehicle for the 

Ground-Based Interceptor and future variants of the Standard Missile-3 interceptor. The committee expects MDA to fully incorporate 

the lessons learned from the previously terminated Multiple Kill 

Vehicle program to avoid the problems encountered in that program. 

High energy laser weapons 

The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2014 budget request, 

the Department requested $364.0 million for high energy laser research and development. One of the key challenges in comparing 

the performance and maturity levels of the various laser systems 

across the services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Missile Defense Agency, is the lack of common performance metrics and the criteria that can be used for 

down-selection, further development, and eventual deployment. To 

address this deficiency, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering shall develop a set of common high energy 

laser metrics that characterize the operational performance of a 

high energy laser to include a measurement of power deposited on 

a given area over a given amount of time at a given distance, dependent upon atmospheric conditions, as a function of the size, 

weight, and power of the complete laser weapon system, including 

power and thermal management sub-systems, the laser source, the 

beam control and optical sub-systems, and the command and control sub-systems. These metrics, as well as an evaluation according 

to these metrics that will be used for decisions on further development and eventual deployment of all current high energy laser systems the Department is currently developing, shall be reported to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after 

the enactment of this Act. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department is pursuing multiple programs with solid state fiber lasers and strongly 

urges the Department to develop an integrated strategy that will 

lead to a rational down-selection process towards those systems 

that are most effective and mature in order to accelerate their testing in relevant operational environments and ultimately deployment. 

Lastly, the committee notes that the majority of DOD’s laser directed energy programs are focused on the development and demonstration of high-average-power continuous wave lasers, which 

have the goal of delivering sufficient thermal energy to damage or 

destroy targets. Insufficient attention is being given to ultra-shortpulse very-high-peak-power lasers which can produce unique nonthermal effects on materials, components, and systems—effects 

which cannot be produced by deposition of thermal energy. The 

committee notes that other countries are exploring the applications 

for these non-thermal effects, and are advancing the development 

of ultra-short-pulse high-peak power lasers and associated technologies. The committee directs the Department, in particular 

DARPA, to begin considering these systems to determine what 

military utility they can provide. 

Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition 

The committee notes that on March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced plans to deploy 14 additional operational Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely Alaska by 

2017, and to procure 14 GBIs in the future to replace the deployed 

ones. The budget request, which was submitted less than one 

month after Secretary Hagel’s announcement, indicates that the 

Department of Defense intends to procure the 14 replacement GBIs 

at a rate of 2 per year for seven years, with funding starting in fiscal year 2016 and deliveries continuing until at least 2024. 

The committee observes that there are a number of issues facing 

the Department with respect to future acquisition of GBIs stretching more than a decade into the future. These issues include: (1) 

the need to correct and demonstrate the problems experienced with 

the Capability Enhancement-II exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), 

and to have alternative options available in case the correction is 

not successfully demonstrated in an intercept flight test in 2014; 

(2) planned development efforts for significant EKV upgrades and 

new capabilities and designs, some of which may be available for 

deployment before 2020; (3) planned GBI reliability improvements 

and upgrades, some of which may be available for deployment before 2020; (4) procurement of 2 interceptors per year does not appear to be the most cost-effective acquisition approach; and (5) the 

possibility of producing a mix of 3-stage and 2-stage GBIs as part 

of the 14 additional GBIs to be procured. The committee notes that, 

given current plans, the GBI production line will remain operational for at least the next decade, thus enabling the option of procuring additional GBIs in the future, if needed. However, it is not 

yet clear what the best acquisition options are for procuring the 14 

additional GBIs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Given these issues, the committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, describing the issues and options under consideration for 

future GBI acquisition, including a cost-benefit assessment of 

multi-year procurement authority. The report should include any 

recommendations for congressional action to support future GBI acquisition. 

Hybrid Airships 

Over the last several years, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has pursued a number of airship vehicles to span a range of missions from long duration Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) to heavy lift. Many of these programs have been terminated or concluded due to either budgetary issues, technical challenges, changed requirements, or declining interest. Nevertheless, 

in testimony before the committee, General William M. Fraser, III, 

USAF, the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command said, ‘‘hybrid airships represent a transformational capability, bridging the 

longstanding gap between high-speed, lower-capacity airlift, and 

low-speed, higher-capacity sealift. Across the range of military operations, this capability can be leveraged from strategic to tactical 

distances... We encourage development of commercial technologies 

that may lead to enhanced mobility capabilities in the future.’’ 

One class of airships—hybrid airships—has been investigated 

under DOD’s Pelican program and the Army’s Long Endurance 

Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). The Pelican airship uses a system to control its buoyancy, while the LEMV is a standard hybrid 

airship with fixed buoyancy. While the Pelican program recently 

demonstrated a limited capability of the underlying technology for 

controlled variable buoyancy, there are still significant advances 

that are needed to be made in order to develop a robust flight vehicle that would have a cargo capacity with any military utility. The 

committee understands that there is some degree of interest in the 

commercial sector for the transportation capabilities of a heavy-lift 

hybrid airship. If such a capability were developed in the private 

sector, there is the potential opportunity for DOD to leverage this 

capability for its needs. The committee directs U.S. Transportation 

Command and the Air Force Mobility Command to monitor 

progress in this area and report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on 

the status of developments in the commercial sector regarding hybrid airships that could be used to provide the capability identified 

by General Fraser, and to what extent the DOD could benefit from 

them. 

Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan Recommendations 

The December 2012 U.S. Air Force Report to Congress titled, 

‘‘Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan’’ states, ‘‘Air 

Force Weather Agency products, processes, and organizations must 

continue to improve while using technology and training as 

enablers to assist Airmen to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, Air Force Weather must remain 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

at the cutting edge of science and technology. At the same time, to 

successfully operate in the current high-technology, yet fiscally constrained environment, it is imperative to partner with other Department of Defense (DOD), civil, research and development, and 

international agencies to develop, access, and transition needed capabilities to operations. Air Force Weather will focus modernization 

efforts on those capabilities required to collect, analyze, predict, tailor, and integrate accurate, timely, and relevant weather data for 

the warfighter.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the Air Force currently lacks a 

comprehensive meteorological and weather analysis training program that relies on the most up to date technology. Therefore, the 

committee recommends that the Air Force brief this committee on 

its plan to implement the recommendations of its weather modernization report to include an incremental improvement strategy 

that ultimately creates a meteorological and weather analysis 

training program for the Air Force in coordination and cooperation 

with other DOD, civil, research and development, and international 

agencies. 

Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical 

information technology services 

The committee supports the Air Force’s ongoing efforts to acquire 

information technology (IT) products and services at lower costs 

and increased efficiencies. These efforts include standardizing configurations, maintaining strict adherence to Air Force and Department of Defense technical standards, leveraging $24.0 billion in IT 

buying power, and maximizing small business participation. The 

committee also supports additional efforts being taken by the Air 

Force to achieve cost-savings and improved efficiencies by instituting better business practices. 

However, the committee is concerned about a potential disconnect between broader IT modernization efforts and those efforts 

focused on the Air Force’s mission critical, high consequence networks, such as those related to its nuclear and space missions. 

Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to take all steps required to preserve and sustain the high consequence, mission critical IT services to ensure there are no adverse mission impacts. 

Improved turbine engine program 

The committee supports research and development for the Improved Turbine Engine Program that would increase the operational capability and fuel efficiency of Army helicopters. The committee is aware that the Army has achieved a Material Development Decision and that under the current acquisition strategy will 

fund competitive prototyping through Milestone-B. 

The committee encourages the Army to take competitive prototyping as far as resources will permit to mitigate technical risk and 

prove out performance. For example, there may be an opportunity 

to continue competition into and through a preliminary flight rating test milestone, or through a flight demonstration of each competing engine. This investment in continuing competition could 

help control costs, reduce programmatic risk, and mitigate modeling and simulation shortfalls. Selecting the appropriate point at 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

which to down select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step 

to ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best 

value in investment and performance. 

Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common 

Ground System analyst tool integration 

The budget request included $27.6 in PE 35208A for development of the Army’s Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). 

The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to task the 

National Assessment Group (NAG) to conduct the following activities with respect to the Army’s DCGS: 

(1) Identify the software tools and capabilities in DCGS that provide the human-machine interface for manipulating DCGS, 

querying data stores, and displaying results. 

(2) Characterize the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 

and other technical interface specifications used by DCGS humanmachine interface tools and capabilities. 

(3) Determine whether DCGS interfaces are adequate to support 

successful integration of existing DCGS human-machine interface 

tools and capabilities or similar tools that perform the same or 

similar functions. 

(4) Create an inventory of such tools and capabilities within 

DCGS and identify which of them are licensed products developed 

by a private corporation, were developed with government funding, 

or are open source products, and at what cost. 

(5) For each tool and capability, determine whether it was integrated into DCGS by government or private sector funding, by government or contractor personnel, and where data is available, at 

what cost. 

(6) Select a representative sample of advanced commercially licensed analyst tools that perform the same or similar functions as 

tools currently used in DCGS. 

(7) With the permission of the owners of those tools, characterize 

the technical interface specifications that would have to be satisfied 

for the tools to be successfully integrated into DCGS. 

(8) Compare the interface specifications necessary for successful 

integration of commercial tools to DCGS existing specification and 

identify any obstacles to the successful integration of commercially 

licensed analyst tools. 

The committee directs the NAG, in characterizing the tool integration interfaces within DCGS and commercial products, to assume that the tools would need to be able to ingest and manipulate 

data created or acquired locally as well as data already resident in 

the DCGS system. The NAG shall evaluate the DCGS Release 1, 

2, and 3 versions. 

The committee directs the NAG to provide the results of this 

analysis to the Secretary of the Army and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) 

within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and the USD(AT&L) 

to forward the NAG assessment, together with any comments and 

recommendations, to the congressional defense committees and the 

congressional intelligence committees within 210 days of the enactment of this Act. The committee directs that not more than 65 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Army DCGS deVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

velopment in fiscal year 2014 may be obligated or expended prior 

to delivery of the required report. 

Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor 

(JLENS) system 

The Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor 

(JLENS) system is a paired aerostat system intended to provide 

persistent elevated sensor data needed to detect, track, and defeat 

airborne threats, including cruise missiles, manned and unmanned 

aircraft, and surface moving targets, including swarming boats. 

Based on a recently restructured engineering and manufacturing 

development (EMD) program, JLENS is nearing the completion of 

the EMD phase of the acquisition cycle, and is planned to demonstrate its potential capability and assess future options. As a 

joint system managed by the Army, it has demonstrated interoperability with a number of Army and Navy weapon systems. The 

Army plans to conduct an operational exercise with JLENS at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to demonstrate its capabilities 

in support of the North American Aerospace Defense Command 

and U.S. Northern Command for their National Capital Region 

homeland defense mission, starting in October 2014. 

The committee supports the planned JLENS demonstration in 

this operational exercise and believes it will provide critical information for the Department of Defense to assess the ability of 

JLENS to support other combatant commander sensor requirements in the future. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, 

not later than 90 days after the initiation of the JLENS demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it plans to use from the 

demonstration to guide future acquisition decisions for JLENS. The 

report shall also include a discussion of how the Department intends to support validated requirements of combatant commanders 

for persistent elevated surveillance of cruise missile and surface 

moving threats. 

Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified 

The budget request included $181.6 million in PE 33140G for the 

Information Systems Security Program at the National Security 

Agency (NSA). NSA’s Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) 

program aims to shift the protection of classified information from 

reliance on government-engineered solutions toward publicly available commercial technologies. The program’s technical approach is 

to layer commercial devices into a system for the protection of classified information, relying on the redundancy and mutual support 

of multiple commercial products to mitigate the risk of security 

flaws in any one layer. The committee strongly supports NSA’s initiative to provide rapid and affordable security solutions for commercial products to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to exploit advanced commercial technology. 

However, the committee is concerned that the program’s metrics 

of success focus on breadth and speed of deployment and user acceptance, not actual measurements of the level of security achieved. 

Commercial technologies potentially offer lower cost and advanced 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

capability, but NSA must ensure that it detects any degradation in 

security should it arise due to the use of CSfC architectures. 

Therefore, the committee directs that NSA develop a plan to collect data on deployments of CSfC solutions and products and compare their security performance to systems engineered by traditional methods. In building the plan, NSA should consider options 

from the full range of potential sources of data on security, such 

as security analyses, testing, blue- and red-team events, cyber exercises, and field performance, such as intrusion rates, speed with 

which intrusions are detected, and effort required for remediation. 

The committee further directs that the DOD Chief Information Officer review and approve the plan and transmit the plan to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence 

committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act. 

The committee also directs the program manager for the CSfC 

program to examine the problem of detecting and remediating 

vulnerabilities in the software that controls the power conditioning 

for mobile devices that could allow attackers to rapidly deplete limited power sources. In today’s mobile communications world, power 

sources are the key limiting factor for mission success and optimization of battery performance and longevity are largely software 

controlled. 

Military Scientists and Engineers 

The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education and outreach programs. The DOD needs to be 

able to attract and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineers for both its civilian and military personnel. The committee 

acknowledges that there has been greater emphasis on the civilian 

STEM sector and that the number of military STEM officers has 

experienced a steeper decline than the total number of officers over 

the last two-plus decades. The broader question that needs to be 

addressed is how well DOD is managing its uniformed STEM workforce to ensure that it will keep pace with its own evolving needs 

and high technology developments around the world. 

Hence, to better understand the current situation with DOD uniformed STEM personnel, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with 

the services, to report to the congressional defense committees no 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the following: 

(1) the current and future requirements for uniformed STEM 

personnel, including requirements for types of degrees and scientific and technical fields; 

(2) how uniformed STEM personnel are used and integrated 

into the total force (by service), including how the balance between officer leadership and technical competence is addressed; 

(3) what differences, if any, exist between the data DOD collects on its civilian workforce and uniformed personnel in 

STEM fields to include: 

(a) the educational degree discipline; 

(b) the granting school of all baccalaureate, graduate, 

and professional degrees; and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

(c) the non-military occupation of Reserve component 

members; and 

(4) how the Defense Manpower Data Center is used for managing both civilian and military STEM personnel. 

Scientific and technical conferences 

As a result of some unfortunate recent events in other government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget released 

Memorandum M–12–12 last year that provided guidance to departments and agencies on government travel and conference attendance. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued further implementing guidance later in the year that established a tiered approval structure for conference oversight responsibilities. The committee understands that the implementing guidance has led to the 

oversight and approval of science and technology (S&T)-funded 

travel and conference sponsoring and attendance by very senior 

service and department levels that requires additional time and resources. 

An unintended consequence of this guidance has been a significant reduction in the DOD’s participation in S&T-funded travel to 

major scientific facilities or experimental sites for research projects, 

grantee and contractor site visits, program reviews and technical 

evaluations, science board and advisory group meetings, international S&T engagements, standards-setting committees, scientific society-sponsored conferences, and events and competitions 

authorized under section 2192 of Title 10, United States Code, for 

educational outreach initiatives. Reductions in travel and conferences pose a special threat to science and engineering activities 

because of the collaborative nature of the work and the importance 

of extensive interchange among researchers to remain cognizant of 

and extend the current state of knowledge. The committee is concerned that decreased participation may be jeopardizing the ability 

of DOD S&T to successfully complete their S&T missions. 

In order to quantify the impact that these policies are having on 

the DOD S&T enterprise, the committee directs the Government 

Accountability Office to undertake a study of the impact of the 

above mentioned policies on the DOD S&T enterprise, including 

the National Nuclear Security Administration, and report to the 

congressional defense committees its findings no later than 6 

months after the date of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, in 

order to streamline approval timelines and reduce attendant 

delays, the committee directs the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish procedures to allow the 

services and agency heads to exercise more local control and decision making authority over travel and conference oversight and approval, consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the 

need to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer funds. 

Tactical power grids 

The committee is aware that the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command and the Office of Naval Research 

are each pursuing the development of tactical power grids and advanced mobile electric power distribution systems to assist the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

Army and Marine Corps respectively, to meet the need for the efficient distribution of mobile electric power in a stable tactical grid 

environment. While the committee encourages these efforts to improve safety, reliability, reduce fuel consumption, and maximize energy efficiency, the committee urges the services to closely coordinate to avoid unnecessary duplication and to continue these efforts 

to determine whether these objectives can be met. 

Trusted microelectronics 

The committee recognizes the vital importance of supply chain 

risk management for Department of Defense (DOD) systems, especially for microelectronics components and software, in order to 

maintain mission assurance of its weapons systems. A key component of microelectronics manufacturing for critical DOD systems is 

the Trusted Foundry program as well as the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA). Given the rapid pace of microelectronics 

obsolescence, the committee supports the continued improvement of 

DMEA’s capabilities as a foundry of last resort when commercial 

entities in the Trusted Foundry program are not able to manufacture a given component. 

In addition to supporting the Trusted Foundry program and 

DMEA, the committee urges DOD to ensure that an enterprisewide approach to microelectronics trust is taken, to include the security of photomask design and inspection tools given their criticality in the integrated circuit manufacturing process. The committee urges DOD to continue to work with the private sector in 

ongoing partnership programs to reduce supply chain 

vulnerabilities and to ensure that technologies and products developed are transitioned to the manufacturing processes used for DOD 

microelectronics components. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(71) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels 

identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Logistics and Sustainment 

Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within 

Army arsenals (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the military services and 

defense agencies, to review current and expected manufacturing requirements for which there is no or limited domestic commercial 

source and which are appropriate for manufacturing within an arsenal owned by the United States in order to support critical manufacturing capabilities. 

Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment 

(sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to develop an overarching strategy, along with 

an implementation plan, to integrate and synchronize at a Department-wide level, the services’ prepositioning program. The strategy 

and implementation plan would ensure that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) prepositioning programs, both ground and afloat, 

align with national defense strategies, new DOD priorities, and emphasize joint oversight to maximize effectiveness and efficiencies in 

prepositioned materiel and equipment across the DOD. 

The committee continues to believe in the strategic importance of 

the effective prepositioning of material and equipment in locations 

around the world, both ground and afloat, to facilitate and speed 

our response to crises or contingencies. Fiscal challenges require 

the DOD to carefully balance the investment in prepositioned materiel and equipment to achieve both national military objectives 

and other DOD priorities. 

The committee understands that the DOD is committed to reconstituting prepositioned materiel and equipment but must balance 

these efforts with the Department’s other priorities, such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned materiel and 

equipment and changes in its overseas military presence. 

The committee is concerned that the DOD has not implemented 

an overarching strategy and joint service oversight framework for 

its prepositioning programs. As the DOD and the nation face fiscal 

constraints in the coming years, overarching strategic guidance 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

that emphasizes joint oversight of the DOD’s prepositioning program is essential to reduce any unnecessary overlap, duplication, 

and inefficiencies among the services and to maximize cost savings 

while minimizing risks. 

As far back as 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

has reported that each of the services and the Defense Logistics 

Agency were planning the future of their prepositioning programs 

without the benefit of an integrated DOD-wide plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts. The GAO has made several recommendations over the years for the DOD to develop overarching 

strategic guidance and improve the joint service oversight of its 

prepositioning programs. While the DOD has agreed with the need 

to develop department-wide strategic guidance, efforts to do so 

have not materialized. 

Moreover, the committee is concerned that the DOD may be moving away from such efforts. For example, the DOD had previously 

stated that its Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan would provide the strategic guidance and that the Department would pursue 

opportunities for joint oversight as the GAO recommended. However, when the plan was approved in January 2013, it specifically 

excluded prepositioning. The committee believes that an increased 

emphasis on joint program management and oversight of 

prepositioned materiel and equipment would unify the DOD’s 

prepositioning efforts in support of defense priorities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and achieve cost savings and efficiencies. 

Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at Department of Defense rates for non-Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2642(a) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority 

to provide to other Federal agencies airlift transportation at the 

same rate the Department of Defense (DOD) charges its own units 

for similar transportation and to expand the authority to include 

all means of transportation, not just airlift. The Department currently uses this authority to: (1) provide transportation support to 

other departments and agencies to increase peacetime business; 

and (2) promote the improved use of airlift by filling excess capacity with paying cargo. 

The proposal also would expand the authority to allow the use 

of extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the military, 

to include aircraft and vessels, for transportation provided in support of foreign military sales. During peacetime operations, utilization of aircraft and vessels to meet training and readiness requirements is typically greater than actual cargo transportation requirements. Therefore, DOD can transport extra cargo at little or no increase in operating costs, making utilization of excess capacity by 

other federal agencies prudent. Additionally, use of such capacity 

for the shipment of items for other departments or agencies complements the training needs of DOD. 

The provision would also extend the sunset date for this authority from October 28, 2014, until September 30, 2019. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Subtitle C—Readiness 

Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for 

equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would cancel the requirement for an annual report on the Army’s transition to modular force structure. The provision would also cancel the review of 

the Army’s modularity report by the Government Accountability 

Office. 

Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of operating forces used to support overseas 

contingency operations (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a policy setting forth the programs and priorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) for the 

retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of units and materiel 

used to support overseas contingency operations. The provision 

would direct that the policy shall take into account national security threats, the requirements of the combatant commands, the current readiness of the operating forces of the military departments, 

and risk associated with the strategic depth and the time necessary 

to reestablish required personnel, equipment, and training readiness in such operating forces. 

The provision would further direct that the required DOD implementation plan, and the annual updates to the initial plan for the 

following three years, shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

The provision would also directs the Comptroller General to review the DOD implementation plan and policy and report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after submission of the report or updates from the Secretary of Defense. 

Lastly, the provision would encourage DOD to submit a classified 

annex to accompany the implementation plan and policy, where appropriate. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to complete a comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for improving asset visibility tracking and intransit visibility across the Department of Defense. 

Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and streamline 

the quarterly readiness report to Congress. The committee notes 

that in striking the term ‘‘borrowed personnel’’ the committee is referring to personnel assigned to a unit that may not have the rank, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

school completed, or specialized training to be able to carry out the 

responsibilities for the assigned position. 

Revision to requirement for annual submission of information regarding information technology capital assets 

(sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would align Department of Defense high-threshold Information Technology Capital 

Asset reporting with the Department’s Major Automated Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting requirements (sec. 334) 

The committee notes that the military departments’ corrosion 

control and prevention executives coordinate with the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office on their 

respective strategic plans. The Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has found that linking the military departments’ strategic 

goals to those of the DOD should improve corrosion control and 

prevention efforts. However, the committee notes that the GAO 

also found that the military departments varied in the extent that 

their strategic plans show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in the DOD corrosion prevention and mitigation 

strategic plan. The committee notes the Army’s strategic plan 

showed clear linkage to all 10 of the goals and objectives. Additionally, the committee notes that the GAO found no inconsistencies 

with DOD Instruction 5000.67, which establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance for managing programs to 

prevent or mitigate corrosion. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

modify section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 

2228 note) to update the military departments’ strategic plans with 

performance measures and show clear linkage to the DOD’s overarching goals and objectives as described in the DOD’s strategic 

plan for corrosion control and prevention. 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extension of Authority 

Limitation on funding for United States Special Operations 

Command National Capital Region (sec. 341) 

The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) testified before the committee that ‘‘USSOCOM is 

placing greater emphasis on its presence in the National Capital 

Region (NCR) to better support coordination and decision making 

with interagency partners. Thus, USSOCOM began to consolidate 

its presence in the NCR in early 2012. This is not a duplication of 

effort. We are focused instead on consolidating USSOCOM elements in the Washington, DC region under the leadership of the 

USSOCOM Vice-Commander—who resides in Washington.’’ To support this effort, the budget request includes $10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the USSOCOM– 

NCR. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational partners, 

most of whom are physically located in the NCR. However, the 

committee believes that current fiscal constraints dictate that the 

goals of the USSOCOM–NCR be achieved in a resource and manpower neutral manner. While this is the first year USSOCOM has 

requested funding for the USSOCOM–NCR in its budget request, 

USSOCOM–NCR activities have been underway for more than a 

year resulting in significant expenditures for leased facilities and 

contract support. To date, the committee has not received sufficient 

detail on the implementation plan for the USSOCOM–NCR and its 

associated costs, particularly in future years. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prohibit the expenditure of any funds for the USSOCOM–NCR 

until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees a report which describes, at a minimum: 

(1) the purpose of the USSOCOM–NCR; (2) the activities to be performed by the USSOCOM—NCR; (3) an explanation of the impact 

of the USSOCOM–NCR on existing activities at USSOCOM headquarters; (4) a detailed breakout, by fiscal year, of the staffing and 

other costs associated with the USSOCOM–NCR over the future 

years defense program; (5) a description of the relationship between the USSOCOM–NCR and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict 

(ASD SOLIC); (6) the role of the ASD SOLIC in providing oversight 

of USSOCOM–NCR activities; and (7) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a budget item 

related to the use of contractors to support the USSOCOM–NCR. 

Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (sec. 342) 

The budget request included $14.7 million for the establishment 

of Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of any 

funds for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014 and direct the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, not later than September 30, 2013, to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees outlining, at a minimum: (1) the requirement and justification for the establishment 

of RSCCs; (2) the number and locations of planned RSCCs; (3) the 

projected cost to establish and maintain the proposed RSCCs in future years; (4) the relevance to and coordination with other multilateral engagement activities and academic institutes supported by 

the geographic combatant commanders and State Department; and 

(5) any legislative authorities that may be needed to establish 

RSCCs. 

Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends no funding for 

the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web 

Initiative (TRWI) (sec. 343) 

The budget request included $19.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Trans Regional Web 

Initiative (TRWI), a contractor operated and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) funded strategic level military information support operations program. Under the TRWI, USSOCOM 

establishes and maintains news and information websites in support of certain geographic combatant command’s (GCC) countering 

violent extremism objectives. 

The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM and the GCCs 

to conduct phase zero operations to counter violent extremism, but 

believes that the costs to operate the websites developed under the 

TRWI are excessive. The effectiveness of the websites is questionable and the performance metrics do not justify the expense. The 

committee believes USSOCOM resources are better used to support 

tactical and operational military information support activities. The 

committee acknowledges the utility of strategic level information 

operations activities, but believes they would be more appropriately 

funded and managed by the State Department and other relevant 

U.S. Government agencies, with support from USSOCOM, as necessary. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prohibit the Secretary of Defense from expending any funds in 

OMDW to continue the TRWI and the associated websites. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility 

uniforms (sec. 351) 

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (P.L. 111–84) required the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to review the performance, interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the services’ combat camouflage 

and utility uniforms. In April 2010, the GAO reported that since 

2002, the services continued to develop unique combat and utility 

uniforms. The committee notes that prior to 2002, the services wore 

the same pattern and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of 

camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test 

interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board in 2008. 

The committee remains concerned that until this year, the Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines with 

different types of combat uniforms, providing significantly different 

levels of protection in combat environments. 

The GAO recently identified that the DOD’s fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be more 

efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82.0 

million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of the 

military departments to explore additional methods for sharing 

uniform technology across the services as they develop their combat 

and utility uniforms. The committee continues to believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the most advanced levels of protection and should be available to all men and women in 

uniform, regardless of the military service in which they serve. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate development 

and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and field the same combat and 

camouflage utility uniforms for use by all members of the armed 

forces. The committee notes that the recommended provision would 

also restrict any military service from preventing another military 

service from authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act, 

each military service would be prohibited from adopting new designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage patterns used 

in current combat and camouflage utility uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use, all services adopt the same 

combat or camouflage utility uniform, or the Secretary of Defense 

determines that unique circumstances or requirements justify an 

exception to the policy. 

Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection system to improve the delivery of absentee 

ballots to military personnel serving outside the United 

States (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.5 million from defense-wide 

operation and maintenance to the Postal Service Fund for purposes 

of implementing the modernization of the United States Postal 

Service’s mail delivery system to improve the delivery of absentee 

ballots to military personnel serving outside the United States. 

Budget Items 

Army readiness funding increases 

The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $888.1 million was for maneuver units, $1.2 billion was for aviation assets, $3.5 billion was for 

force readiness operations support, and $1.4 billion was for land 

forces depot maintenance. The budget request also included $7.0 

billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 

(OMARNG), of which $712.1 million was for facilities sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization (FSRM). The budget request also 

included $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve 

(OMAR), of which $294.1 million was for FSRM. 

The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. The 

committee notes that these recommended increases will improve 

the Army’s fiscal year 2014 flying hour program and ground operations tempo requirements and enable units to conduct additional 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

training to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 2013. The committee 

also notes that the recommended increase in land forces depot 

maintenance will allow additional maintenance to occur on aviation 

assets, ground vehicles, missiles, electronics, and post-production 

software support. Additionally, the recommended increases for 

FSRM will increase funding to 90 percent of the fiscal year 2014 

requirement for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $195.9 mil- lion in OMA for maneuver units, $15.8 million in OMA for aviation 

assets, $209.9 million in OMA for force readiness operations support, $200.0 million in OMA for land forces depot maintenance, 

$74.2 million in OMARNG for FSRM, and $36.4 million in OMAR 

for FSRM. 

U.S. European Command funding decrease 

The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $185.0 million was for combatant commanders core operations. 

The committee is concerned that the funding increase in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for U.S. European Command’s 

(EUCOM) information operations campaign is unjustified growth. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in OMA (subactivity 138) for EUCOM. 

Navy readiness funding increases 

The budget request included $39.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.9 billion was for mission 

and other flight operations, $1.8 billion was for fleet air training, 

$35.8 million was for aircraft depot operations support, $3.8 billion 

was for mission and other ship operations, $734.8 million was for 

ship operations support and training, $5.1 billion was for ship 

depot maintenance, $1.3 billion was for ship depot operations support, $2.6 million was for depot operations support, and $1.9 billion 

was for facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization 

(FSRM). The budget request also included $1.1 billion in Operation 

and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $586.6 million 

was for mission and other flight operations and $100.6 million was 

for aircraft depot maintenance. 

The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. The 

committee notes that these recommended increases in funding will 

improve the Navy’s fiscal year 2014 flying hour program, steaming 

days, depot maintenance, training, and FSRM to restore readiness 

lost in fiscal year 2013. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases 

in OMN: $32.5 million for mission and other flight operations, 

$11.2 million in fleet air training, $608,000 in aircraft depot operations support, $99.5 million in mission and other ship operations, 

$61.4 million in ship operations support and training, $5.7 million 

in ship depot maintenance, $126.2 million in ship depot operations 

support, $660,000 in depot operations support, $100.0 million in 

FSRM. The committee also recommends the following increases in 

OMNR: $1.9 million in mission and other flight operations and $8.9 

million in aircraft depot maintenance. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support 

The budget request included $199.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support. Of this amount, $3.0 million is for a classified U.S. 

Pacific Command (PACOM) program. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in OMN 

for the development of the program at PACOM. 

Marine Corps readiness funding increases 

The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $223.3 million was for 

depot maintenance. 

The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in this readiness account that could help offset cuts as a result of sequestration. 

The committee notes that the recommended increase will improve 

the Marine Corp’s critical depot maintenance requirement to 100 

percent in order to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 2013. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.0 million in OMMC for depot maintenance. 

Air Force readiness funding increases 

The budget request included $37.2 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.2 billion was for primary combat forces, $1.5 billion was for air operations training, 

$5.9 billion was for depot maintenance, and $1.8 billion was for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization (FSRM). The 

budget request also included $3.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which $89.7 million was for 

FSRM. The budget request also included $6.5 billion in Operation 

and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $296.9 

million was for FSRM. 

The Air Force has identified specific amounts in these readiness 

accounts that could help offset fiscal year 2013 cuts as a result of 

sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended increases in amounts will improve the Air Force’s fiscal year 2014 

flying hour program, weapons systems sustainment, training 

ranges, and FSRM. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMAF: 

$220.0 million in primary combat forces, $30.0 million in air operations training, $210.0 million for depot maintenance, and $75.0 

million for FSRM. The committee also recommends an increase of 

$8.7 million in OMAFR for FSRM and an increase of $28.2 million 

in OMANG for FSRM. 

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Direct 

Mission Support. Of this amount, $22.4 million is for a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) classified program. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $22.4 million in OMAF 

for this classified CENTCOM program. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers 

The budget request included $14.7 million for the establishment 

of Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

According to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the 

RSCCs would be partner-led multinational organizations designed 

to ‘‘promote partner-nation SOF [Special Operations Forces] capacity building through coordination, education, and information sharing.’’ These RSCCs would function as ‘‘regional operational-level 

hubs of the larger global SOF network to facilitate cooperation and 

interoperability among partner-nation SOF and SOF-like organizations.’’ 

To date, the committee has not received appropriate justification 

and a plan for the establishment of the proposed RSCCs, particularly the costs to sustain RSCC operations in future years. The 

committee is concerned that the RSCCs may duplicate other efforts 

by the geographic combatant commanders (GCC), their subordinate 

component commands, existing GCC regional centers, and complicate diplomatic activities by the State Department and relevant 

chiefs of mission. In addition, the committee is concerned that the 

RSCCs as proposed by USSOCOM would be heavily reliant on contractors for planning, study, and engagement activities with funding for such contractors making up nearly the entire budget request for RSCCs in fiscal year 2014. 

USSOCOM indicates that the RSCCs would be modeled, at least 

in-part, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special 

Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The committee has been strongly supportive of the NSHQ and its efforts to enhance the capabilities and interoperability of NATO SOF. The efforts of the NSHQ 

have been especially evident in the increased participation and success of allied SOF in operations in Afghanistan. While the committee agrees there are important lessons to be learned from the 

NSHQ that can be applied in other regions, the committee believes 

the NSHQ is a flawed model for the proposed RSCCs. The NATO 

alliance is unique in the world and the NSHQ has been built on 

a foundation of longstanding multilateral agreements that underpin its activities. 

Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends 

no funding in OMDW for the establishment of RSCCs by 

USSOCOM. 

U.S. Special Operations Command—National Capital Region 

The budget request included $10.0 million for the establishment 

of a U.S. Special Operations Command—National Capital Region 

(USSOCOM–NCR) office in Operation and Maintenance, Defensewide. 

The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational partners, 

most of whom are physically located in the NCR. However, the 

committee believes that current fiscal constraints dictate that the 

goals of the USSOCOM–NCR be achieved in a resource and manpower neutral manner. The committee is concerned that two-thirds 

of the requested funding for the USSOCOM–NCR in fiscal year 

2014 would pay for contractor support. The committee believes 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

such a heavy reliance on contractors to implement the USSOCOM– 

NCR is inconsistent with the purpose of this effort. Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 million for the 

USSOCOM–NCR, a reduction of $7.1 million. The committee recommends a provision elsewhere in this title that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees prior to the expenditure of any fiscal year 2014 

funds for the USSOCOM–NCR. 

Department of Defense STARBASE program 

The budget request included no funding for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is 

to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten 

through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM) subjects, and to motivate them to explore STEM as they 

continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at 76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 

primarily on military installations. To date, nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program. STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated service members and 

strengthens the relationships between the military, communities, 

and local school districts. 

The committee notes that the budget request eliminated funding 

for this successful program due to a reorganization of STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes that 

STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $21.7 million for the DOD STARBASE program. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $788.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), of which $85.9 million is to support the 

operation and maintenance budgets of the five regional centers for 

security studies. The five centers serve as a forum for bilateral and 

multilateral communication within a region. Their activities range 

from extended academic programs to conferences on topics such as 

regional security issues, defense planning, and civilian-military relations. The committee notes that the regional centers serve an important role in supporting the Secretary of Defense and the geographic combatant commanders, but the committee also notes that 

the budgets of these centers continue to grow—even after the Secretary of Defense’s efficiency initiative explicitly sought to reduce 

their budgets. 

In addition, the DSCA budget also included $34.8 million for the 

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP). While the committee remains supportive of this program, the committee is concerned about the expanding activities and increased operating costs 

of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on: its core counterterrorism 

training and education; a limited number of regions where the 

threat posed by terrorism is the most significant; and efforts to offset rising costs such as increased use of virtual education opportunities and programs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

As such, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of 

$12.0 million to OMDW for the DSCA’s budget request to support 

the five regional centers and a decrease of $7.0 million for the 

CTFP. 

The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy (USD(P)), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 

geographic combatant commanders to conduct a review of the mission, mandate, curriculum, and other activities of the five regional 

centers to ensure that their ongoing and planned activities continue to directly support the theater security cooperation campaigns of their respective combatant commanders. The review shall 

also assess whether the current organizational construct and chain 

of command associated with the five regional centers is appropriate 

given the recent presidential guidance on security assistance. As 

part of the review, the committee urges the USD(P) to focus particular attention on the need to enhance engagement in areas of 

emerging security interests (e.g. the area of responsibility in U.S. 

Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Central Command) and promoting continued interoperability among International Security Assistance Force partners and capturing the lessons learned from coalition operations in Afghanistan. 

Following the completion of this review—and no later than 90 

days after enactment of this Act—the committee directs the 

USD(P) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

The committee is aware that the Department has taken steps to 

establish a governance board to enhance its ability to oversee the 

centers and has set broad programmatic priorities, but has not yet 

fully developed an approach for measuring the centers’ progress in 

meeting these priorities, including establishing measurable goals, 

related performance metrics, and a methodology for assessing performance of the centers. Therefore, as part of the aforementioned 

briefing, the committee directs the USD(P) to also provide information on the status of its efforts to measure the centers’ progress. 

Funding for impact aid 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 

the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 

funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students .................. 25.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .................................. 5.0 

Total ................................................................................................. 30.0 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request 

The budget request included $371.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), of which $273.3 million was for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the relocation of marines to Guam. 

Given the reevaluation of the relocation of marines to Guam, the 

committee remains concerned that the funds requested for the OEA 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $273.3 million in OMDW for the OEA. 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy funding decrease 

The budget request included $32.9 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $66.0 million was 

for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

(OUSD(P)). 

In light of sequestration reductions and readiness concerns faced 

by the Department, the committee is concerned by the growth of 

the OUSD(P) budget request. The committee notes that nearly 50 

percent of the OUSD(P) budget is dedicated to contractor support, 

which in the committee’s view, is based on past staffing paradigms 

and is far too great. As the Department considers areas to make 

reductions within OUSD(P) to adjust for this cut, the committee expects that the first reductions should target the size and/or cost of 

the contractor workforce. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in OMDW for the OUSD(P). 

Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass 

The budget request included $32.9 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $14.2 billion is for classified 

programs. Within that amount for classified programs, the request 

includes classified amounts to sustain intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) support to U.S. Africa Command 

(AFRICOM). 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239) included funds to enhance the ISR support 

to AFRICOM’s Operation Observant Compass, an operation to support the efforts of Ugandan and other regional militaries to remove 

Joseph Kony and other senior leaders of the Lord’s Resistance 

Army from the battlefield in Central Africa. 

The budget request included funds for commercial aircraft with 

full motion video sensors. The committee notes that this capability 

is of limited utility in regions where there is dense canopy, and believes that the Department is paying more than it should for this 

capability. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to the 

request for full motion video surveillance and recommends $40.0 

million to sustain the congressionally mandated initiative. 

Items of Special Interest 

Additive manufacturing 

The committee notes that the introduction of additive manufacturing, also known as third dimensional (3–D) printing, has the potential to contribute to Department of Defense (DOD) missions and 

capabilities with the effective and efficient use of lightweight materials, rapid production, and design innovation. The committee remains concerned that the long lead time often associated with 

spare parts can in some instances take multiple years to arrive at 

various DOD depots. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

The committee notes that the potential to use ceramic composite 

materials could offer enhanced aircraft performance over metal alloys with higher temperatures ranges, less weight, and greater fuel 

efficiency. Similarly, a deployable 3–D printing capability could enable a forward operating base with an adaptive and onsite manufacturing capability with a reduced logistical burden. Furthermore, 

the DOD is providing funding to the recently established National 

Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII). 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the potential benefits and constraints of additive 

manufacturing, how the process could or could not contribute to 

DOD missions, and what technologies being developed at NAMII 

are being transitioned for DOD use. 

Advanced situational awareness training 

The committee understands that the Army has successfully introduced a program to train deploying units to detect changes in 

human behavior through the Advanced Situational Awareness 

Training module. The committee commends the Army for continuing to broaden and adapt its training efforts to best enable soldiers to react to the vast array of complex and asymmetrical 

threats often faced in a combat environment. The committee notes 

that training to increase situational awareness imparts enduring 

and important skills for individual soldiers and units, and encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider expanding this type of 

training to additional deploying units and at the appropriate advanced leadership courses. 

Air show support by the Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense issued guidance in early April 2013 

prohibiting all aerial demonstrations, including flyovers, jump team 

demonstrations, and participation in civilian air shows and military open houses. 

Many believe that this lack of community engagement may have 

negative consequences on military recruiting and local economies. 

The committee recognizes that the Department had to take serious 

steps in order to deal with the effects of sequestration in fiscal year 

2013. 

However, the committee has been informed that there are certain 

circumstances where an exception to this general policy could provide some level of community engagement as a no-cost addition to 

activities that are required for training or readiness. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of 

Defense reconsider whether this policy should be enforced on a 

blanket basis or whether the policy should allow for community engagement if that engagement can be completed as a no-cost adjunct 

to missions fulfilling other required operational or training activities. 

Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments 

The Department of Defense (DOD), Military Construction and 

Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 

2013 (Public Law 113–6) provided $20.0 million in Air Force ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

search, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) only for research that will improve emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel to 

enable this technology to be a competitive alternative energy resource. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a detailed spending plan to the committee for the CTL 

RDT&E program no later than July 31, 2013. Additionally, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Energy, to report to the committee on the feasibility of potential technologies that could enable coal-based fuels to 

meet the requirements of the DOD consistent with section 526 of 

the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public 

Law 110–140). The report shall also include a proposal for joint research on those technologies that are most promising for the capture of carbon, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and other 

approaches that could enable coal-based fuels to be procured under 

section 526 of the EISA 2007. The DOD shall submit this report 

to the committee no later than February 1, 2014. 

Combatant command support agent accounting 

The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget justification material within the Air Force’s Combatant Commander 

Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commander Core Operations (lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of multiple 

combatant commands’ budgets under the purview of the Air Force 

as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee is concerned that due to this consolidation, the justification material 

lacks the level of detail necessary for this committee to make informed budget decisions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the services to annually deliver independent, detailed budget justification for each combatant 

command they are assigned Combatant Command Support Agent 

responsibility. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of United 

States Central Command 

Since fiscal year 2001, the resources provided to U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) and its supporting military service components have grown dramatically to conduct and manage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Department of Defense (DOD) reports provided to Congress, the military and civilian manpower at 

CENTCOM has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001 and this 

does not include the contractors that support the headquarters. 

With the drawdown of operational forces from Iraq and ongoing 

drawdown from Afghanistan, it will be important to examine levels 

of headquarters manpower and mission support costs needed by 

CENTCOM and its respective service component commands to 

manage steady state operations. 

As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to undertake a review of CENTCOM to include the 

following items: (1) what have been the trends in manpower and 

mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of CENTCOM, 

subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service component 

commands since 2001; (2) what steps has DOD taken to reexamine 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

the size and structure of the headquarters of CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service component commands in light of the significant drawdown of forces and operations 

in its area of responsibility and changing U.S. military strategy; (3) 

what are the future plans for CENTCOM and its service component commands, including any plans to maintain headquarters in 

forward locations such as Kuwait and Qatar; (4) what changes, if 

any, should be made to intelligence and other defense functions 

that support CENTCOM combat operations; (5) what personnel adjustments are recommended at senior levels to right size the command structure; and (6) any other items the Comptroller General 

determines to be appropriate while conducting this review, including relevant plans regarding right-sizing and properly posturing 

manpower at headquarters for steady state post–2014. 

The Comptroller General shall provide the preliminary results of 

the study to the congressional defense committees by September 

30, 2013, with a final report to follow as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde 

The committee notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

the Joint Staff J–4, the military services, and other entities are developing consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde and disposition for equipment currently deployed for use in Operation Enduring Freedom and elsewhere throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee notes that the consolidated guidance includes a process outline for transferring excess 

defense articles (EDA) to coalition partners via the existing Letter 

of Request/Letter of Acceptance process. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the 

progress of the consolidated guidance for equipment retrograde and 

EDA process no later than January 1, 2014. 

Contingency basing 

The committee notes the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a 

directive on January 10, 2013 which established a policy and assigned responsibility for DOD contingency basing outside the 

United States. The committee is encouraged by the DOD’s intent 

to pursue increased effectiveness and efficiency in contingency basing to better assist the warfighter. The committee believes that 

contingency basing while often executed in an expedient fashion, 

should also take into account the sustainment cost of materials and 

seek opportunities to reduce the logistical and operational burden 

of the warfighter. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

notify the congressional defense committees of the decision to designate a senior official to be responsible for the oversight of all aspects of contingency basing policy, no later than March 1, 2014. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than March 

1, 2014 on the resourcing decisions and progress made regarding 

the action items published in enclosure 2 of the DOD Directive 

3000.10. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management 

The committee notes that the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) is the only dedicated institution of 

the Department of Defense (DOD) for the education and training 

of U.S. and foreign nation personnel involved in the planning, management, and assessment of security cooperation and partner capacity-building programs conducted under the authorities of the 

Departments of Defense and State. DISAM is primarily funded via 

the Department of State authorities, and only in recent years has 

DISAM been resourced to support training and education on the 

planning, management, and assessment of DOD security cooperation efforts, including many title 10 programs (e.g., section 1206 

train-and-equip authorities, DOD counternarcotics authorities, 

Joint Combined Exchange Training, and Latin America and African Cooperation authorities). As stated in the budget request, these 

title 10 programs are of particular importance to DOD in meeting 

the emergent needs of the geographic combatant commanders in 

support of theater security campaign plans and contingency operations. 

However, the committee notes that despite the additional funding to incorporate title 10 authorities into the curriculum at 

DISAM, security assistance officers deployed overseas remain less 

informed of the flexible building partnership capacity programs 

that Congress has provided to DOD over the last decade. 

As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

jointly conduct a full review of the security assistance curriculum 

at DISAM to ensure that DOD’s title 10 programs, particularly 

DOD’s counternarcotics authorities, are incorporated in the curriculum fully. Not later than 30 days following completion of this 

review, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide 

a briefing to the committee on their findings and recommendations. 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum of understanding to enhance energy security 

The committee remains encouraged by the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on July 22, 2010 by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy concerning cooperation 

in a strategic partnership to enhance energy security. The committee notes that the MOU was to cover, but not limited to, efforts 

in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water efficiency, fossil fuels, alternative fuels, efficient transportation technologies and fueling infrastructure, grid security, smart grid, energy storage, waste-to-energy, basic science research, mobile/ 

deployable power, small modular reactor nuclear energy, and related areas. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than January 1, 2014 on the progress made to date regarding the MOU 

signed on July 22, 2010 to enhance energy security. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Energy metering 

The committee notes that section 2828 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112–81) required the 

Secretary of the Navy to meter Navy piers so that the energy consumption of naval vessels while in port can be accurately measured 

and captured. The committee is encouraged by the utilities meter 

policy signed on April 16, 2013 which established a Department of 

Defense (DOD) policy to install advanced meters on individual 

DOD-owned facilities and directs the services to develop a meter 

data management plan. The committee is encouraged by the DOD’s 

intent to improve the management of energy and water consumption, improve mission assurance, and increase reliability. The committee recognizes that energy metering alone does not independently save energy or water, which is why the committee strongly 

encourages the DOD to ensure energy metering data is not only 

captured but used to implement greater efficiencies, inform decisions, optimize installation performance, and achieve results 

through better practices. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the military 

departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee 

with finalized meter data management plans with proposed practices to achieve greater efficiencies no later than March 1, 2014. 

Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense 

Review 

The Secretary of Defense is required every 4 years to conduct a 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), pursuant to section 118 of 

title 10, United States Code. The QDR is intended to provide a national defense strategy necessary to successfully execute the full 

range of missions called for in the national security strategy. 

The committee believes a defense strategy should consider assured access to energy resources as essential to the Department of 

Defense’s ability to project power and provide combat capability for 

operations. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), energy security was defined as 

‘‘having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability 

to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential 

requirements.’’ 

The committee notes a forecast by the International Energy 

Agency (IEA) predicts that ‘‘by around 2020, the United States is 

projected to become the largest global oil producer (overtaking 

Saudi Arabia until the mid–2020s) and starts to see the impact of 

new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The result is a continued 

fall in U.S. oil imports, to the extent that North America becomes 

a net oil exporter around 2030.’’ The IEA forecast goes on to say 

for all types of fuels: ‘‘But there is no immunity from global markets. No country is an energy ’island’ and the interactions between 

different fuels, markets, and prices are intensifying.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

ensure that the 2013 QDR assessment includes a review of the extent of defense resources and budgets that would be required to 

successfully carry out an energy security strategy. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training 

Corps cadets and critical military language training 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s efforts to establish 

a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign exchange 

program that seeks to enhance cultural understanding, foster regional expertise, and improve foreign language training among cadets in the ROTC. The committee is also encouraged by similar efforts to provide overseas professional development training and 

education, including opportunities for training in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational environment with 

partner military service members at accredited universities. The 

committee recognizes the importance of short-term overseas training events in regions and cultures of strategic importance to the 

nation that could better prepare ROTC cadets to meet the future 

requirements of our combatant commanders’ theater campaign 

plans. 

Additionally, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Army to provide greater oversight and coordination 

to ensure the goals of these programs are in concert with the security cooperation strategy and national security objectives. 

Full spectrum operations 

The committee is encouraged by the Army and Marine Corps’ 

proposal to plan for training for a full spectrum of operations in the 

fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee notes that for more 

than a decade the services have been consumed with preparing and 

deploying forces for counterinsurgency operations in combat, leaving little time and resources to train for other contingencies. As 

combat operations decline, the committee encourages the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that sufficient training 

resources are dedicated to full spectrum operations when preparing 

the fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

Government Accountability Office readiness analysis 

The committee notes that the drawdown of forces first from Iraq 

and now from Afghanistan presents the Department of Defense 

(DOD) with a new set of challenges as it plans for an uncertain future with fewer resources. In its January 2012 strategic guidance, 

Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense and related documents, DOD called for a smaller, lighter, and 

flexible joint force able to conduct a full range of activities but no 

longer sized to conduct large and protracted stability operations. 

The guidance also called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia-Pacific region along with the Middle East and several other changes. 

In March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy Secretary of Defense to work with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff to conduct a strategic choices and management review to 

examine the opportunities and challenges that underlie the defense 

strategy, posture, and investments, including all past assumptions 

and systems. The committee notes that shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material impact on the way DOD portrays 

its readiness and the risks it faces. 

Accordingly, to help inform the committee’s oversight and its consideration of the Department’s budget request, the committee diVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

rects the Comptroller General of the United States to review the 

Department’s readiness and the risks DOD faces and to report the 

results of this review to the congressional defense committees. The 

review should specifically address, but not be limited to: 

(1) the current and historical readiness status of each of the 

military services including any trends in reported readiness; 

(2) the current and historical readiness status of each of the 

current geographic and functional combatant commands, including any trends in reported readiness; 

(3) the key factors that impact readiness, and how these factors contributed to any reported changes in readiness between 

March 1, 2013, when sequestration went into effect, and the 

December 2013 readiness reports; and 

(4) changes in strategic and military risk levels between 

2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and reports strategic 

and military risks. 

The committee notes that in reporting on these four elements, 

the Comptroller General may take a phased approach, reporting on 

elements (1), (2), and (3) by March 15, 2014, and reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD delivers the annual Chairman’s Risk 

Assessment, as required by section 153 of title 10, United States 

Code, to the congressional defense committees. 

Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local 

governments 

The committee notes that section 331 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) provided expanded authorities to the Secretary of Defense to enter 

into intergovernmental service agreements with state and local 

governments in order to provide, receive, or share installation-support services if the Secretary determines that the agreement will 

serve the best interests of the Department of Defense (DOD) by enhancing mission effectiveness or creating efficiencies or economies 

of scale, including by reducing costs. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

committee not later than February 1, 2014, regarding the status of 

the use of this authority to enter into such agreements. The report 

shall include: 

(1) a review of the policy adopted by DOD to guide the development of proposals to share installation support services; 

(2) a description of the structure and components of intergovernmental agreements, including the adherence to Federal Acquisition Regulations; 

(3) guidance for delegating authority to enter into such 

agreements to the installation level; 

(4) a list of any proposed locations and types of services that 

are being considered for the use of this authority; and 

(5) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, Title III authority 

The committee notes that under the Defense Production Act, 

Title III authority, one current project is developing a domestic proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

duction capability for light-weight polymer-based ammunition. The 

committee believes that light-weight ammunition has the potential 

to decrease the individual load of the warfighter, increase mobility, 

decrease logistical burden, and reduce fuel consumption in military 

operations. The committee notes that traditional ammunition cartridges are produced using metallic-based materials such as steel, 

copper, aluminum, or brass. The committee understands that any 

new ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, 

accuracy, and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, 

weapon function, lethality, storage, and transportation. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the military 

departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no 

later than February 1, 2014 on the pursuit of additional small 

arms and ammunition projects which could enhance combat capability, reduce logistical burdens, and improve efficiencies. 

Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps policy on core 

depot maintenance workload is currently under revision. Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare a briefing 

or a report to the committee on the status and progress of a finalized core depot maintenance policy no later than January 1, 2014. 

Meals ready to eat war reserve 

The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics Agency’s 

(DLA) potential reduction of its Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) war reserve may lower production in a manner that may negatively affect 

the industrial base which could threaten the DLA’s ability to respond to contingency operation capabilities commensurate with 

service end strength. Therefore, the committee directs the DLA in 

consultation with the services, to develop a comprehensive strategic 

plan that ensures an adequate MRE inventory for each of the services that meets both DLA and service-specific requirements, maintains the appropriate levels of MRE war reserves, and provides for 

a surge capability to support unforeseen contingencies. The DLA 

shall report to the committee on this plan no later than 90 days 

after the enactment of this Act. 

Mission compatibility reviews 

The committee is concerned about the implementation of section 

358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) collaboration with other involved agencies to ensure 

that the development of energy sources and the increased resiliency 

of the commercial electric grid may continue to move forward while 

protecting the missions of military test and training ranges and installations in the United States. The committee urges DOD to use 

a consistent standard and process pursuant to Federal Rule 32 

CFR Part 211 for all mission compatibility reviews on public or private land and to review offshore energy projects using the same 

process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the committee with a report that details the status of its review 

process on each of its applicants within 90 days of enactment of 

this Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan 

The committee notes with concern the recently released report by 

the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 

(SIGAR) titled, ‘‘Forward Operating Base Salerno: Inadequate 

Planning Resulted in $5 Million Spent for Unused Incinerators and 

the Continued Use of Potentially Hazardous Open-Air Burn Pit Operations,’’ dated April 2013. In the report the SIGAR concluded, 

among other things, that Forward Operating Base (FOB) Salerno 

in Afghanistan constructed two waste incinerators that it has not 

and will not use. As a result, the FOB Salerno continues to use 

open pit burning to dispose of waste at the base. 

Over the past several years, the committee has been concerned 

about the use of open pit burning to dispose of trash during contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the potential 

effects the smoke from these pits can have on the health of personnel in the vicinity. As the SIGAR report sets forth, U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) regulation 200–2, CENTCOM Contingency 

Environmental Guidance, dated January 3, 2011, requires that 

when a base exceeds 100 U.S. personnel for 90 days, it must develop a plan for installing waste disposal technologies, such as incinerators, so that open pit burning operations can cease. The 

SIGAR report shows that, despite efforts to eliminate open pit 

burning in favor of incinerators and other methods, some of those 

efforts have failed and open pit burning continues at some locations. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the 

House of Representatives by September 30, 2013, on the efforts to 

reduce reliance on open pit burning of waste at operating bases in 

Afghanistan. The report shall include: 

(1) a list of bases that have functioning incinerators installed 

and in use; 

(2) for those bases that do not have functioning incinerators 

in place, an explanation for each as to why incinerators are not 

in use; 

(3) a list of all bases or camps in Afghanistan at which the 

U.S. armed forces use open pit burning as the primary means 

of disposing of waste; 

(4) a plan for how the Secretary intends to bring operating 

bases in Afghanistan into full compliance with Department of 

Defense regulations and CENTCOM regulations regarding 

waste disposal; and 

(5) an assessment of incinerator technologies that are available to the Department of Defense for use in Afghanistan, including any such incinerator technologies that could also contribute to energy production, and any other waste-to-energy 

strategies. 

Organizational clothing and equipment 

The committee notes that a Department of Defense Inspector 

General (DOD IG) report dated February 22, 2013 found that over 

the last six years inadequate tracking and recovery procedures resulted in a loss of approximately $20.0 million in unreturned organizational clothing and equipment (OCIE) for redeploying civilians 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

and contractors. The committee notes that this is the second report 

since 2010 regarding a lack of control over the tracking and recovery of OCIE. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the corrective action taken, including a timephased plan with measurable goals and metrics, to address the recommendations in report number DODIG–2013–050 regarding 

OCIE recovery from civilians and contractor employees. 

Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material 

shipments 

The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the United 

States is in the process of conducting a comprehensive review of 

the policies and procedures by the Department of Defense in the 

handling of hazardous material shipments pursuant to section 363 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239), including the review of Transportation Protective Services (TPS) safety standards for commercial surface carriers transporting dangerous or sensitive cargo on public highways 

within the United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that commercial TPS carrier safety 

performance standards measured by the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) are not altered to less stringent safety standards during the duration of the 

Comptroller General review. 

Readiness concerns under sequestration 

The committee recognizes that the implementation of sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a result of the 

Budget Control Act of 2011 poses significant risk to the readiness, 

training, and operational capability of our military forces. The committee remains concerned that the sequestration in fiscal year 

2013, and the threat of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and beyond forces the DOD to cutback combat training exercises, flying 

hours, steaming hours, and other military training. Other impacts 

include cancelling and delaying contracts, civilian employee furloughs, civilian hiring freezes, reductions or eliminations of temporary and term employees, deferred facilities maintenance, and 

the cancelling or postponing of maintenance for ships, aircraft, 

ground vehicles, and facilities. Additionally, many investment, acquisition, and research and development programs will be negatively impacted if sequestration remains in place. The committee 

understands from testimony by Department witnesses that the 

services have already reduced, canceled, or deferred a number of 

training exercises and scheduled maintenance activities as a result 

of the sequestration cuts. 

The Chief of Staff of the Army testified that the Army has ‘‘curtailed training for 80 percent of the force, canceled six brigade combat training center rotations, and cut 37,000 flying hours, initiated 

termination of 3,100 temporary employees, canceled third and 

fourth quarter depot maintenance, and are planning to furlough its 

valued civilian work force.’’ The committee understands that along 

with a higher-than-expected operating tempo in Afghanistan, the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

Army has an $8.3 billion shortfall for the last 6 months of fiscal 

year 2013 in the base budget and a $7.8 billion shortfall to overseas contingency operations. The committee notes that by the end 

of September 2013, only one-third of the Army’s Active Duty units 

are expected to have acceptable readiness ratings. 

The Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy plans to 

‘‘reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, defer an additional 

84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight 

of 33 planned depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities’’ 

and that ‘‘by the end of fiscal year 2013, a majority of our non-deployed ships and aviation squadrons—nearly two thirds of the 

fleet—will be less than fully mission capable and not certified for 

major combat operations.’’ The committee understands the Navy 

faces a $4.1 billion operation and maintenance (O&M) shortfall and 

has deferred $1.2 billion in facilities maintenance. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps face a $775.0 

million shortfall in O&M during fiscal year 2013 as a result of sequestration. The Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that, 

‘‘sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will mean that more than half of 

our non-forward-deployed ground and aviation units will have readiness ratings of C3 or below.’’ The Assistant Commandant of the 

Marine Corps testified that, ‘‘44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions 

across all types, models, and series . . . will not occur as a result 

of sequestration reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.’’ Additionally, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps predicted that 

a year from now, air squadrons will have only about half of their 

aircraft ready. 

The Secretary of the Air Force testified that sequestration, ‘‘re- quired approximately $10.0 billion in reductions to be taken in the 

last seven months of fiscal year 2013’’ and ‘‘impacts include reductions in weapons systems sustainment that will delay necessary 

maintenance, increase costs, and take perhaps 2 to 3 years to recover from repair backlogs.’’ The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force 

testified that the Air Force has, ‘‘already ceased operations for onethird of our fighter and bomber force’’ and ‘‘will force us to induct 

60 less airplanes and 35 less engines into depots’’ and ‘‘forced us 

to reduce approximately 200,000 flying hours in the last 6 months 

of the year’’ and to cut ‘‘220 energy projects in facilities 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization’’ due to sequestration. 

The committee believes that sequestration cuts to the DOD are 

arbitrary and irrational. The committee notes that continued budget uncertainty further jeopardizes the DOD’s ability to defend our 

Nation. Sequestration cuts increase operational and strategic risk 

by deferring vital maintenance and cancelling necessary training, 

and will cost the Nation more over time to recover from this damage. 

Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll 

The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command recently 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding to have U.S. Army Installation Command maintain certain infrastructure at the Kwajalein 

Atoll. The committee is pleased with bringing the expertise of the 

Installation Command to help manage certain aspects of the Atoll’s 

infrastructure. However, given the unique and important nature of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

test facilities at the Atoll and its remoteness, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Army to report on the Installation Command’s 

long-term management plan for the Atoll. The report shall be due 

not later than April 30, 2014. 

Report on the identification of a hollow force 

The committee recognizes that the implementation of sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a result of the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, poses significant risk to the readiness, 

training, and operational capability of our military forces and the 

potential of a hollow force. 

Accordingly, not later than February 1, 2014, the Secretary of 

Defense shall, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, submit 

to the committee a report on criteria and means for identifying the 

existence of a so-called ‘‘hollow force’’. The report shall include a 

definition of what constitutes a hollow force for each branch of the 

Armed Forces and a description of the criteria and metrics used to 

assess the existence and extent of a hollow force. The report shall 

also include for each military department, an assessment whether, 

and if so to what extent, its operating forces are hollow as determined using the above-cited criteria and metrics, and if such operating forces are hollow, a mitigation plan to restore those forces to 

an acceptable level of readiness such that they no longer meet the 

definition of a hollow force. The report shall also explain how the 

Department will use the Defense Readiness Reporting System and 

other readiness assessment and reporting systems to monitor and 

manage risk related to the hollowing of operating forces. 

The committee notes that each Quarterly Readiness Report to 

Congress, as required by section 482 of title 10, United States 

Code, shall include a description and explanation for each service 

with respect to evidence and management of risk of operating 

forces becoming or having become hollow. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General to review the 

report required above and not later than March 15, 2014, provide 

the congressional defense committee as assessment of the elements 

of the report as established above. 

Lastly, the committee notes that the report shall be submitted in 

unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. 

Review of defense headquarters and combatant command 

resources 

The committee notes the significant growth in the geographic 

combatant commands over the past decade and is concerned that 

the Department of Defense (DOD) should take steps to ensure adequate oversight of those commands. In its May 2013 report titled 

‘‘Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Command Resources’’ (GAO–13–293), 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found significant 

growth in the resources being devoted to the geographic combatant 

commands and weaknesses in the processes used by DOD to periodically evaluate the size and structure of the geographic combatant commands, as well as limitations in the information used to 

oversee the commands. The report also brought into focus a longstanding concern of the committee about DOD’s reporting to ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

gress; specifically, the report found that congressional oversight 

may be hampered because current budget justification documents 

do not specify the personnel and budget resources being devoted to 

each combatant command, among other limitations. 

The trends reported by the Comptroller General are concerning 

in light of DOD’s recent efforts to reduce headquarters and other 

overhead. Over the past decade (excluding U.S. Central Command 

due to the large-scale operations in that area of responsibility over 

the period), the geographic combatant commands authorized positions grew by nearly 50 percent and included more than 10,000 

military and civilian positions in fiscal year 2012, plus an unknown 

number of supporting contractors and temporary personnel. Since 

2008, their supporting service component commands grew by about 

30 percent to about 7,800 authorized positions in fiscal year 2012. 

The cost to operate and support the commands has also ballooned. 

After adjusting for inflation, the costs to operate and support the 

headquarters of the combatant commands more than doubled since 

2007 and now totaled more than $1.1 billion annually. Costs to operate and support the headquarters of the service component commands also increased substantially since 2007 and totaled more 

than $600.0 million annually. 

GAO made four recommendations to improve processes for evaluating requirements and provide better visibility of personnel and 

resources. The committee was pleased to see that DOD concurred 

with three of the four recommendations, including providing region-by-region resource breakdowns in future budget justification 

documents. However, the Joint Staff non-concurred with a key recommendation that it take an active role in overseeing the size and 

structure of the combatant commands, including periodic reviews to 

ensure that the resources being devoted to the commands are commensurate with their assigned missions and priorities. 

The committee urges the DOD to take steps to implement all of 

the recommendations of GAO and looks forward to reviewing the 

future budget justifications provided by DOD. If the Department 

concludes that the Joint Staff is the wrong entity to undertake 

periodic reviews and ensure that staffing and resource levels are 

appropriate, the committee directs the Secretary to establish alternative mechanisms for providing such oversight on a periodic basis. 

Small modular reaction study 

The committee continues to be concerned about the survivability, 

sustainability, and significant logistical costs of fuel and water associated with the support of deployed personnel at remote forward 

operating bases. The availability of deployable, cost-effective, regulated, and secure small modular reactors with a modest output 

electrical power (less than 10 megawatts) could improve combat capability and improve deployed conditions for the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The committee understands the pursuit of such an endeavor invites ample concerns, not limited to: technical feasibility, policy 

oversight and regulation, robust safety and secure design features, 

logistics and resources, proliferation concerns, life cycle costs, deployment policies and transportability, personnel costs, and lessons 

learned from recent combat operations. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees on the challenges, operational requirements, constraints, cost, and life cycle analysis for a 

small modular reactor of less than 10 megawatts no later than January 1, 2015. 

Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements 

The committee is aware that the manufacturing of tungsten and 

molybdenum powders, including tungsten rhenium (WRe) wire, is 

used in a variety of Department of Defense (DOD) applications. 

The committee is aware that currently there are not suitable substitutes available for WRe wire. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2014, with a determination as to whether DOD has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support DOD requirements. If not, the 

Secretary shall also submit a mitigation plan to ensure that DOD 

has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support its requirements. 

Unfunded requirements from the service chiefs 

The committee remains concerned, particularly in light of sequestration, that after more than a dozen years of combat operations 

and high operations tempo, backlogs of deferred depot maintenance 

remain unexecuted. The committee understands that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face significant challenges 

with respect to competing budget priorities. The committee notes 

that a continued failure to address the depot maintenance backlog 

will jeopardize and erode materiel readiness, further reduce the expected service life of DOD equipment, increase long-term 

sustainment costs, and further increase strategic risk for the Nation. 

Despite this depot maintenance backlog, DOD continues to 

underfund critical readiness accounts. In past years, the committee 

has been able to provide additional support and funding for DOD 

through unfunded requirements lists submitted by the service 

chiefs. 

The committee continues to strongly urge DOD to identify and 

provide a list of service-specific unfunded requirements with each 

fiscal year’s budget request. 

United States Africa Command 

United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is the smallest of the 

Department of Defense’s regionally-focused combatant commands 

with fewer than 5,000 service members on the continent of Africa, 

54 countries and over 12 million square miles. The United States 

no longer has the luxury of ignoring Africa; and AFRICOM, while 

still a relatively new combatant command, has been thrust to the 

forefront of our Nation’s security interests. Terrorist groups, including some affiliated with al Qaeda, are growing in numbers and capability, and have expanded their areas of operation. Many of our 

partners in the region, however, still lack the capacity to effectively 

combat these organizations and require further support. AFRICOM 

will be a vital component to this effort. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Despite the challenges within its area of responsibility and its 

massive size, AFRICOM suffers from persistent resource shortfalls. 

It has no assigned forces, lacks sufficient intelligence, surveillance 

and reconnaissance, and mobility support to meet theater requirements, and must rely on manpower from United States Central 

Command and United States European Command. This committee 

understands the need to properly resource AFRICOM and supports 

its efforts to build partnerships and combat the terrorist threat 

posed by violent extremists filtering down to Africa in response to 

successful U.S. and multilateral operations in other regions. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(99) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: 

Service FY 2013 authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2014 

request 

FY 2013 author- ized 

Army .................................................................. 552,100 520,000 520,000 0 ¥32,100 

Navy ................................................................... 322,700 323,600 323,600 0 900 

Marine Corps ..................................................... 197,300 190,200 190,200 0 ¥7,100 

Air Force ............................................................ 329,460 327,600 327,600 0 ¥1,860 

DOD Total ................................................. 1,401,560 1,361,400 1,361,400 0 ¥40,160 

The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal 

year 2014 end strength request for active forces, but remains concerned about the impact the drawdown is having on service members and their families. The committee urges the services to use involuntary measures sparingly, especially for those with significant 

years of service but who are not yet eligible for retirement. The 

committee recognizes that the services must balance the need to reduce overall end strength while ensuring the proper force mix, and 

avoiding grade and occupational disparities where possible, which 

have long-term effects that can take years to correct. In recent 

years, Congress has provided authorities requested by DOD that 

allow it to execute the drawdown in a measured, responsible way. 

The committee expects DOD to manage the drawdown accordingly. 

The committee also remains concerned about the impact that sequestration would have in 2014 and beyond on end strength levels 

for both the active and reserve components. The Army Chief of 

Staff has testified that the Army would reduce total force end 

strength by an additional 100,000 soldiers should sequestration 

continue beyond 2013. The committee expects that the other services may make reductions in end strength to meet Budget Control 

Act targets. The committee expects DOD to begin planning now for 

how it would address end strength in 2014 and beyond should sequestration continue in order to mitigate the effects such potential 

reductions in force would have on morale, recruiting, and retention. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Service FY 2013 

authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 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 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown 

below: 

FY 2014 Change from Service FY 2013 authorized Request Recommendation FY 2014 FY 2013 request authorized 

Service FY 2013 

authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 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 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 10,114 10,159 10,159 0 45 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 14,765 14,734 14,734 0 ¥31 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 2,888 2,911 2,911 0 23 

DOD Total ......................................................... 78,365 78,386 78,386 0 21 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2014, 

as shown below: 

Service FY 2013 

authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 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 

Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014, as shown 

below: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

Service FY 2013 

authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request 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 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, for fiscal year 2014, as shown below: 

Service FY 2013 

authorized 

FY 2014 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2014 

request 

FY 2013 author- ized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act. 

Budget Item 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs in section 421 of this Act includes the following changes 

from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Permanent Change of Station travel funding ..................................... ¥150.0 

Undistributed reduction related to pace of drawdown ....................... ¥120.0 

Total ................................................................................................. ¥270.0 

The committee recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in Military Personnel funding to reflect the recent trend of the services 

underexecuting their Permanent Change of Station (PCS) travel 

funding due to efficiencies resulting from longer tour lengths, fewer 

moves, and lower disbursement rates. The committee expects the 

services to continue to achieve efficiencies in their PCS travel programs, particularly as the Department fully implements the consolidated travel reform enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

The committee also recommends a decrease of $120.0 million in 

Military Personnel funding to reflect the services’ underexecution 

in various accounts relating to the drawdown and the redeployment 

of forces from Afghanistan, including lower officer and enlisted average strengths, subsistence costs, and lower than budgeted deployment costs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(103) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy Generally 

Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of title 10, United Sates Code, to authorize service secretaries to award constructive service credit upon original appointment as a commissioned officer for special experience or training 

in certain cyberspace-related fields and for periods of advanced 

education in certain cyberspace-related fields beyond the baccalaureate degree level. Constructive service credited under this provision is limited to 1 year for each year of special experience, training, or advanced education, and 3 years total of constructive service 

credit. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Information to be provided to boards considering officers 

for selective early removal from the reserve active-status list (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14704(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require service secretaries to specify the number of officers that a selection board may 

recommend for removal from the reserve active-status list, and to 

require the secretary to submit a list of officers to the selection 

board that includes each officer on the reserve active-status list in 

the same grade and competitive category in the zone of consideration except for officers who have been approved for voluntary retirement or who will be involuntarily retired. This would align the 

statutory procedures for a board convened to consider officers with 

sufficient qualifying service for early removal from the reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an active-duty selective early retirement board. 

Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between 

the active and inactive National Guard (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of officers of the Army and Air National Guard from the 

Selected Reserve to the inactive National Guard and from the inactive National Guard to the Selected Reserve during the period ending on December 31, 2016. This authority currently exists for enlisted members of the Army and Air National Guard. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve 

component units within 180 days of scheduled date of 

deployment (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to personally approve of any decision to cancel 

the deployment of a reserve component unit within 180 days of its 

scheduled deployment date when an active-duty unit would be sent 

instead to perform the same mission, and to notify the congressional defense committees and Governors concerned whenever such 

a decision is made. 

The committee notes with displeasure the decision of the Army 

in March 2013 to cancel the deployment of four National Guard 

units from Indiana for missions in the Horn of Africa and the Sinai 

Peninsula and replace them with active component forces for the 

purpose of addressing a fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall. Two of 

these units, approximately 500 people, were within 6 weeks of departure, and the remaining two units were within 90 days of departure. All units had been mobilized in October 2012 and had been 

preparing for the mission since that time. 

The Army described this as a ‘‘short fuse decision,’’ but its impact 

has been wide ranging on the National Guard in Indiana and the 

communities that support these service members. Over 1,000 families lost access to TRICARE benefits, after all had been enrolled in 

the TRICARE Early Eligibility Program 180 days ahead of their 

scheduled deployment date. Additionally, many service members 

made financial decisions and commitments based on the projected 

pay and benefits that accompany a year-long deployment. Students 

missed deadlines to apply for financial aid because they expected 

to be deployed. Some service members had already terminated 

leases. Moreover, these units will be placed at the bottom of rotation for future deployments, and will have lost a year of eligibility 

for deployment. 

The committee is concerned that this type of decision indicates 

a disregard for the preparation of reserve component forces for deployment and the impact that a last-minute cancellation of deployment, for reasons other than a change in mission requirements, can 

have on morale, retention, and training. This provision is not intended to limit the flexibility of the Army to cancel the deployment 

of reserve component forces for the purpose of replacing them with 

active component units, but rather to ensure that strategic thought 

is given to reserve component mobilization and the determination 

to cancel a deployment. 

National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 509 of title 32, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to use the National Guard to conduct the National 

Guard Youth Challenge Program; and require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to conduct the program in such states as the 

Chief considers appropriate, to prescribe the standards and procedures for selecting program participants, and to submit a report to 

Congress annually on the program. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected communications of members of the Armed Forces 

and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance protections for 

military whistleblowers. 

Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require the armed forces to accommodate individual expressions of belief of service members unless 

such expressions could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. 

Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with requirements for the protection of rights of 

conscience of members of the Armed Forces and their 

chaplains (sec. 513) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) to assess and 

report to Congress on the compliance of the Department of Defense 

with regulations promulgated under section 533 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239), within 180 days of promulgation. The provision would also require the DOD IG to investigate the Department’s and the services’ 

compliance with those regulations with respect to adverse personnel actions within 18 months of promulgating the regulations. 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training 

Authority for joint professional military education Phase II 

instruction and credit to be offered and awarded 

through senior-level course of School of Advanced Military Studies of the United States Army Command and 

General Staff College (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2151(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the School 

of Advanced Military Studies senior-level course at the Army Command and General Staff College to offer joint professional military 

education Phase II instruction and credit. 

Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences to support undergraduate and other medical 

education and training programs for military medical 

personnel (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to provide 

greater flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), to acVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

cess existing federal resources outside of the National Capital Region and to enable the USUHS to grant undergraduate degrees, 

certificates, and certifications in addition to advanced degrees. 

Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under 

the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9315(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Community College of the Air Force to award associate degrees to enlisted members of services other than the Air Force who participate 

in joint-service medical training and education or instructors in 

such joint-service medical training and education. 

Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for purposes of certain educational assistance 

under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense 

(sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

new section 2006a of title 10, United States Code, to require that 

educational institutions participating in certain Department of Defense education assistance programs enter into and comply with 

program participation agreements under title IV of the Higher 

Education Act, and to meet certain other standards. The provision 

would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive these requirements in certain cases. 

Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training 

for military occupational specialties with skills and 

training required for civilian certifications and licenses 

(sec. 525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries to make information on civilian credentialing opportunities available to members of the armed forces during all 

stages of their military occupational specialty training. The provision would also require the service secretaries to provide information on military course training curricula, syllabi, and materials, 

levels of military advancement attained, and professional skills developed by service members, to civilian credentialing agencies and 

entities approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or by state 

approving agencies, for the purposes of the administration of education benefits under the purview of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to 

military information technology under pilot program on 

receipt of civilian credentials for skills required for 

military occupational specialties (sec. 526) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the military occupational specialties designated for the purposes of 

the pilot program on receipt of civilian credentials authorized by 

section 558 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) include those specialties relating to 

the military information technology workforce. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 

527) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate to strongly urge the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Troops-to-Teachers Program is a priority of the Nation’s commitment to the higher education of members of the 

armed forces, and to provide funds to the Troops-to-Teacher Program in order to help separating members of the armed forces and 

veterans who wish to transition into a teaching career. 

Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North 

Georgia College and State University as University of 

North Georgia (sec. 528) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph (6) of section 2111a(f) of title 10, United States Code, to 

change the name of North Georgia College and State University to 

University of North Georgia to reflect the name change of this institution. 

Subtitle E—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and 

Military Justice Matters 

Part I—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals 

who have been convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 

531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code to prohibit the commissioning 

or enlistment in the armed forces of individuals who have been convicted of felony offenses of rape or sexual assault, forcible sodomy, 

incest, or of an attempt to commit these offenses. 

Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a 

member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a sexual assault or related offense 

(sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 39 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to provide guidance for commanders regarding their authority to make a timely determination and to take action regarding 

whether a service member serving on active duty who is alleged to 

have committed specified sexual offenses under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice should be temporarily reassigned or removed 

from a position of authority or from an assignment, not as a punitive measure, but solely for the purpose of maintaining good order 

and discipline within the unit. 

Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding consideration of request for permanent change 

of station or unit transfer by victim of sexual assault 

(sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 673(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

quirement for timely determination and action on an application by 

a victim of certain sexual offenses for a change of station or unit 

transfer applies to the Coast Guard. 

Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related offenses in personnel service records of members 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

substantiated complaints of a sexual-related offense resulting in a 

court-martial conviction, non-judicial punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service record of the service member, regardless of the member’s grade. The provision would also require 

the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations requiring commanders to review the history of substantiated sexual offenses of 

service members permanently assigned to the commander’s facility, 

installation, or unit. 

Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office for Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program (sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1611(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director 

of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (the Director) 

to: (1) oversee development and implementation of the comprehensive policy for the Department of Defense (DOD) sexual assault 

prevention and response program; (2) serve as the single point of 

authority, accountability, and oversight for the sexual assault prevention and response program; (3) undertake responsibility for the 

oversight of the implementation of the sexual assault prevention 

and response program by the armed forces; (4) collect and maintain 

data of the military departments on sexual assault; (5) provide 

oversight to ensure that the military departments maintain documents relating to allegations and complaints of sexual assault involving service members and courts-martial or trials of service 

members for sexual assault offenses; (6) act as a liaison between 

DOD and other federal and state agencies on programs and efforts 

relating to sexual assault prevention and response; (7) oversee development of strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives for resources in support of the sexual assault prevention and 

response program, and make recommendations on modifications to 

policy, law, and regulations needed to ensure the continuing availability of such resources; and (8) provide the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) any records or documents on 

sexual assault in the armed forces, including restricted reports 

with the approval of the individuals who filed such reports, that 

are required for the purposes of the administration of the laws administered by the Secretary of the VA. 

The provision would amend subtitle A of title XVI of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director to collect and maintain data from the services on sexual assaults involving service 

members and to develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

and compliance with, the training and awareness objectives on sexual assault and prevention. 

The provision would also amend section 1631(f) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 

U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the service secretaries to include in 

the case synopsis portion of the annual report regarding sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces the unit of each service member accused of committing a sexual assault and the unit of 

each service member who is a victim of a sexual assault. 

Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members 

of the Armed Forces on sexual assault prevention and 

response (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of: (1) the training 

provided to service members on sexual assault prevention and response, and (2) the training, qualifications, and experience of each 

service member and Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position that includes responsibility for sexual assault 

prevention and response. The provision would require the Secretary to take appropriate corrective action to address any deficiencies identified during these reviews and to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act on the findings and responsive action, including recommendations for legislative action, on the adequacy of the training, qualifications, and experience of each service member and Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position that 

includes responsibility for sexual assault prevention and response. 

Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators for 

members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 

537) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require service secretaries to ensure that each member of the National Guard 

or Reserve who is the victim of a sexual assault either during the 

performance of duties as a member of the National Guard or Reserve, or is a victim of a sexual assault by another member of the 

Guard or Reserve, has access to a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator not later than 2 business days following a request for such 

assistance. 

Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted 

Reports and Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 538) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 577(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that copies of Department of Defense Forms 2910 

and 2911 filed in connection with Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports of sexual assault are retained for the longer of 50 

years or the period that such forms are required to be retained pursuant to Department of Defense Directives. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed by members of the Armed Forces (sec. 539) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries to implement a program to provide a Special 

Victims’ Counsel to service members who are victims of a sexual 

assault committed by a member of the armed forces. The Special 

Victims’ Counsel would provide legal advice and assistance to the 

victim in connection with criminal and civil legal matters related 

to the sexual assault. 

Sense of Congress on commanding officer responsibility for 

command climate free of retaliation (sec. 540) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that: (1) commanding officers are responsible for 

establishing a command climate in which sexual assault allegations 

are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a victim can report 

criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other members 

of the command; (2) the failure of commanding officers to maintain 

such a command climate is an appropriate basis for relief from 

their command positions; and (3) senior officers should evaluate 

subordinate commanding officers on their performance in establishing a command climate free of retaliation. 

Commanding officer action on reports on sexual offenses involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate military 

criminal investigation organization reports of sexual-related offenses involving service members in the commander’s chain of command. 

Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of 

allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding 

sexual assault (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Inspector General to review and investigate allegations of retaliatory 

personnel actions for making a protected communication regarding 

violations of law or regulation that prohibit rape, sexual assault, or 

other sexual misconduct. 

Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual assault (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(c)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to provide that the panel established to conduct an independent review and assessment of the 

systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice would terminate no later than one year 

after the first meeting of the panel. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of 

database of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional duties of independent panel on review and assessment of systems to respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 

544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require the panel established 

to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems 

used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving 

adult sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice to also include an assessment of: (1) the opportunities for clemency provided in the military and civilian systems, 

the appropriateness of clemency proceedings in the military system, the manner in which clemency is used in the military system, 

and whether clemency in the military justice system could be reserved until the end of the military appeals process; and (2) the 

means by which the name, if known, and other necessary identifying information of an alleged offender that is collected as part of 

a restricted report of a sexual assault could be compiled into a protected, searchable database accessible only to military criminal investigators, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, or other appropriate personnel for the purpose of identifying subjects of multiple 

accusations of sexual assault and encouraging victims to make an 

unrestricted report to facilitate increased prosecution of serial offenders. 

Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on 

sexual assault prevention and response as additional 

duties of independent panels for review and assessment 

of Uniform Code of Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 545) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require the panel established 

to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems 

used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving 

adult sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice to assess: (1) the effectiveness of the provisions 

of law on sexual assault prevention and response in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) the potential effectiveness of the provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and response that were offered but not adopted during the 

markup by the Senate Committee on Armed Services of the bill to 

enact the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

The provision would also require the panel established to conduct 

an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses to: (1) monitor and assess the implementation of the provisions of law on judicial proceedings in connection with sexual assault in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) assess the potential 

effectiveness of provisions of law on judicial proceedings that were 

offered but not adopted during the markup by the Senate ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

mittee on Armed Services of the bill to enact the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty of independent panel on review and assessment of judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases 

(sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require the panel established 

to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses to assess the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution 

for victims of offenses under the UCMJ and to develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution. 

Part II—Related Military Justice Matters 

Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by 

court-martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 843 of title 

10, United States Code) to eliminate the 5–year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault 

of a child. 

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require review of decisions not to refer charges of rape or sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses to trial by courtmartial. In any case in which the staff judge advocate recommends 

that the charges be referred to trial by court-martial and the convening authority decides not to refer the charges to trial by courtmartial, the convening authority would be required to forward the 

case file to the service secretary for review. In cases where the staff 

judge advocate recommends that the charges not be referred to 

trial by court-martial and the convening authority agrees, the convening authority would be required to forward the case file to a superior commander authorized to exercise general court-martial convening authority for review. 

Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 846 of title 

10, United States Code) to require that, upon notice by trial counsel to defense counsel that trial counsel intends to call a complaining witness to testify at an investigation under Article 32, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 842 of title 10, United 

States Code) or court-martial, the defense counsel must make all 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

requests to interview the complaining witness through the trial 

counsel, and, if requested by the complaining witness, the defense 

counsel interview shall take place only in the presence of the trial 

counsel, counsel for the witness, or outside counsel. 

Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 

trial of such offenses by general courts-martial (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 56 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (section 856 

of title 10, United States Code) to require that the punishment for 

convictions of violations of Articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sections 920, 920b, or 925 of title 10, 

United States Code), include, at a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge. The provision would also amend Article 18 of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 818 of title 10, United 

States Code) to provide that only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over charges of violations of articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the 

UCMJ. 

Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify 

findings of a court-martial (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend article 

60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860 of title 10, 

United States Code) to limit the authority of a convening authority 

to modify the findings of a court-martial to qualified offenses for 

which the maximum sentence of confinement that could be adjudged does not exceed 1 year and the sentence adjudged by the 

court-martial does not include a punitive discharge or confinement 

for more than 6 months. Qualified offenses do not include offenses 

under Articles 120, 120a, 120b, and 120c of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (sections 920, 920a, 920b, and 920c of title 10, 

United States Code). 

The provision would also require the convening authority to explain, in writing, any action to modify the findings or sentence of 

a court-martial and require the written explanation to be made a 

part of the record of trial. 

Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase 

of courts-martial process (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 60(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860(b) of 

title 10, United States Code) to: (1) afford a complaining witness 

an opportunity to respond to any clemency matters submitted by 

an accused to the convening authority that refer to the complaining 

witness; (2) afford a complaining witness an opportunity to submit 

matters to the convening authority in any case in which findings 

and sentence have been adjudged for an offense involving the complaining witness; and (3) prohibit the convening authority from 

considering matters that go to the character of a complaining witness unless the matters were presented at the court-martial. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and trainees (sec. 

557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 

whether legislative action is required to modify the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code) to 

prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and 

their trainees. 

Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain 

sexual misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice through courts-martial (sec. 558) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that charges of rape, sexual assault, forcible 

sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses should be disposed 

of by court-martial rather than by non-judicial punishment or administrative action, and that the disposition authority should include in the case file a justification in any case where these charges 

are disposed of by non-judicial punishment or administrative action. 

Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of 

members of the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that: (1) the armed forces should be sparing in 

discharging in lieu of court-martial service members who have committed rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit 

such offenses, and should do so only when the facts of the case 

clearly warrant such discharge; (2) whenever possible, victims of 

these offenses should be consulted about the discharge of the service member; (3) commanding officers should consider the views of 

these victims when determining whether to discharge service members in lieu of court-martial; and (4) discharges of service members 

in lieu of court-martial for the specified offenses should be characterized as Other Than Honorable. 

Part III—Other Military Justice and Legal Matters 

Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 942 of title 

10, United States Code) to authorize appointment of former commissioned officers of a regular component of an armed force as 

judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

However, these former officers may not be appointed as a judge of 

the court within seven years after relief from active duty. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 925 of title 

10, United States Code) to prohibit forcible sodomy and bestiality. 

Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed 

Forces for reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations, not later than 120 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, that prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the armed forces 

who reports a criminal offense. The provision would also require 

the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, not later 

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, setting 

forth recommendations as to whether the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice should be amended to prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the armed forces who reports a 

criminal offense. 

Extension of crime victims’ rights to victims of offenses 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to recommend modifications to the Manual for 

Courts-Martial and to promulgate regulations to ensure compliance 

by responsible members of the armed forces and personnel of the 

Department of Defense with the obligation to enforce specified 

rights of victims of military crimes, including mechanisms for ensuring that victims of military crimes are afforded the rights in all 

applicable proceedings. 

Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating to character and military service of the accused in rule on initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the discussion pertaining to Rule 306 of the Manual for CourtsMartial be amended, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to strike the character and military service of 

the accused from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense. 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the 

DOD. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of Department of 

Defense assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe disabilities. 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards 

Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of 

high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 

581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3744, 6247, and 8744 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the award of more than one Medal of Honor, Distinguished 

Service Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal to a person whose 

subsequent acts justify an additional award. 

The provision would also amend sections 3744 and 8744 of title 

10, United States Code, to require that recommendations for the 

award of the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Air 

Force Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal for members of the 

Army and Air Force be made within 3 years and that the award 

be made within 5 years after the date of the act justifying the 

award. These timelines are consistent with the timelines for comparable awards in the Navy and Marine Corps. 

Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a roll designated 

as the ‘‘Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor 

Roll’’ and require the service secretaries to record on this roll the 

name of each person who has been awarded a Medal of Honor. The 

provision would also amend section 1562 of title 38, United States 

Code, to provide for the automatic enrollment and payment of the 

special pension to living Medal of Honor recipients. 

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to 

Robert F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 

583) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross 

under Section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to Robert F. 

Keiser for acts of valor during the Korean War. 

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to 

Sergeant First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of 

valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 584) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

under section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to Patrick N. 

Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam War. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Additional requirements for accounting for members of the 

Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel 

Affairs to conduct periodic briefings for families of missing persons 

on Department activities to account for those persons. 

Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports of certain recovered persons who were 

never placed in a missing status (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1506 and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, to include as 

privileged information, for the purposes of personnel files maintained under the system for accounting for missing persons, any 

survival, evasion, resistance, and escape debriefing reports by certain persons returned to United States control under a promise of 

confidentiality. 

Items of Special Interest 

Availability of Assaultive Offender’s Group Treatment program 

The United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, offers Assaultive Offender’s Group Treatment (AO) 

to inmates that are confined for violent offenses. It is part of a comprehensive behavioral health program developed to meet the 

unique needs of military inmates confined at the USDB, and is tailored to address the needs of each inmate. The AO program consists of 30 group treatment sessions which normally meet weekly 

with 8–10 inmates per group. The USDB reports that they have 

only been able to run one AO group per year due to staffing limitations. There are currently over 60 inmates on the waitlist for the 

program, resulting in a wait for over two years for some inmates 

who may desire to complete this program as part of their program 

of rehabilitation to be considered by a service clemency and parole 

board. 

The committee is concerned about the long wait time for inmates 

to participate in the AO program and directs the Commandant of 

the USDB to assess courses of action to reduce wait times and to 

provide the defense committees a report on his assessment no later 

than 180 days after passage of this act. 

Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention 

under Wounded Warrior Act authority 

Section 10216(g) of title 10, United States Code, enacted by section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181), authorizes the services to retain miliVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

tary technicians (dual status) as non-dual status technicians when 

losing their military membership due to combat-related injuries. 

The provision was intended to ensure that no dual status technician, required by statute to maintain military membership in a reserve component as a condition of their civilian employment, was 

unfairly treated due to injuries sustained in combat. The committee 

is aware of reports that this authority has rarely, if ever, been used 

despite many military technicians having been separated or retired 

since then with combat-related injuries. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees by September 1, 2013, the following: (1) the number of dual status technicians who have been 

retained as non-dual status technicians under the authority of section 10216(g); (2) the number of dual status technicians separated 

or retired with combat-related injuries since January 28, 2008; and 

(3) the number of technicians so separated or retired who qualified, 

or should have qualified, for retention under section 10216(g). 

Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for sexual assault 

The committee notes that it is possible for a service member to 

commit and be convicted of sexual assault at an off-post location 

without the command knowing of the conviction. The Department 

of Defense primarily relies on local police or blotter reports, periodic security clearance initiations and renewals, and self-reporting 

to monitor off-post criminal actions of service members. As a general rule, service members are not subject to periodic criminal 

record checks during their period of service unless they require a 

security clearance review or initiation, or are accepted into programs where background checks are required. This process could 

create a loophole for a sexual predator to serve in the military 

without the knowledge of the chain of command. 

General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, addressed these 

loopholes for felony or serious offenders in the a Senate Committee 

on Armed Services hearing on sexual assault on June 4, 2013, stating: ‘‘Background checks are done, but the ability to identify sexual 

offenders is certainly not 100 percent right now, and we have to do 

a better job of doing that. We need help with having a better database, but also making sure we’re scrutinizing those as we go forward.’’ Accordingly, as the military contends with the serious issue 

of identifying and prosecuting sexual predators, the committee expresses concern that service members with sexual assault convictions could continue to serve because these convictions are undetected by the chain of command. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a report by no later than December 31, 

2013, examining: (1) the scope and prevalence of the problem and 

whether there are existing loopholes and shortcomings in the current system; (2) the frequency and methods by which the military 

conducts criminal record checks after enlistment or swearing-in to 

the armed forces; (3) policies that direct members of the armed 

forces to self-report criminal arrests and convictions to the chain of 

command, and any penalties associated with failure to do so; and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

(4) procedures for submitting names of service members convicted 

of sexual offenses to the National Sex Offender Public Registry. 

Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and incorporation of civilian law enforcement best 

practices in sexual assault prevention and response 

The civilian law enforcement community has invested significant 

time and resources in developing proven strategies to effectively respond to sexual crimes. The Department of Justice regularly publishes established best practices incorporating the experience of 

thousands of federal, state, and local officers as well as academic 

experts. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the 

Department of Defense’s current policies and procedures regarding 

sexual assault prevention and response to identify ways to better 

incorporate civilian law enforcement best practices, particularly regarding training, investigation, and prosecution of sexual crimes. 

Department of Defense child development center personnel 

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense, following 

troublesome allegations of abuse at two Army Child Development 

Centers, for directing a Department-wide audit of all Department 

of Defense (DOD) providers who have regular contact with children 

in DOD child development, school age care, and youth programs, 

and a comprehensive review and evaluation by each of the military 

services of the actual background check documentation on file for 

each individual, employee, and volunteer for compliance by the appropriate authorities in accordance with applicable DOD and service policies. However, the committee has yet to see the results of 

that review. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a report by no later than October 1, 2013, 

examining: 

(1) any changes to DOD child development center hiring or 

personnel practices the Secretary determines are necessary 

based on the review; 

(2) steps DOD is taking to implement any necessary changes; 

(3) a description of the hiring practices at DOD child development centers, to include criminal background checks, credential verification procedures, and interview processes; and 

(4) an assessment of the contract with Child Care Aware of 

America (formerly known as the National Association of Child 

Care Resource and Referral Agencies) regarding hiring and termination procedures and referrals. 

Department of Defense reports on sexual assault 

The committee is concerned with the use of the imprecise terms 

‘‘sexual assault’’ and ‘‘unwanted sexual contact’’ to present statistics on the number of incidences of rape, sexual assault, forcible 

sodomy, and other unwanted sexual acts perpetrated against members of the military that are reported in both the annual Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) report on sexual assaults in the military and the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

Relations Survey (WGRS). The 2012 SAPRO report notes that 

there were 3,374 reports of sexual assault in fiscal year 2012, but 

defines the term ‘‘sexual assault’’ as ‘‘a range of crimes, including 

rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses.’’ In the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sexual assault is 

a specific serious offense that carries a possible sentence of up to 

30 years confinement, but the annual SAPRO report uses the term 

sexual assault to refer to the range of sexual offenses. 

Similarly, the WGRS measured the incidences of ‘‘unwanted sexual contact’’, defined as ‘‘intentional sexual contact that was 

against a person’s will or which occurred when the person did not 

or could not consent’’, finding that 6.1 percent of female respondents and 1.2 percent of male respondents experienced unwanted 

sexual contact in 2012. The Department then used these figures to 

estimate that 26,000 incidences of unwanted sexual contact occurred in 2012, but provided no numbers on the estimated number 

of rapes, sexual assaults, and other unwanted sexual acts that occurred. 

Using the imprecise terms ‘‘sexual assault’’ and ‘‘unwanted sexual contact’’ to refer to a range of sexual offenses creates confusion 

about the types of unwanted sexual acts that are being perpetrated 

against members of the military. To address this issue, the committee directs the Department to modify the language used in the 

annual SAPRO report and the WGRS to clearly report the number 

of instances of each type of unwanted sexual act, to include rape, 

sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit those acts. 

General and flag officer billets 

The committee recommends that, in concert with any plans to 

streamline the Department of Defense command, management, and 

headquarters support staff organizations, the Secretary of Defense 

develop a plan to ensure that the number of general and flag officer 

billets are adjusted appropriately to achieve a proper ratio relative 

to end strength and complies with guidance in section 525, title 10, 

United States Code. 

Medical management of sexual assault cases 

The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs, in a memorandum dated April 15, 2013, provided 

Department of Defense (DOD) guidance to each of the services on 

medical management of sexual assault cases based on the revision 

to DOD Instruction 6495.02, ‘‘Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,’’ to include provision of standardized, timely, and comprehensive medical care. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than February 1, 2014 outlining the Department’s 

plan to ensure that health care providers are appropriately trained 

to manage the acute and long-term health needs of victims of sexual assault, accredited as necessary to properly handle evidence 

collected from victims of sexual assault, and to ensure that these 

trained health care providers are located in military treatment facilities based on the Department’s projection of needs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Military dependent suicides 

The committee remains extremely troubled by the numbers of 

suicides in each of the services in both the active duty and the reserve components, and has recently been informed by the National 

Military Family Association and other military family advocacy 

groups that anecdotal reports indicate the number of suicides committed by dependents of service members is increasing. However, 

the committee notes that the Department of Defense does not currently track the suicides of military family members. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report no later than February 1, 2014, to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the Department’s current capabilities to track the suicides of military dependents of both active duty and reserve component members, the feasibility and advisability of tracking such suicides, a description of any impediments to the ability to track suicides by 

military family members, and a description of current resiliency 

programs provided to family members by each of the services. 

Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material 

The committee notes that section 2495b(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on Department of Defense property. The committee has been 

made aware that despite this prohibition, sexually explicit material 

remains available for sale on certain Department of Defense premises. The committee is concerned about the impact this material 

may have on the health and wellness of military service members 

and their families. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with the service chiefs, to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a report, within 180 days of the enactment of this 

Act, that outlines the Department’s efforts to comply with the statutory prohibition. 

Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission 

The Military Leadership Diversity Commission established in 

section 596 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) made recommendations for improving diversity within the armed forces after conducting a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that 

provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the armed forces. 

It has been 2 years since the Commission made these recommendations. The committee continues to be interested in increasing diversity in the armed forces and the services’ progress in 

implementing the Commission’s recommendations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the 

services’ progress in implementing the Commission’s recommendations and to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on that assessment by 

December 31, 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl 

Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary of Defense 

shall submit to the congressional defense committees an unclassified report, with a classified annex, regarding the status of the 

search for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who was captured 

by the Taliban on June 30, 2009, in Paktika Province in eastern 

Afghanistan. The report should include Sergeant Bergdahl’s suspected whereabouts, his likely captors, and what efforts are being 

made to find and recover him. 

Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities 

for female members of the Armed Forces 

The committee notes and is encouraged by the efforts of the Department of Defense to expand service opportunities for women in 

the military. In February, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the 

ground-combat exclusion policy and required that the services open 

all positions to service by women by January 1, 2016, or request 

an exception to policy by that date to keep certain positions closed, 

an exception that must be approved by the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Department is moving toward 

an assignment system that is gender-neutral and performancebased, and the committee supports that effort and encourages the 

Department to continue to work toward full integration of women 

in all military occupations to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with military capabilities required for our Nation’s defense. 

Even with the increasing service opportunities for women, however, the committee remains concerned that women may not always be afforded the maximum opportunity to serve a full career. 

The committee is particularly interested in addressing the balance 

between career and personal goals of all service members—both 

men and women—and how the ability of a service member to meet 

his or her personal goals may impact a decision to remain in military service, while being mindful of the military mission and the 

core need for all service members to be fully trained, ready, and 

available for deployment. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a report by no later than December 31, 

2013, examining: 

(1) retention rates and career progression opportunities for 

female service members; 

(2) causes of voluntary mid-career separations, especially 

those related to childbirth, to include disparities in service policies on postpartum leave, deferral from deployment, and service member accommodation for infant nursing; and 

(3) how the Department might better accommodate service 

members in a manner consistent with military necessity and 

without degrading unit readiness, to include consideration of 

wider use of temporary assignments to the reserve components 

or other career intermission programs as a way to allow service 

members to pursue personal or family goals while maintaining 

a commitment to a full military career. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

Sexual assault first responder training 

The committee continues to be concerned with sexual assaults in 

the military. The effect on good order and discipline of a unit is immeasurable. It ruins the trust that individuals have in the institution. One of the aspects that is vital in order to hold confidence in 

the reporting system for sexual assaults is to ensure that the sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates, health care 

personnel, law enforcement personnel, judge advocates, and chaplains are trained on topics to include available medical and mental 

health treatment options. A Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report from January 2013 indicates that some first responders interviewed were unsure of the health care services available 

to sexual assault victims at their respective locations. 

The GAO also reported that sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates, and health care personnel differed in their 

understanding of where to take sexual assault victims for forensic 

examinations. Given that the quality of this evidence diminishes as 

the period of time from the actual assault increases, this could become a serious issue. 

The committee understands and appreciates that the Department is focusing additional resources to increase the numbers of 

first responders. This is a positive step. However, it is also important that first responders thoroughly understand the options available in general as well as at their specific duty location. 

Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of each of the 

military departments to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act with details on how each service will ensure that first responders are adequately trained to be able to deal with sexual assault victims. The 

report should also indicate how each service will keep track and enforce service specific refresher training requirements. 

By December 1, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees indicating the number 

of first responders who should have had either initial or refresher 

training during the fiscal year and how many actually completed 

this required training. The statistics should be broken out by service. 

Suicide prevention screening 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and each of the military services have made suicide prevention a 

priority. In addition, Congress has attempted to enhance DOD efforts to address military suicides. Even though military suicide 

rates are lower than comparable civilian suicide rates, work must 

be done in the area of early detection of mental health conditions 

and suicide risk. The committee notes that many of the existing 

programs designed for suicide prevention and screening of service 

members for mental health issues are linked to the deployment 

cycle. Yet, DOD Suicide Event Reports from recent years indicate 

that less than half of the service members who have committed suicide had deployed, and only a small number were involved with direct combat. 

The committee remains committed to exploring new means to 

identify mental health concerns and prevent suicides, and expects 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

the Department to continually monitor best practices in other government agencies, academia, and the private sector in order to recognize when a service member may need psychological help. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with each of the military services and the reserve component, 

to assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing innovative tools 

to screen service members for mental health conditions and risk of 

suicide, and to submit a report not later than February 1, 2014, 

that includes the following elements: 

(1) current ways in which each of the services and reserve 

components screen service members for mental health conditions; 

(2) an assessment of utilizing a computerized adaptive test 

during a service member’s annual physical health assessment; 

(3) an assessment of incorporating input through a computerized survey from a service member’s first-line supervisor 

with regard to any behavioral changes observed in the service 

member; 

(4) an assessment of analyzing the wellness of a service 

member utilizing publicly available data to develop predictive 

analytical models that may identify individuals that could be 

more susceptible to suicide; 

(5) a description of how a pilot program to evaluate these 

new screening tools could be designed in a manner consistent 

with medical testing procedures and ethical and privacy requirements; and 

(6) a description of any other innovative methods to enable 

early identification of mental health conditions or risk of suicide that the Department has recently considered and the reasons why the Department decided not to utilize those methods. 

U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force 

and Families Initiatives 

The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) testified before the committee that ‘‘USSOCOM must 

ensure our SOF [Special Operations Force] warriors and their families are properly cared for and that we work to help them reduce 

the stress they face related to high operation tempos. Difficulty 

also occurs as forces reconnect and reintegrate into garrison and 

family activities. The Department of Defense provides preventive 

and responsive counseling, medical, psychological, and rehabilitative care to institutionalize the resiliency of our SOF warriors and 

their families.’’ 

The committee applauds USSOCOM for its focus on the support 

and resiliency of SOF and their families through various initiatives, including human performance, personnel tempo, and family 

programs. The committee also supports the decision of the Commander of USSOCOM to use special operations-peculiar, or Major 

Force Program–11, funds to augment family support programs provided by the services to meet the unique needs of the SOF families 

when there is a ‘‘clear and demonstrable connection between the 

services provided and the combat readiness of the service member.’’ 

According to USSOCOM, ‘‘while the services offer a host of excellent family support programs, there are aspects of SOF that necesVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

sitate innovations and the expansion of programs that are not common to the general purpose forces . . . Currently, many of the family programs sponsored by the services are limited in scope, and 

are centric to the sponsoring service. Despite a recent emphasis by 

the services to bolster family support programs, we still find that 

there is limited access to some services and a dearth of programs 

that adequately account for the unique needs of the SOF community.’’ The committee believes the services have a responsibility to 

provide appropriate family readiness support to all service members and their families, including the SOF community. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Commander 

of USSOCOM, to submit a report not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act that, at a minimum: (1) describes any family 

support requirements that are unique to the SOF community; (2) 

offers an analysis of support provided by the services to address 

these unique requirements; (3) identifies any gaps in family support provided by the services to the SOF community; (4) provides 

recommended actions for addressing identified gaps; and (5) relates 

any other matters deemed appropriate by the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Commander of 

USSOCOM. 

Veteran unemployment 

The committee is concerned about the high rate of unemployment 

that persists for our youngest veterans. The unemployment rate 

also impacts the Department of Defense budget. Over the past 10 

years, the Department of Defense expended more than $6.0 billion 

in unemployment compensation for veterans. 

The Departments of Defense and Labor should review and place 

emphasis on improving the management and oversight associated 

with the veteran unemployment compensation program and payments. 

In addition to the unemployment compensation issue, both veterans and prospective employers have brought to our attention that 

there is no single portal for veterans to find jobs, and employers 

to post jobs. There are numerous redundant websites and portals 

managed by federal agencies to provide employment services to veterans. 

As such, the committee strongly urges the Departments of Labor, 

Defense, and Veterans Affairs to continue the process of streamlining existing employment portals into a consolidated portal. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(127) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

across-the-board pay raise for members of the uniformed services 

of 1 percent effective January 1, 2014. 

Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay 

for members of the National Guard called into Federal 

service for less than 30 days (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal subsection (c) of section 204 of title 37, United States Code, to remove 

the existing limitation on when members of the National Guard are 

entitled to receive basic pay when called into federal service for a 

period of 30 days or less. 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 

rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by 

natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, and income replacement for 

reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent 

mobilization for active duty service. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, 

the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 

pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 

specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions. The provision would 

also extend for 1 year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency 

bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical 

military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for 

transfer between armed forces, and the accession bonus for officer 

candidates. 

Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for travel expenses for inactive-duty training 

outside of normal commuting distance and additional 

one-year extension (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would correct an erroneous citation in section 611(7) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) that extended authority to pay travel expenses for certain inactive-duty 

training outside of normal commuting distances. The provision 

would further extend the authority to December 31, 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses in critical specialties under health professions stipend program (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 16201(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize payment 

of the health professions stipend to a nurse enrolled in an accredited program of nursing in a specialty designated as critical by the 

Secretary of Defense who is eligible for appointment as a Reserve 

officer in any of the reserve components. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of 

Defense travel and transportation authorities in connection with reform of such authorities (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1040, 1074i, 1482, and 1491 of title 10, United States Code, 

and sections 451 and 453 of title 37, United States Code, to make 

technical changes to those sections to conform with the travel consolidation reform enacted in sections 631 and 632 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 

81). The provision would also repeal sections 1036, 1053a, and 2634 

of title 10, United States Code, as superseded. 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits 

Clarification of prevention of retired pay inversion in the 

case of members whose retired pay is computed using 

high-three (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical amendment to section 1401a of title 10, United States Code, 

to clarify that certain provisions of subsection (f) of that section do 

not apply to the computation of retired pay of members who first 

entered active duty on or after September 8, 1980. 

Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related special compensation after previous election 

to receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the effect on 

prior payments of an election to receive combat-related special compensation after a previous election to receive concurrent retirement 

and disability compensation was made relative to the division of retired pay under section 1408 of title 10, United States Code. 

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support (sec. 643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1450 and 1455 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to a special 

needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 

1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the sole benefit of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

a disabled dependent child incapable of self-support because of 

mental or physical incapacity. 

Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early 

retirement credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status or active duty (sec. 644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to require the service 

secretaries to provide periodic notice to reserve component members of any early retirement credit they have earned for service described in that section by such means as the secretary concerned 

considers appropriate. 

Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom dependent status is based (sec. 

645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1060b of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that no further 

certification of a dependent for financial support shall be required 

or carried out in the case of a dependent who has been granted a 

permanent identification card by reason of permanent disability 

when the member or retiree providing the basis for dependency 

dies or becomes permanently incapacitated. 

Subtitle E—Military Lending Matters 

Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military Lending Act (sec. 661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide civil enforcement authority over the Military Lending Act to the Department 

of Justice. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of human remains that were retained by the Department of Defense for forensic pathology investigation 

(sec. 671) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

payment of certain expenses for the care and disposition of human 

remains retained by a service secretary pursuant to a forensic pathology investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner under 

section 1471 of title 10, United States Code. 

Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army 

incentive to provide additional recruitment incentives 

(sec. 672) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 681 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) to authorize the Secretary of the Army 

to continue through December 31, 2015, any pilot program carried 

out under that section that was ongoing as of December 31, 2012. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(131) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements for health care services provided in military 

medical treatment facilities (sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service secretaries, 

to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using commercially available enhanced recovery practices 

for medical payment collection at military treatment facilities. The 

provision would also require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the pilot program not 

later than 180 days after completion of the program. 

The committee is concerned that the lack of an effective collection process in each of the services has resulted in lost reimbursement to the government for medical services rendered. While the 

committee understands that the Department of Defense is currently exploring options to outsource third party collections, the 

committee believes that such action has been delayed. 

Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic 

health records for the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that: despite years of effort and the expenditure of significant resources, full electronic interoperability between 

the health record systems of the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet been achieved; the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, should fully staff the Interagency Program Office and establish challenging, but achievable, deadlines for development and 

implementation of measures and goals for electronic health record 

interoperability; and the Interagency Program Office should establish a secure, remote, network-accessible computer storage system. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics 

to members of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, on the plans of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the most clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are made available to injured servVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

ice members and veterans using technological advances as appropriate. 

Items of Special Interest 

Autism spectrum disorder services 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its continued efforts to ensure that military families have access to appropriate autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, intervention, and treatment services. The committee expects the Department to continue 

to assist eligible autistic beneficiaries to receive effective, evidencebased intervention and treatment approaches, and to ensure the 

provision of such services for autistic dependents of service members living in rural or underserved communities. 

Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the 

TRICARE Management Activity 

The Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) released 

a report on May 1, 2013, titled, ‘‘TRICARE Management Activity 

Needs to Improve Oversight of Acquisition Workforce.’’ The DOD 

IG audit found that acquisition personnel of the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) ‘‘did not have required certifications for 

their functional areas, accurate position descriptions for their assigned duties, or proper training.’’ Additionally, the DOD IG discovered that the Component Acquisition Executive ‘‘did not have procedures to adequately monitor the acquisition workforce and did 

not place the required emphasis on the identification, development, 

training, and assignment of acquisition workforce personnel.’’ The 

committee notes that in the DOD IG’s view, these deficiencies 

placed the TMA at ‘‘increased risk for fraud, waste and abuse.’’ 

While the TMA has agreed with and worked to address the DOD 

IG’s findings and recommendations, the committee remains extremely concerned about the findings in the DOD IG’s report. 

The committee believes that with the significant number of high 

value contracts awarded by the TMA—over $11.0 billion in fiscal 

year 2012 alone—the Department of Defense must ensure that the 

TMA’s acquisition management process meets workforce training 

and certification requirements. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on 

the actions the Department is taking to correct the education and 

training challenges facing the TRICARE acquisition workforce. 

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury 

The committee remains extremely concerned about the effects of 

traumatic brain injury (TBI) on our service members and veterans, 

as TBI is a signature wound of Operations Enduring Freedom and 

Iraqi Freedom. The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) reports that there were over 266,000 TBI cases in 

service members, both active and reserve component, from 2000 

through 2012. The committee applauds DOD for its significant investment in TBI research with a focus on development of diagnostic 

tools and evidence-based care protocols, and understands that DOD 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

is currently conducting three randomized, placebo-controlled pilot 

studies to determine the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy 

for alleviating symptoms following mild TBI in military personnel. 

The committee expects that these pilot studies will inform the Department about the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild 

TBI. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives within 180 days of completion of 

the pilot studies that describes the methodology, results, and conclusions of the studies. If hyperbaric oxygen therapy is determined 

to be effective, the report should address any changes in policy or 

legislation that may be needed regarding the provision of 

hyperbaric oxygen services to patients with mild TBI. 

Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, 

and their families 

The committee recognizes that many years of combat operations 

have caused service members in both the active and reserve components to experience increased exposure to unique and significant 

stressors. Additionally, service members and their families face 

daily stress in every phase of military life and as they transition 

to veteran status. The committee believes that mental health counseling needs of service members, veterans, and their families will 

continue to increase for the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report within 

270 days of the enactment of this Act that describes a coordinated, 

unified plan to ensure adequate mental health counseling resources 

to address the long-term needs of all members of the armed forces, 

veterans, and their families. In developing the plan and report, the 

committee expects the Department of Defense and the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to consider all available types of trained counseling providers, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, chaplains, and other counseling professionals, as appropriate. 

The report shall also include a comprehensive staffing plan to ensure an appropriate alignment of mental health resources and 

needs. 

Ribonucleic acid research 

The committee notes with concern that service members are hospitalized more often for infectious diseases than service members 

who are wounded in combat, and commends the Department of Defense for its ongoing efforts to address these diseases. Therefore, 

the committee supports Department of Defense investment to further improve prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for service members from rare and infectious viral, bacterial, immune, and neurological diseases through research initiatives such as ribonucleic 

acid-based research addressing proteins. 

TRICARE appeals process 

The committee believes that a fundamental right of TRICARE 

beneficiaries is a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes 

with the TRICARE program. The committee notes that the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

TRICARE appeals process is a multi-level sequential process that 

allows beneficiaries to request reconsideration from the managed 

care support contractor, file an appeal with the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), and finally, request an independent hearing 

if they dispute either a medical necessity determination or a factual determination made in their case. If a case dispute moves to 

the final stage of the appeals process, a hearing officer examines 

the available evidence and issues a recommended decision on the 

case. 

The committee has learned that the Director of the TMA or their 

designee, after consideration of a hearing officer’s recommended decision, may unilaterally issue a final decision that overturns the 

independent hearing officer’s recommendation. Advocacy groups 

have informed the committee that beneficiaries who have pursued 

the full range of options in the appeals process and received a favorable recommendation from the independent hearing officer perceive the process as unfair when the TMA summarily overturns the 

hearing officer’s recommended decision. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, that: (1) describes the current TRICARE appeals 

process; (2) provides summary data showing the numbers and 

types of cases submitted by beneficiaries for appeals and hearings 

over the previous 5 fiscal years; (3) provides data to show both the 

favorable and unfavorable beneficiary outcomes of all independent 

hearing cases over the previous 5 fiscal years; (4) describes the average length of time for beneficiaries to obtain a decision from the 

TMA either from an appeal or a hearing; and (5) provides data on 

the number of cases in which the Director of the TMA makes a determination different than the recommended decision of the hearing officer to grant a beneficiary appeal. 

TRICARE emergency department utilization 

The committee is concerned about the rate of emergency department utilization by TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee understands that families often seek 24-hour emergency department care 

rather than urgent care clinics to manage after-hours health concerns, and that active-duty family members in transition are a population with a particularly high incidence of emergency room 

usage. 

The committee notes that current regulations require that 

TRICARE Prime beneficiaries seeking care from a provider other 

than their primary care manager, to include visits to urgent care 

clinics or facilities, must first obtain a referral. In addition, the average cost of a private sector emergency department visit under 

TRICARE is $541 per visit, while the average cost for a visit at a 

private sector urgent care clinic is only $88 per visit. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is currently conducting a demonstration program that allows 

TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote U.S. Coast Guard 

beneficiaries in the southern region four unmanaged urgent care 

visits per fiscal year without point-of-service charges, and that thus 

far, the demonstration has shown promising results in reducing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

emergency room utilization. The committee commends DOD for 

conducting this demonstration and requests to be kept apprised of 

its results. 

In addition, the committee has learned that DOD plans to implement a nurse advice line across the military health system to provide around-the-clock medical information and advice to TRICARE 

beneficiaries through registered nurses who would guide them to 

the most appropriate level of care required and assist them with 

appointment scheduling for conditions that can be treated during 

routine hours. The committee has been informed that implementation of this advice line has been delayed until at least the fall. 

The committee believes that current TRICARE policy may 

incentivize emergency department use by requiring TRICARE 

Prime beneficiaries to obtain pre-authorizations for urgent care visits, and that this requirement places an administrative burden on 

families and discourages utilization of less costly urgent care options. While the committee does not want to discourage emergency 

department use when a true emergency exists, the committee 

strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to revise existing policy to 

encourage beneficiaries to use urgent care, when appropriate, rather than more expensive emergency department care, and to field its 

nurse advice line without further delay. 

Use of simulation technology in medical training 

The committee appreciates the Department of Defense’s work to 

reduce the use of live animals in combat training courses when appropriate as detailed in the April 2013 ‘‘Report to Congress on the 

Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based Methods for Certain 

Medical Training.’’ The committee commends the Department’s interest in the development of simulation technology and shares its 

commitment to improve and modernize the training of military 

medical personnel without degradation to combat trauma care. The 

Department’s 2009 ‘‘Final Report on the Use of Live Animals in 

Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis Team’’ projected 

that validated simulators for many ‘‘high volume/high value’’ medical procedures could be developed by 2014. The 2013 report provides an updated timeline indicating that a more realistic timeline 

for the development and procurement of simulation products would 

be in 2017 and beyond. In light of this, the committee encourages 

the Department to expedite wherever practicable the transition to 

human-based medical training methods and replacement of live 

animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate and 

where modern validated simulators can provide equally effective 

training that achieves established combat casualty survival rates. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(137) 

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

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to 

multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and 

reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization for 

multiyear contract authority. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or greater than 

$500.0 million, to certify that certain requirements will be met by 

the proposed contract no later than March 1st of the year in which 

the legislative authority to enter into such contract is requested. 

The Secretary must send a notification of the findings regarding 

the same requirements 30 days before award of the contract. 

The committee finds value in both the certification and the notification, but, believes that the timing is reversed. The recommended 

provision would reorganize the timeline so the Secretary provides 

the initial findings of the enumerated requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and then certifies the completed 

findings prior to contract award. 

The committee believes this will provide more reasonable and 

complete information. 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 801 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2399), as amended, to acquire goods and 

services on a non-competitive basis in certain countries along the 

Northern Distribution Network transit routes that support U.S. 

and coalition forces in Afghanistan. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 

seeking to extend this authority in part because it anticipates that 

retrograde operations for U.S. equipment coming out of Afghanistan will extend beyond the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization International Security Assistance Force mission at 

the end of 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 

803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit an updated version of the 2009 Department of Defense report titled: ‘‘OSD [Office of the Secretary of 

Defense] Study of Program Manager Training and Experience’’ not 

later than 120 days from enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense 

acquisition programs (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that as part of a milestone B decision for a major defense acquisition program, would require that there be a plan in place to mitigate and account for costs 

in connection with decertification of cryptographic equipment during production and procurement of the system. The provision includes a waiver based on national security needs. The provision is 

based on prior experience with the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System which has had to re-engineer a new cryptographic unit as it was decertified during the production of the 

satellite system. 

Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B 

approval of major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would implement a 

recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

report, ‘‘Satellite Control Operations,’’ GAO–13–315, concerning the 

use of dedicated satellite control systems. The provision requires 

the Department of Defense, as part of its Milestone B decision, to 

perform a business case analysis on the use of a dedicated control 

system instead of a shared system. The Department should adhere 

to the report’s recommendation on page 28, that ‘‘[t]he analysis 

should include a comparison of total dedicated network costs to the 

incremental cost of integrating onto a shared network.’’ 

Additional responsibility for product support managers for 

major weapon systems (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2337 of Title 10, United States Code, and section 823 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239) to provide an assurance that all product support arrangements explicitly state how the arrangement will maximize 

use of government owned inventory before obtaining inventory 

from commercial sources. 

The committee notes that this provision is a result of the recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector General 

(DOD IG) report dated April 25, 2013, that found the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) did not cost-effectively manage 118 high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) parts valued at 

$11.1 million while purchasing these parts from AM General, LLC 

for $17.6 million. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

The committee notes this occurred because the DLA did not review DLA-owned inventory at key contract decision points to maximize use of its own stock. As a result, the DOD IG identified $9.7 

million of excess inventory that could have been used for HMMWV 

maintenance requirements. 

The committee notes that this particular DOD IG investigation 

and report only focused on one particular weapon system at one 

particular depot. The committee believes there could be an opportunity for greater and similar inventory efficiency across all Department of Defense weapon systems. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a comprehensive review of the processes and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons systems and 

report upon this review to the congressional defense committees. 

Subtitle C—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of 

contractor employees (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 

cap on allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees to 

an amount consistent with the original legislative cap, adjusted for 

inflation, and provide for future annual adjustments by reflecting 

the change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for all workers, as 

calculated by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 

Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) limited the amount of contractor 

executive compensation allowable for reimbursement under federal 

contracts to a benchmark based on the median amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large U.S. corporations, 

as calculated by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)— 

then $340,650. 

Since that time the cap has more than doubled to $763,029 for 

2011 and 2012, and is expected to increase to more than $950,000 

in 2013. By contrast, if the original cap had been adjusted for inflation it would now be only $487,325. The committee concludes that 

the growth of the cap by almost $300,000 more than the rate of inflation cannot be justified. 

At a time when most Americans are seeing little or no increase 

in their paychecks and budget constraints require the Department 

of Defense to find efficiencies in all areas, the committee concludes 

that increases of this magnitude are unsupportable. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United 

States on oversight of pensions offered by Department 

contractors (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility within the Department for oversight of the reasonableness of the pension plans offered by Department contractors and issue certain guidance on 

pension benefits. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in 

the United States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (P.L. 112–81) by striking ‘‘the date that is three years after 

the date of the enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2016’’. 

Section 841 allowed the Secretary of Defense to void a contract 

being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against 

the United States or its coalition partners. 

Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (P.L. 112–81). 

Section 841 allows the Secretary of Defense to void a contract 

being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against 

the United States or its coalition partners. 

The committee recommends expansion of this provision to all 

combatant commanders. Upon receiving findings that a person or 

entity is providing funds to a person or entity who is engaged in 

hostilities against the United States, the combatant commander 

would, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, and the relevant U.S. embassy, determine an appropriate plan of action to mitigate the flow of funds to that person 

or entity. 

When that plan of action includes contract actions, the head of 

contracting activity may terminate or void the contract, grant, or 

cooperative agreement, and restrict future awards to such person 

or entity. 

The individual or entity would be provided with post-deprivation 

due process within 30 days of the receipt of notification. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report on the Department’s plan to implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General regarding 

the elimination of improper payments. 

Items of Special Interest 

Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of 

athletic footwear in the Department of Defense 

Congress passed the Berry Amendment in 1941 to ensure that 

American soldiers trained and operated, to the greatest extent 

practicable, in American-made materials. The Berry Amendment 

specifically covers footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 or 

8435. 

The Army, in 2001, and the Air Force, in 2008, have moved away 

from issuing athletic footwear to new recruits. Instead, new recruits are given an allowance to acquire athletic footwear from the 

service exchange. 

During this period of time, no athletic footwear was available 

that could have met the requirements of the Berry Amendment 

without a waiver. It is the committee’s understanding that at least 

one domestic contractor is now producing such footwear. 

Therefore, the committee directs U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center to undergo a study, 

to be completed no later than January 1, 2014, of currently available Berry compliant athletic footwear to ascertain whether the Department’s needs could be satisfied for new recruits. The committee 

believes this study should review the various sizes and fit of athletic shoes required, the cost and capacity of products available in 

sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD), and whether such footwear could be made. 

During roughly the last decade, certain procurement incidents 

and policy changes have created some level of unease with respect 

to the Berry Amendment’s application to not only athletic footwear 

but also textiles and clothing. As such, the committee directs DOD 

to submit a publicly releasable report to the congressional defense 

committees that includes, but not be limited to, any audits or auditing policy, investigations and enforcement, incentives, procurement officer training, and regulatory interpretation guidelines relating to the Department’s contracting for textiles and clothing contained in Federal Supply Codes 83 and 84, and athletic footwear 

listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 and 8435. 

Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a written justification and approval 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) included a requirement for a written justification and approval (J&A) when awarding applicable federal solesource contracts in excess of $20.0 million. 

Ensuring competition in the federal acquisition process is of vital 

importance to U.S. taxpayers. Section 811 was intended to further 

this objective; however, the committee understands government 

contracting officers may inadvertently be deterred from awarding 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

Small Business 8(a) contracts over $20.0 million as a result of confusion over the proper interpretation of section 811. 

Section 811 does not prohibit the award of sole source contracts of over $20.0 million to those businesses which qualify for the 

Small Business 8(a) program; however, those contracts do require 

a J&A. 

Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the actions taken and guidance issued regarding the proper use and implementation of section 811 as it regards 

Small Business 8(a) contracts. 

Competition in the development and procurement of training systems 

Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111—23) requires the Secretary of Defense to 

take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and 

consistent with statutory requirements, contracts for the procurement of major weapon systems are awarded on a competitive basis 

that gives full consideration to all potential sources. 

This provision reflects the committee’s view that competition, 

where it is feasible, results in reduced costs and improved contractor performance. 

The committee believes that competition can have a similar beneficial impact in the area of training systems related to major programs. The committee urges the military departments to actively 

explore the expanded use of competition as a tool to drive down 

costs and improve performance in the acquisition of training systems for major programs. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on best 

value competitive source selection techniques 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 allows the use of several best value competitive source selection techniques to meet 

agency needs. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one of a number of source selection approaches. Within this best value continuum, the contracting officer 

(CO) should choose an approach that is most advantageous to the 

government. 

The CO may elect to use the lowest price technically acceptable 

process in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable 

and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal. By 

contrast, the CO may elect to use a trade-off process in acquisitions 

when it may be in the best interest of the government to consider 

award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the 

highest technically rated offeror. In these instances, non-cost evaluation factors, such as technical capabilities, can play an important 

role in the source selection and trade-offs among price and non-cost 

factors and allow the Department to accept other than the lowest 

priced proposal. 

The committee has concerns that the appropriate acquisition 

process is not always being utilized and therefore directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the sufficiency of the training of the acquisition workforce in the selection 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

of the appropriate acquisition process, and review guidance and directives on the appropriate use of the various acquisition processes. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on in-line 

management process for the acquisition process 

Not later than April 15, 2014, the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall review the chain of command for acquisitionrelated functions of the Department of Defense (DOD) and potential changes to that chain of command. 

The committee understands that the current system is intended 

to avoid fragmentation, as recommended by the Packard Commission report in 1986, by ensuring that program managers report 

only to program executive officers, who report only to service acquisition executives, who are in turn subject to the management and 

supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to consider alternate approaches that would increase the role of the service secretaries and/or the service chiefs in that process, including the ‘‘inline management process’’ recommended by the independent panel 

assessment accompanying the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR), to determine whether or not such changes would be likely 

to enhance performance and accountability in the acquisition of 

major defense acquisition programs. 

The Comptroller General’s review should, at a minimum, consider: (1) whether adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of 

staff to the acquisition chain of command would be likely to increase or reduce fragmentation of authority and accountability in 

the acquisition system; and (2) whether adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command 

would or would not be likely to help address the underlying causes 

of cost, schedule, and performance problems in the acquisition process. 

In conducting this review, the Comptroller General should also 

consider the requirements of section 853 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) regarding program manager empowerment and accountability and assess whether adding the service secretaries and/or 

chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would be likely 

to contribute to or detract from the objectives of that provision. 

Comptroller General report on process and procedures for 

identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement programs 

The committee requires the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the various processes and procedures for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major development and procurement programs, report upon their efficiency, and make any recommendations for improvement to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Report on the configuration steering boards 

The committee supports the work of the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council (JROC) that has identified mechanisms to enVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

sure ‘‘appropriate trade-offs are made among the life-cycle cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity 

objectives, in the establishment and approval of military requirements.’’ Specifically, the JROC has issued guidance that ‘‘encourages Program Managers, Program Executive Officers and Component Acquisition Executives, in coordination with the requirements 

sponsor, to officially require requirements relief, through the appropriate requirements validation authority, where Key Performance 

Parameters appear out of line with an appropriate cost-benefit 

analysis.’’ 

The committee, however, continues to have concerns with the 

growth and change of requirements during a program’s life-cycle 

and believes that such requirements creep can occur at lower levels 

of the requirements chain. 

The committee attempted to address this issue in the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(P.L. 110–417) with a provision, section 814, creating Configuration 

Steering Boards for cost control under major defense acquisition 

programs. 

Configuration Steering Boards are responsible for reviewing any 

proposed changes to program requirements or system configuration 

that could have the potential to adversely impact program cost or 

schedule and for recommending changes that have the potential to 

improve program cost or schedule in a manner consistent with program objectives. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

conduct a study of the implementation of section 814 and the extent to which the services have convened Configuration Steering 

Boards, and the extent to which requirements creep has been successfully addressed. 

Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit 

Readiness reports 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is required to achieve audit 

readiness for its Statement of Business Resources by September 30, 

2014 and audit readiness for its full financial statements by September 30, 2017. In order to assist in achieving these legal requirements, DOD has published a Financial Improvement and Audit 

Readiness (FIAR) Guidance. 

The FIAR Guidance outlines a process of four waves for achieving audit readiness. Each wave has objectives that must be 

achieved before progressing to the next wave. DOD provides quarterly reports on their progress in meeting their objectives. 

The committee notes that progress is being made toward these 

goals; however, the committee also notes that the most recent quarterly report did not contain a specific deadline for completion of the 

third wave. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to include a deadline for completion of each wave in the next quarterly 

report, including specific metrics tracking progress on their completion. 

The committee notes that substantial progress has been made toward meeting these statutory goals; however, the committee remains concerned with the Department’s ability to actually achieve 

them. The Department’s financial and related business manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

ment systems and control weaknesses have adversely affected its 

ability to control costs and ensure basic accountability. 

As the most recent FIAR Guidance points out, ‘‘each of the military departments is larger than most American companies. The Department’s annual budget is 56 percent of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget and it holds 86 percent of the Federal 

Government’s assets, as reported on the Federal Government’s 

Consolidated Financial Statements. With over $1.0 trillion in combined budgetary resources, producing auditable financial statements requires a strategic, long-term plan that addresses issues in 

an organized, prioritized, and incremental manner.’’ 

The committee strongly believes, therefore, that producing 

auditable financial statements is crucial to providing efficient and 

effective use of limited budgetary resources. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(147) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would convert the 

position of Deputy Chief Management Officer to Under Secretary 

of Defense for Management (USD(M)) and to designate that position as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of 

Defense (DOD). 

Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) designated the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense as the DOD Chief Management Officer 

(DCMO), established an Under Secretary of Defense-level Deputy 

Chief Management Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary, and 

named the under secretaries of the military departments as their 

organizations’ Chief Management Officers. 

This legislation was intended to strengthen the management of 

DOD’s business operations and was the result of a series of recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

and several think-tanks that argued the need for a senior official 

at DOD with significant authority and experience to focus attention 

on enterprise-wide business transformation and sustain progress at 

the highest levels of DOD. 

The framework enacted into law was a compromise between 

those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who advocated creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense focused 

solely on management, and those who asserted that no reorganization was necessary to address DOD’s persistent business challenges. 

Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly to 

implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD’s business operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the new management structure put in place by the FY08 NDAA was properly 

scoped and defined to enable DOD to make significant progress in 

breaking down its functional stovepipes. 

The committee believes that while significant progress has been 

made, it has become increasingly clear that additional changes to 

the structure of the DCMO position are needed to position DOD for 

success in its business mission. 

Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-equal of 

the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and drive implementation of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

transformational change and improvement in the Department’s 

business operations. 

The provision also would designate the USD(M) as the Department’s CIO and would mandate that the USD(M) exercise authority, direction, and control over the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency (NSA). Since the 

elimination of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Networks and Information Integration (ASD(NII)), the DOD CIO 

has not been a Senate-confirmed position. In addition, in creating 

the DCMO position, Congress assigned multiple roles and responsibilities to the DCMO that had been performed by the CIO, which 

further diluted the clout of the CIO. Also, the bifurcation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 

Communications, and Intelligence into the ASD(NII) and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) led to the 

USD(I) supervising the NSA IAD, despite the fact that the CIO, 

not the USD(I), is responsible for information systems security, 

which is the mission of the IAD. 

The current provision would unify roles and functions traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by making it 

a Senate-confirmed position again, but without creating an additional position. A strengthened CIO will provide better management and oversight of information technology, systems, and operations within DOD, including over the U.S. Cyber Command. Combining these offices also should produce some savings in overhead. 

The recommended provision would also amend section 137a(d) of 

title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the order of precedence 

for the Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense would be immediately following the officials serving in the positions of the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries 

of the military departments, the Under Secretaries of Defense, and 

the officials serving in positions specified in section 131(b)(4) of 

title 10, United States Code. 

Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the 

United States Special Operations Command by the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics (sec. 902) 

The budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) included approximately $1.6 billion for procurement 

and $372.7 million for research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDTE). The committee notes that this total represents an increase 

of more than double in USSOCOM’s investment accounts since fiscal year 2001. 

The Commander of USSOCOM is unique within the Department 

of Defense as the only combatant commander empowered with authorities for the development and acquisition of special operationspeculiar equipment. Furthermore, the staff of the Commander of 

USSOCOM includes an acquisition executive that reports solely to 

the Commander. This is unlike the service acquisition executives of 

the military departments who are subject to the direction of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) in addition to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the military department concerned. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

The committee is supportive of USSOCOM’s unique acquisition 

authorities to provide for the special operations-peculiar requirements of its forces, including rapid acquisition of urgently needed 

capabilities for deployed or deploying special operations forces. Further, the committee notes that the flexibility inherent in these authorities is enormously important to ensuring that our special operations forces can adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of global 

threats. However, given the significant growth in USSOCOM’s 

budget in recent years and current fiscal pressures, the committee 

believes additional civilian oversight of USSOCOM investment programs is prudent, particularly the development and acquisition of 

special operations-peculiar platforms. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

make the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive subject to the direction 

of the USD(AT&L) for certain acquisition programs. The provision 

would also require the USD(AT&L) to designate an appropriate official within the Office of the USD(AT&L) to provide such oversight 

and direction for those programs. The provision would not alter the 

relationship between the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive and the 

Commander of USSOCOM and it is not the intent of the committee 

to delay, unnecessarily impede, or undermine the flexibility of 

USSOCOM development and acquisition efforts. 

Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, 

Control, and Communications System (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

council to coordinate activities related to national leadership command, control, and communications systems, including the nuclear 

command, control, and communications system. 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory 

Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would transfer responsibility for administration of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel 

(ORAP) from the Department of the Navy to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. 

This change would allow the functions of the ORAP to be aligned 

more appropriately to address the full range of ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes policy issues. 

Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for streamlining Department 

of Defense management headquarters by reducing the size of staffs, 

eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and consolidating overlapping and duplicative program offices. 

The objective of the required plan is to reduce aggregate spending for management headquarters by not less than $100.0 billion 

over a 10 fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, 

and education (sec. 906) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, that would codify the responsibility of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) by amending section 

153 of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the current joint 

training, doctrine, education, and force development functions that 

are overseen by the CJCS. 

Modification of reference to major Department of Defense 

headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 194(f) of title 10, United States Code, to update the reference 

to Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, titled ‘‘Major DOD 

Headquarters Activities.’’ 

Subtitle B—Space Activities 

Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program 

(sec. 921) 

The committee has expressed concern with the failure of the Department of Defense (DOD) to keep Congress apprised of its 

counter space strategy. DOD states that they have developed an integrated effort but the committee remains concerned by the lack of 

details and resources. Of note, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2014 

budget provides no funding for counter space programs after fiscal 

year 2016 in the base budget. The committee recognizes that the 

establishment of the Space Protection Program is meant to provide 

a central focus for mission assurance of national space capabilities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a strategy identifying the near-term and long-term threat to critical national security space systems and the Department’s plan for addressing that threat as well as the resources requested in the 5– 

year budget plan to address those threats. The strategy should also 

include an assessment of the capabilities and resources other countries have allocated and plan to allocate towards their own offensive counter space capabilities. The strategy shall be due no later 

than March 1, 2014. 

On numerous occasions over the past year, the committee has requested that the Department provide a complete copy of the study 

directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense which led to a significant revision of the Department’s counter space strategy. A copy of 

the study has not yet been provided to the committee, therefore, 

the committee restricts $10.0 million of the funds appropriated for 

the Space Protection Program until a copy of the study is provided. 

Subtitle C—Intelligence-Related Matters 

Personnel security (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require major 

reform of the personnel security clearance investigation, adjudication, and transfer processes to improve security and reduce costs. 

Specifically, the provision would require: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

(1) the Director of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation to 

conduct a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the cost, 

schedule, and performance of personnel security investigations 

acquired through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

and through components of the Department of Defense (DOD); 

(2) the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan by October 1, 

2014, to acquire investigations through the approach most advantageous to DOD and to determine whether investigations 

can be improved through the increased utilization of private 

entities to conduct or provide supporting information for security investigations; 

(3) the Secretary and the Director of National Intelligence 

(DNI) to develop a joint strategy to continuously modernize all 

aspects of personnel security to lower costs and improve security, and to develop and report annually on metrics that will 

demonstrate progress in achieving those objectives; 

(4) the Secretary and the DNI to consider, and allow them 

to adopt, a series of innovations in security investigation methods and data sources that have been shown to be effective 

through analysis and/or demonstrations; 

(5) the Secretary and the DNI to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, reciprocal acceptance of clearances; and 

(6) development of benchmarks by which to measure the current level of reciprocity in clearance transfers and the costs imposed by delays. 

DOD transferred the bulk of its security investigations in 2004 

to OPM because DOD had accumulated a large backlog of clearance 

applications and investigations were taking an enormous amount of 

time which imposed high indirect costs through productivity losses, 

and (rightly) DOD did not consider security investigations to be a 

core mission. 

OPM successfully eliminated the backlog that it inherited and 

substantially reduced the time it takes to complete investigations. 

However, personnel security costs have steadily risen and DOD 

has had little visibility into OPM’s cost structure to determine 

what has been driving those increases. A recent Government Accountability Office report documented OPM’s lack of cost transparency and rapidly rising costs. DOD is spending three-quarters 

of a billion dollars annually on security investigations, and costs 

have been rising at a rate of 10 percent a year. Multiple intelligence agencies that conduct their own investigations using the 

same contractors as OPM have achieved savings of up to 50 percent compared to the prices charged by OPM. The pressure on 

budgets has become severe, while new federal investigative standards that mandate a periodic reinvestigation every 5 years could 

increase the cost of personnel security dramatically in coming 

years. 

In addition, DOD and DNI have been eager to modernize the security investigation process, believing that doing so would actually 

improve security, reduce the time needed for investigations, and reduce costs. OPM has been slow to address these cost and reform 

issues. 

The Army and the National Reconnaissance Office successfully 

demonstrated, through a pilot program, the gains that can be 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

achieved in efficiency, time, security, and cost by applying modern 

information technology and exploiting non-traditional information 

sources. 

Some intelligence agencies have effectively stopped performing 

periodic reinvestigations, which has led to a huge new investigatory backlog, and because the government and contract employees 

of these agencies are past due for reinvestigations, other agencies 

may refuse to accept their clearances, limiting their employment 

opportunities through no fault of their own. Finally, industry has 

expressed concerns about a thicket of bureaucratic obstacles that 

still make the transfer of clearances between government agencies 

and departments, and from one contract to another, difficult and 

time-consuming, ultimately costing taxpayers substantial amounts 

of money as workers are idled, with their time charged to overhead. 

The committee believes that the time has come to issue a legislative mandate to force an action that all stakeholders seem to agree 

is necessary. 

Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 

932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost Analysis 

and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), acting through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), and the Director of the Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA), to assess the potential cost savings and 

effectiveness improvements from consolidating clandestine human 

intelligence (HUMINT) collection in the National Clandestine Service managed by the CIA. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary and the DNI should assume that a consolidated HUMINT 

organization would include a military division supervised by a general or flag officer. 

In conducting the assessment, CAPE and CAIG would also be required to develop a methodology for comparing the effectiveness of 

the ratios of support personnel to case officers utilized by the Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA, respectively, and recommend an 

optimum ratio. The Secretary of Defense and the DNI also would 

be required to assess whether institutional and procedural safeguards are available to ensure that a consolidated HUMINT organization under the CIA could be relied upon to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense. 

The provision also would require CAPE separately to assess the 

performance of the military services in providing, and managing 

the careers of, qualified case officers for the Defense Clandestine 

Service (DCS), the effectiveness of DCS in providing cover and 

other support services to its deployed case officers, and whether the 

locations to which DCS case officers are deployed provide the opportunity to collect the information required by the Department. 

Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to direct the modification of the radar system 

that will be deployed on the Navy’s Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Triton aircraft to provide a ground moving target inVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

dicator (GMTI) capability that is comparable to the performance of 

the Air Force Global Hawk Block 40 Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP). The provision also would require the Secretary to designate the Triton as a joint asset available to support the operational requirements of the unified combatant commands for radar and signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection. 

The committee understands that the Triton radar could be modified through software additions at a very modest cost to achieve 

GMTI performance of the same level of quality and capacity as the 

Block 40 Global Hawk. The Navy plans to procure, over the life of 

the program, approximately 70 Triton aircraft. The committee believes it would be a serious mistake for the Department of Defense 

to pass on the opportunity to equip this fleet to support, when 

needed, the ground forces of the Marine Corps, the Army, and Special Forces with GMTI radar. 

Similarly, the Navy plans to equip approximately 60 Triton aircraft with a very capable SIGINT suite as a replacement for the 

EP–3 towards the end of the decade. The EP–3 is a joint asset that 

is allocated under the Global Force Management Allocation Plan 

process. The committee believes this capability should be available 

to support joint requirements. The budget request included $375.2 million in PE 35220N for development of the Triton program. To support the development of 

the software modifications to the Triton radar mandated in the 

committee provision, the committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million. 

Plan for transfer of Air Force C–12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out a plan to conduct the 

orderly transfer of the Air Force C–12 Liberty intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft to the Army and to the 

U.S. Special Operations Command or one of its components. The 

plan will ensure there is no impact to ongoing ISR operations in 

Afghanistan and around the world. The provision would also prohibit the Army from acquiring additional versions of its C–12 ISR 

system, the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) in fiscal year 2014. 

In another section of this report, the committee recommends no 

authorization for the procurement of four EMARSS aircraft, but 

authorizes the same amount to convert transferred Air Force C–12 

Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration. 

The Air Force currently possesses 41 C–12 Liberty ISR aircraft. 

These aircraft are currently assigned to Air Combat Command and 

provide ISR and direct support to ground forces, including Special 

Operations Forces. The Army has been pursuing an Aerial ISR 

Strategy 2020 which includes a fleet of 24 manned aerial ISR aircraft based on the C–12 (Beechcraft 350)—procuring 12 new 

EMARSS aircraft and recapitalizing 12 existing Medium Altitude 

Multi-Intelligence aircraft. These aircraft will replace the legacy 

Guardrail systems resulting in the elimination or retirement of 58 

manned ISR platforms. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81), this committee recommended transferring Air 

Force C–12 Liberty ISR aircraft to the Army but relented at the 

insistence of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the leadership of the Air 

Force that the Air Force was committed to the mission of providing 

ISR support for ground forces. However, the attempted transfer of 

these aircraft by the Air Force to the National Guard prompted the 

Army to restart the EMARSS program. 

The committee remains convinced that the Department of Defense requires only one fleet of C–12–based ISR aircraft to provide 

tactical support to ground forces in a permissive air defense environment and looks forward to reviewing the Secretary of Defense’s 

plan on transfer and use of its C–12 ISR aircraft. 

Subtitle D—Cyberspace-Related Matters 

Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States 

Cyber Command (sec. 941) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to determine whether U.S. Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM) requires signals intelligence (SIGINT) operational 

tasking authority (SOTA) as an inherent and essential aspect of its 

operational missions. If the Secretary determines that CYBERCOM 

needs SOTA to perform its missions, including military cyber operations such as maneuvering outside of national U.S. networks, 

operational preparation of the environment, development of targeting packages, and accessing databases held by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary would delegate such authority 

to CYBERCOM in the Secretary’s role as the President’s Executive 

Agent for SIGINT under Executive Order 12333. 

CYBERCOM, like elements of the intelligence community, requires the ability to access the global Internet for operational purposes without necessarily exposing those accesses to potential adversaries. In conflict situations, CYBERCOM may be called upon to 

take actions where it is not possible or necessary to act with 

stealth, and remain unnoticed and untraced. CYBERCOM, as a 

military organization, sometimes may be required to rapidly overwhelm military targets by massed action—the very antithesis of 

non-disruptive activity. 

Similarly, CYBERCOM’s offensive military forces may need to 

train and exercise capabilities to defeat targets not only by stealthy 

infiltration but by ensuring that they make use of a broad range 

of strategies, including by employing the cyber equivalent of sudden and overwhelming force. CYBERCOM’s personnel and units 

may need capabilities, and training, to rapidly plan and execute potentially large-scale operations against new or unexpected targets 

where disruption or destruction is paramount, not stealth. Test 

ranges may be necessary, since CYBERCOM’s forces cannot prepare for this type of operation out on the global Internet. The committee expects the Secretary to take these unique CYBERCOM requirements—many of which differ from the requirements of the intelligence community—into consideration in making the determination required by this section. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

The provision recommended by the committee would require the 

Secretary to designate a Senate-confirmed official within the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy with the responsibility for oversight, 

and resource management of offensive cyber forces, including the 

national mission teams that will defend the nation by operating external to U.S. networks. 

The committee is concerned that oversight of CYBERCOM and 

the cyber mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is fragmented and weak. In part, this is unavoidable, inasmuch as cyber 

operations affect every segment of the Department, making clear 

lines of jurisdiction and responsibility impossible to draw. One organization is in charge of defensive cybersecurity, another for cyber 

intelligence missions, others for technology, architectures, and acquisition, and another for policy and operational considerations. 

Oversight is further complicated by the varied organizational 

structures that the military services apply to cyber missions. In responding to the Secretary of Defense’s direction to create a large 

number of cyber mission teams to conduct national cyber defense, 

support the combatant commands, and defend DOD networks, the 

services are struggling to classify the personnel who will man these 

teams. Some of the services are building offensive forces within existing service cryptologic organizations and commands, and intend 

to fund all such personnel under the Military Intelligence Program 

(MIP), while others fund and manage such personnel as they would 

any other warfighter. Personnel that will be assigned to teams that 

will ‘‘hunt’’ for adversaries in the defense of DOD networks are 

likely to be funded under the Information Systems Security Program. 

Finally, the provision would require that the Secretary initiate 

the process of creating sophisticated training facilities and capabilities for cyber personnel in the military services and at 

CYBERCOM, independently of the intelligence community. The 

committee does not believe that offensive military cyber forces 

should be funded under the MIP. The committee is also concerned 

that the culture and outlook of signals intelligence collection, which 

is already overly dominant in this mission area, may be inappropriate to many cyber missions. 

Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec. 942) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a joint software assurance center 

to serve as a resource for securing the software acquired, developed, maintained, and used in the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The provision would require the Secretary to consider whether an 

existing center could fulfill the purposes of the required center. 

The provision would require the Secretary, within 180 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act, to issue a charter for the center 

that lays out: (1) the center’s role in supporting program offices in 

implementing DOD’s supply chain risk management strategy and 

policies; (2) the center’s expertise and capabilities; (3) the center’s 

management, in coordination with the Center for Assured Software 

(CAS) of the National Security Agency, of a research and development program to improve the capability of automated software 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

analysis tools; and (4) the center’s management of the procurement 

and distribution of enterprise licenses for such analysis tools. 

The provision also would require the Secretary to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees, coincident with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2016, on funding and 

management of the center, including a recommendation for the 

placement of the center organizationally within the Department. 

A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software and 

software-based applications indicated that a software assurance 

center would be useful to implement DOD’s Trusted Systems and 

Networks strategy. The report further stated that an internal DOD 

study concluded that software vulnerability detection should be ‘‘organized centrally’’ to assure ‘‘a consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive coverage’’ at least until software assurance expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the 

Department. The committee believes that a software assurance 

center would best serve as the anchor point for that ‘‘centrally organized’’ effort, and the implementation of section 933 of the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

239). 

The mission of the center would be to educate, train, equip, and 

assist program management offices to achieve security in software 

developments and acquisitions. These services would require expertise in software assurance requirements, design, standards, best 

practices, technology and tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, system certifications, and vulnerability remediation. 

Section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 mandated the use of automated vulnerability analysis 

tools during the entire lifecycle of critical DOD systems. A software 

assurance center would be a logical choice for managing the purchase and distribution of licenses for commercial automated code 

analysis tools, and for managing the development of improvements 

to code analysis tools. 

Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for intelligence analysis (sec. 943) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to supervise the development and implementation of plans for the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data 

analysis in the military services and defense agencies. 

The provision would specifically require plans for meeting requirements for interoperability and attribute-based access controls 

across the ISR cloud systems of DOD components, as well as for 

cross-domain enterprise-wide discovery and correlation of data 

stored in cloud and non-cloud databases, relational and non-relational databases, and any future hybrid or consolidated databases 

that have features and capabilities of both relational and non-relational databases. In addition, the provision would require these 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

plans to be integrated with the Defense Intelligence Information 

Enterprise (DI2E), the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and 

the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise 

(ICITE). 

This provision is based in part on recommendations from the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report required by the 

House Report which accompanied H.R. 4310, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). That 

report documented that DOD lacks guidance and standards governing the development of the services’ cloud initiatives for analyzing ISR data and for integrating these activities with the DI2E, 

JIE, and ICITE. GAO also noted that, with the exception of the 

Army, the services have not yet developed strategies and implementation plans for their ISR clouds. 

Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons 

systems and tactical communications systems (sec. 944) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, 

to report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees 

on the capability of each military service to operate in a hostile 

cyber environment. The report would be required to provide an assessment of the cyber threats to major weapons systems and tactical communications systems that could emerge within the next 5 

years; an assessment of the cyber vulnerabilities of major weapons 

systems and tactical communications systems; a description of the 

current strategy to defend against battlefield cyber attacks; and an 

estimate of the costs to correct the vulnerabilities in the future. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has layered defenses for its 

desktop computers, laptops, servers, data centers, and backbone 

networks, including endpoint or host-based defensive systems, such 

as the Host-Based Security System (HBSS). Tactical networks, and 

the software elements of battlefield weapons systems, lack such 

protections. Such tactical systems are less readily accessible than 

the main DOD networks and computing equipment, and utilize 

more custom software, but in principle, they can be accessed and 

subverted through wireless communications means or through 

other wireless apertures, test equipment or other removable media, 

and through supply chain compromise. In important respects, battlefield cyber warfare is closely related to traditional electronic 

warfare. It is critically important for DOD to prepare for this type 

of conflict. 

As highlighted in a January 2013 report by the Defense Science 

Board, DOD’s dependence upon networked systems and components serves as ‘‘a magnet to U.S. opponents’’ and if left 

unaddressed, threatens our core warfighting capabilities. Every 

critical system from ground vehicle electronic systems and next 

generation aircraft to satellites and missile defense systems must 

be assessed to ensure that critical warfighting capabilities are not 

undermined and that the same level of emphasis placed on developmental and operational security in the physical domain be adequately addressed and applied in the cyber domain. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed 

Forces to support Department of Defense cyber missions 

(sec. 945) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for using the reserve 

components of the armed forces to support the cyber missions of 

U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including in support of civil 

authorities, and to report to the congressional defense committees 

on this strategy within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. 

CYBERCOM was established in 2009. While it has had large 

numbers of personnel assigned to execute its defensive mission to 

protect Department of Defense (DOD) networks, the number of 

qualified personnel available for offensive missions, including offensive operations in support of defensive missions, has been negligible. 

CYBERCOM has now begun defining the numbers of positions 

and their associated specific skills, and the number of units into 

which those positions would be grouped, that are initially required 

to defend the Nation against major cyber attack, support the combatant commanders, and actively defend DOD networks. 

The Secretary recently issued a directive to the services to undertake vigorous action to generate large numbers of such skilled 

cyber operators to meet these CYBERCOM manning requirements 

(over the next 4 years). The services are still in the early stages 

of responding to the Secretary’s direction. 

DOD is therefore only at the beginning stages of determining 

how the reserve components can and should be integrated into the 

process for providing a total force solution to CYBERCOM’s manning requirements. 

In developing the required strategy, the provision would require 

the Secretary to: (1) identify the DOD cyber mission requirements 

that could be discharged by members of the reserve components; (2) 

in consultation with state Governors, provide means for the states 

to provide their evaluation of state capabilities and the needs of 

their states for cyber capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by contracting through the private sector; (3) identify the existing capabilities of the reserve components and the current plans of the military services to utilize them to meet total force resource requirements; (4) assess whether the National Guard when activated in 

state status can operate under unique and useful authorities to 

support domestic cyber missions and CYBERCOM requirements; 

(5) evaluate the ability of the reserve components to attract, retain, 

manage the careers of, properly train, and organize personnel with 

substantial cyber technical expertise from the private sector; (6) develop an estimate of the costs of the personnel, infrastructure, 

training, and operations needed to integrate the reserve components into the total force solution to CYBERCOM’s mission requirements; and (7) assess the appropriateness of hiring non-dual status 

technicians on a part-time basis, who possess appropriate cybersecurity expertise for purposes of assisting the National Guard in 

protecting critical infrastructure and carrying out cybersecurity 

missions in defense of the United States homeland. 

The committee notes that there is a large and diverse array of 

companies and non-profit organizations in the private sector that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

employ people with expertise in cybersecurity. These organizations 

not only can provide services to the states for day-to-day cybersecurity and for crisis and recovery support, but their employees could 

potentially provide a wealth of talent as members of the reserve 

components to support CYBERCOM’s title 10 missions, including 

support to civil authorities. While it is not clear that DOD can attract these cyber experts to join the reserve components on a large 

scale, the potential payoff is so significant that it must be fully assessed. 

The committee also notes, however, that these private sector resources are not evenly distributed across the country. Rather, they 

tend to be geographically concentrated. Furthermore, by the inherent virtual nature of cyberspace, the lack of physical proximity to 

a specific cyber event or network need not be a major barrier to the 

provision of support and collective effort. These factors may have 

a significant impact on how reserve component cyber personnel 

should be organized and situated. 

Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to establish an interagency process to develop policy to 

control the proliferation of cyber weapons through unilateral and 

cooperative export controls, law enforcement activities, financial 

means, diplomatic engagement, and other means that the President considers appropriate. The process should involve subject matter experts from across the government, including the Department 

of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of State, and 

the intelligence community. The provision would require the interagency process to produce recommendations within 270 days of the 

enactment of this Act. 

In testimony before the committee and in many other settings, 

executive branch civilian and military leaders have continually 

pointed to cyber threats as some of the most grave facing our country. Recent examples of such threats include the distributed denial 

of service attacks directed at U.S. financial institutions and the 

Shamoon malware cited by former Secretary of Defense Panetta 

that rendered 30,000 computers useless at Saudi Aramco, Saudi 

Arabia’s state-owned oil company. The types of dangerous software 

used to perpetrate these malicious incidents are actively traded on 

a global black market, and they are also available in the so-called 

gray market, through unscrupulous companies. Through these illicit channels, it is possible to procure or even rent sophisticated 

tools and large-scale infrastructure (such as compromised computers) to subvert computer systems and networks. This thriving 

marketplace is driving research and development of more advanced 

cyber capabilities. 

In order to address these challenges, the provision would require 

the President to determine the types of malicious software that can 

and should be controlled through existing export control schemes. 

This process will require developing definitions and categories for 

controlled cyber technologies and determining how to address dualuse, lawful intercept, and penetration testing technologies. After 

determining which types of cyber technologies should be controlled, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

the process should identify the intelligence, law enforcement, and 

financial tools that can be applied to control and contain their development, proliferation, and use. However, the approaches developed must also take into account the needs of legitimate cybersecurity professionals to mitigate vulnerabilities, and not stifle innovation in tools and technology that are necessary for national security 

and the cybersecurity of the Nation. 

Finally, the provision would require the President to develop a 

statement of principles regarding U.S. positions on controlling the 

proliferation of cyber weapons to create new opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to address this shared threat. 

Such principles could be leveraged for a multilateral cyber initiative that could build and operationalize a shared consensus on limiting the spread of malicious software, increasing accountability, 

and creating a foundation for collective action. 

Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 

947) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to establish an interagency process to develop an integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. The provision 

would require the President to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees on this policy within 270 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The committee has been pressing for a strategy and doctrine for 

deterring adversaries from attacking the United States and our allies for years. The administration has made some progress in this 

area, producing some elements of such a strategy, but the depth 

and breadth of the analysis and explanation of the U.S. posture 

needs to be significantly improved. 

Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance 

matters (sec. 948) 

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that 

Centers of Academic Excellence (CAEs) in Information Assurance 

do not lose their certification as CAEs in fiscal year 2014 as a result of recent changes in the certification criteria developed by the 

National Security Agency (NSA). The provision also would require 

the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and 

with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, to: (1) determine whether information 

assurance has matured to the point where the Federal Government 

should no longer serve as the accrediting authority for information 

assurance programs at institutions of higher education; and (2) 

based on that determination, reform the current practice of NSA 

developing the criteria to guide the curricula and certifying the status of the CAEs. 

The first CAEs for Information Assurance were established more 

than a decade ago under the direction of officials on the National 

Security Council staff. There are now approximately 165 CAEs 

across the country, with partnerships extending to many community colleges. The Department of Defense funds a scholarship-forservice program at these CAEs, as does the National Science Foundation. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

The guidelines for the curriculum and the criteria for certifying 

these CAEs were first developed by NSA under the direction of the 

Committee on National Security Systems. These guidelines and criteria have not been updated since. 

In 2010, the administration established the National Initiative 

for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), pursuant to which they assigned responsibility for Formal Cybersecurity Education to the 

Secretary of Education and the National Science Foundation. The 

widely held expectation was that modernization of the CAE guidelines and criteria would issue from the NICE initiative consistent 

with a Cybersecurity Workforce Framework developed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology. 

Instead, NSA unilaterally revised the certification criteria by 

issuing new draft knowledge units and other criteria to which the 

CAEs would be required to align their curricula. Universities and 

colleges that were up for renewal of their certifications would have 

to realign their programs immediately. 

Many of the CAEs are very concerned about NSA’s actions, and 

perceive that the new knowledge units are unduly focused on the 

highly technical aspects of information assurance, which, while perhaps appropriate for the specific needs of NSA and the Department 

of Homeland Security for government employees, are not suited for 

the broad needs of government (at all levels) and the private sector 

for cybersecurity professionals. NSA officials maintain that almost 

all current CAEs will be able to qualify under the new guidelines 

without hardship or significant expense if they choose to do so. 

However, a significant number of the CAEs do not agree. 

The committee’s provision would provide time to step back and 

address fundamental issues. It would also require a determination 

whether information assurance programs are now sufficiently mature to be accredited in the same manner as other established academic disciplines. Accreditation is normally managed by the private sector in a peer-driven process involving institutions and constituencies that serve and are served by the discipline being 

taught. Since the CAEs were created over a decade ago, reliance 

on the Internet has become universal and the cyber threat is ubiquitous, affecting the entire Nation. There are now strong constituencies throughout government and industry, and peer institutions 

in academia and the private sector that have vital interests in the 

curriculum and educational capabilities in information assurance 

in the Nation’s institutes of higher education. They not only deserve a seat at the table, but they have valuable knowledge and experience to impart. 

The committee notes that a large number of federal departments 

have significant cybersecurity education initiatives underway, and 

all of government has a vital interest in cybersecurity. NSA has 

unique expertise, to be sure, but no longer a monopoly. At a minimum, a government-wide, coordinated process should be used to 

establish curricula and criteria for designation for the CAEs. It is 

also possible that, after reviewing the matter, the President and 

academia itself could decide that the time has come for information 

assurance to become a recognized academic discipline with an independent accreditation body and process. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 

While the President is making these decisions and establishing 

a broader and more peer- and constituency-driven accreditation 

process, the committee believes that the status quo for the CAEs 

should be maintained. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites 

In an effort to reduce acquisition costs, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to assess the feasibility and advisability 

of multi-year procurement of the GPS III satellite system under existing authorities. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 

2014. 

Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on 

produced satellites 

For affordability and to ensure manufacturing and production 

lines are optimized, the Department of Defense (DOD) generally 

buys satellites in block quantities. However, over the last few decades, data shows that satellites are generally outliving their expected lifetimes. This often times means that fully produced satellites sit in storage for extended periods of time, sometimes more 

than 5 years. More importantly, it is not fully known to DOD or 

the development contractor what effect storage will have on the 

eventual operational lifetime of a satellite. In addition to risk, 

there are costs associated with extended storage to include battery 

replacement, additional functional testing, and the need to maintain standing armies of engineers to be on call in the event an 

anomaly may occur. Stored satellites have also been launched at 

longer intervals to strategically address the late deliveries of follow 

on satellite acquisitions. The committee directs the Comptroller 

General to assess the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced satellites. The assessment shall include: 

(1) an assessment of DOD and contractor data, if any, on the 

effects that storage has on the operational lifetimes of satellites, to include correlations between years in storage and expected and eventual satellite lifetimes; 

(2) an identification of the costs associated with satellite 

storage over the past 5 years as well as anticipated storage 

costs over the next 5 years; 

(3) an explanation of the steps DOD has taken, if any, to 

strategically extend the lifetimes of satellite constellations, 

while incurring unanticipated storage costs; and 

(4) the steps that DOD is taking to better understand storage and its overall effects on satellite operational lifetimes; and 

(5) the strategic benefit of being able to rapidly reconstitute 

certain satellites, and if storage is the most cost effective 

means for doing so. 

The assessment shall be due by April 30, 2014. 

Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office 

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), while a Department 

of Defense (DOD) agency, has long been considered a loose cadre 

of experts loaned from various defense and intelligence agencies. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
163 

This loaning of experts has positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect of this personnel rotation is the ability to bring new talent with fresh ideas to tackle some of the most challenging problems related to space systems. In fact, DOD personnel who return 

from a tour at NRO have developed synergies between these two 

organizations leading to a cadre of space professionals, which this 

committee believes should be sustained and nurtured by the DOD. 

Section 912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) shows the committee’s long-standing interest in maintaining a space cadre by requiring biennial reports on the Department’s space professionals. The negative aspect 

of the personnel rotation program is a constantly changing workforce that is loaned to a large agency with no long-term core knowledge base of scientists, engineers, contracting specialists, and legal 

staff. Such a core group within the NRO can carry forward the corporate knowledge as the majority of the NRO staff rotates to and 

from their home agencies. Given that a significant portion of staff 

at the NRO is from DOD, the committee looks forward to exploring 

the parameters of such a core group of individuals within the NRO 

in the upcoming fiscal year. 

Estimated cost to relocate spectrum 

Testimony before this committee has suggested moving the Department of Defense (DOD) off spectrum below 3 GHz. The committee remains skeptical and concerned with the technical feasibility and risk in such a move. The committee directs DOD to assess the impact on mission and cost of such a proposed move and 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 28, 2014. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

The Secretary of the Air Force has announced an acquisition 

strategy that involves the procurement of 36 rocket cores over the 

next 5 years with the availability of an additional 14 cores to be 

competed for by the incumbent as well as any launch providers 

that qualify under Air Force new entrant guidelines. The committee understands that as a result of the acquisition strategy, approximately $1.1 billion in cost savings will be achieved with the 

block buy of 36 cores and the Air Force is to be commended for 

these cost savings. Further, the committee understands that while 

the Air Force has completed its New Entrant Strategy, the other 

major user of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), the 

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), has not. The committee will 

want to compare the Air Force and the NRO strategies and to understand what differences there are and why, since both the Air 

Force and the NRO will use these 14 cores. Furthermore, the committee expects the Director of the NRO to consult with the Air 

Force on any differences in strategy that significantly deviate from 

the Air Force approach. 

The committee’s understanding from new entrants is that while 

they are generally pleased with the strategy, there are still concerns with the EELV Launch Capability (ELC) funding and whether it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. The committee 

will want to understand the nature of the ELC during competition 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

for the 14 cores in addition to the 36 core block buy. The committee 

will look carefully in the out-years as to the structure of future acquisition strategies and in particular how the ELC will be structured, assuming there are multiple launch providers. 

Likewise, the committee expects that once a new entrant is certified it will have to establish the acquisition rigor that the current 

incumbent undergoes—business systems that substantially comply 

with Department of Defense data requirements and cost accounting 

standards, including certified cost or price data to protect taxpayers’ interest that it is paying a reasonable and appropriate price 

and Defense Contracting Audit Agency audits to verify and validate contractors’ systems and data. Certification by the Air Force 

must also be closely monitored to ensure technical standards are 

consistent with the risk level of the mission prior to contract 

award. 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program 

The committee continues to believe that improvements to the 

space situational awareness and space command and control capabilities of the United States are critical, and the Department of Defense has the opportunity to achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness by utilizing, to the maximum extent possible, readily available 

commercial and government-developed capabilities. The committee 

fully expects the Air Force to pursue a tailored incremental information technology approach with priority given to transition from 

the legacy Space Defense Operations Center system by 2014. 

The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to, when 

appropriate, fully incorporate existing, mature, commercial technology products in order to replace the legacy system on an accelerated basis and utilize efficient testing and validation methods. In 

addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later 

than August 1, 2013, assessing the Air Force’s plan of execution for 

the Increment 2 schedule, based upon available funding. 

Mainframe computer security 

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) operates a 

large number of mainframe computers to process and store critical 

Department of Defense (DOD) information. These mainframes are 

protected by some elements of DOD’s layered cybersecurity defenses, but other layers are absent, in part because mainframes 

have unique features and attack vectors for which standard defense 

systems and architectures do not apply. However, DISA’s position 

is that these mainframes do not require the same level of attention 

because they have inherently elevated security, achieved through 

the rigorous architecture, engineering, access procedures, and programming languages applied to mainframe computing. 

The committee agrees that mainframe computers have better 

built-in security, but disagrees that these enhanced security features alone are sufficient to provide the level of protection needed. 

In addition, the importance of mainframes to DOD’s information 

enterprise makes them an attractive target. According to General 

Keith Alexander, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM) and the Director of the National Security Agency 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

(NSA), in testimony before the committee, ‘‘there’s more work that 

needs to be done in protecting the mainframe computers and that 

portion of the total information infrastructure.’’ 

The committee directs that CYBERCOM and NSA jointly conduct 

a vulnerability assessment of DOD mainframe computers, and 

make recommendations to the Chief Information Officer and the 

Director of DISA for addressing vulnerabilities that may exist, 

within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground 

System 

The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the Defense 

Support Program Mobile Ground System for integration into the 

Space Based Infrared System. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. 

Payload processing services 

The committee understands that the Air Force has taken steps 

that may undermine competition for payload processing for the 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Given the 

Air Force’s initiatives to instill competition in the EELV program, 

the committee is concerned that the Air Force has not taken all appropriate steps to encourage competition for payload processing 

services. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force within 90 days of the enactment of this Act to provide a plan to the 

congressional defense committees on how the Air Force intends to 

ensure competition in payload processing services. 

Report on disaggregation and payload hosting 

Much has been stated by the Department of Defense on the attributes of disaggregating sensors and hosting these payloads on 

other satellite systems to potentially reduce cost and increase survivability. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed 

to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of disaggregating 

key military space systems and examine whether disaggregation 

and payload hosting offers either decreased acquisition and life 

cycle cost and increased survivability of a constellation compared 

to more traditional approaches such as incremental technological 

improvements of the existing satellite architecture and the use of 

block buy or fixed price acquisition strategy. In particular, the GAO 

is directed to examine these concepts on three systems, the Space 

Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS), the Advanced Extremely High 

Frequency satellite system, and the follow-on defense weather satellite system. There is precedent with the use of SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit 1 and 2 on hosted payloads. The report for this effort 

shall be due by March 31, 2014. 

Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command Terminals for airborne platforms 

There has been much re-scoping of the Family of Advanced Line 

of Sight Command Terminals (FAB–T). Originally intended for 

ground, command post (air and ground), as well as the B–2 and B– 

52 aircraft, the committee understands that the Air Force is now 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

considering only the ground and command post versions of the terminal. If a version of the terminal is proven feasible for the B–2 

and B–52 aircraft, the committee directs the Air Force in coordination with U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to provide an 

assessment of whether the requirement for integrating these terminals into the airframes is still valid and if the Air Force intends 

to provide a follow-on FAB–T capability for these aircraft and by 

what timeframe. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 

2014 and shall include the views of the Commander of 

USSTRATCOM. 

Report on North Korea’s ability to develop a functional nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile 

In April 2012, North Korea first displayed what appeared to be 

a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), referred to as 

the KN–08, which has not yet been flight tested. In December 

2012, after more than a decade of efforts to launch a satellite with 

the Taepo Dong space-launch vehicle (SLV), North Korea succeeded 

for the first time in placing a satellite in orbit with the Taepo 

Dong-2 SLV, thus demonstrating success with the development of 

ballistic missile technology. On February 12, 2013, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its third nuclear test. 

As Madelyn Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global 

Strategic Affairs, testified to the committee, ‘‘North Korea’s longrange ballistic missile capabilities have advanced rapidly during 

the last year. The increased pace of this emerging threat required 

the United States to adapt its homeland defense capabilities . . . . These programs demonstrate North Korea’s commitment to develop 

long-range missile technology that could pose a direct threat to the 

United States.’’ 

These developments have caused concern that North Korea may 

be capable of deploying a nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile. However, to the best of our knowledge, North Korea has never 

flight tested a full production representative long-range ballistic 

missile, and has not flight tested the reentry vehicle or associated 

nuclear warhead technologies. The Department of Defense issued a 

statement in April 2013 that, ‘‘it would be inaccurate to suggest 

that the North Korean regime has fully developed and tested’’ nuclear weapons capable of being delivered by ballistic missiles. According to the Director of National Intelligence, ‘‘North Korea has 

not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a 

nuclear-armed missile.’’ 

North Korea has clearly made substantial progress on long-range 

ballistic missile technology and on developing nuclear weapons. 

These are topics of intense interest to the U.S. Intelligence Community, elements of which have been assessing these two aspects 

of North Korea’s capabilities separately. However, there has not yet 

been an assessment looking at both North Korea’s long-range missile and nuclear warhead capabilities to provide an integrated assessment of its ability to produce a working nuclear-armed ICBM. 

Consequently, the Director of National Intelligence is directed to 

assess the ability and time frame for North Korea to produce a 

fully functional long-range ballistic missile armed with a working 

nuclear warhead. The assessment shall consider the challenges of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

successfully designing, engineering, and producing a nuclear explosives package that can fit into a re-entry body, capable of withstanding the full flight trajectory of a ballistic missile, with fusing 

that can arm and detonate the warhead on a target. The assessment should also identify what, if any, capabilities North Korea 

may have achieved. 

As part of this assessment, the Director of National Intelligence 

is to consult with the Department of Energy on the physics and engineering of such a nuclear explosives package that can fit in the 

reentry body, survive flight trajectory, and the necessary fusing to 

arm the warhead. The Director’s assessment shall reflect the views 

of the Department of Energy. 

In the assessment, the Director of National Intelligence shall 

provide an estimate of North Korea’s status on the critical technologies to be developed in the nuclear explosives package, the reentry body, the fuse system, and the estimated timeframe to assemble a complete and fully functional warhead on a long-range 

ballistic missile system. The assessment shall include any dissenting or minority intelligence community determinations and 

shall be completed and provided to the congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence committees no later than 

February 28, 2014. 

Report on space situational awareness 

The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to conduct a Gap Analysis on the systems of sensors used for space situational awareness 

(SSA), evaluating those: currently employed; in procurement; and 

not yet procured, or in the case of the Space Based Surveillance 

System, what a future replacement would be to deliver similar capability at a lower cost. For sensors not procured, the Secretary is 

directed to provide the estimated cost of procurement and the incremental improvement to the SSA architecture. The Secretary is 

directed to consider non-traditional sensors such as sea-based Xband radar integrated in a net-centric fashion to the Joint Space 

Operations Center Mission System. The report for this effort shall 

be due by February 28, 2014. 

Satellite communications strategy 

The Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a report detailing 

a 5-, 10-, and 25-year strategy for using an appropriate mix of Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial satellite bandwidth. 

The committee believes considerable savings can be achieved by 

purchasing commercial bandwidth in larger block quantities. However, to date, DOD has been unable to define the appropriate mix 

between government provided and commercially purchased satellite 

communications and has relied on more expensive spot market 

buys. For procuring commercial satellite bandwidth, the Secretary 

must recognize that long-term or capital leasing of commercial 

bandwidth typically results in the cost over the life of the lease 

being net-present valued by the Congressional Budget Office in 

year one of the lease. For multi-year procurement of satellite bandwidth, issues associated with termination liability will also present 

up-front costing challenges in year 1. Accordingly, as part of the 

strategy, the Secretary is directed to consider the use of a capital 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

working fund or other mechanisms for leasing or multi-year procurement of commercial bandwidth. These alternative procurement 

arrangements should only be used where the use of DOD or other 

government satellites are not available or is more costly than in 

the private sector. The report shall be due February 28, 2014. 

The Government Accountability Office is directed to review the 

acquisition strategy of the report no later than 90 days after submittal of the report. 

Satellite control system modernization plan 

The committee directs the Air Force to develop a long-term plan 

for modernizing its Satellite Control Network and any future 

shared satellite control services and capabilities consistent with the 

second recommendation found on page 28 of the Government Accountability Office report ‘‘Satellite Control Operations’’, GAO–13– 

315. The plan shall be due by April 30, 2014. 

Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6 

The committee understands that the Air Force intends to procure 

Space Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), GEO 5 and 6 using a 

block buy, fixed price strategy to reduce costs. Such an acquisition 

strategy is admirable. However, the committee understands that 

SBIRS GEO 5 and 6 is to use much the same technology as in earlier versions found in GEO 1 and 2. If such an approach is used, 

that means that GEO 5 and 6 when launched in the 2020 timeframe will be using, for instance, focal plane technology developed 

in the 1990s, which is 30 years old. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the technology insertion path for 

GEO 5 and 6 and whether it is feasible to insert newer focal plane 

and other technologies into GEO 5 and 6 within a block buy acquisition strategy and the estimated cost. If not feasible, how does the 

Air force intend to break the ongoing cycle of technology insertion 

maturity versus risk where the cost to develop next generation satellites becomes cost prohibitive and high risk with long periods of 

non-recurring engineering. The assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014. The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to review the assessment performed by the Air Force 

within 90 days of submission to the committee. 

Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base 

The committee believes that a healthy industrial base for strategic solid rocket motors, including multiple providers, promotes 

competition, improves vendor performance, and reduces costs. The 

committee strongly encourages the Air Force to promote and maintain the health and competitiveness of this crucial sector of the industrial base and to make its viability a key consideration in future 

acquisition decisions involving Minuteman III sustainment and the 

post 2030 Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. 

Trusted agent for spectrum 

An important element of working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory 

Committee (CSMAC) is the use of trusted agents; technically 

trained individuals from industry with appropriate security clearVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

ances that can work as an interface between industry and DOD in 

assessing the ability to share or clear spectrum that is currently in 

use by the Department. The committee understands that the Department has been reviewing the procedures for using trusted 

agents. However, the review process has taken an exceedingly long 

time, causing delays in the ability of DOD to effectively work with 

industry. The committee directs the Department to report back on 

the status of implementing procedures for using trusted agents as 

part of the CSMAC process by July 31, 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(171) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to $4.0 billion of funds authorized in division A of 

this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 

1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

Department of Defense (DOD) Readiness Restoration Fund in order 

to provide the DOD with increased flexibility to transfer funds that 

may be available to high priority readiness accounts, where necessary to address significant shortfalls in funding otherwise available for the training activities of the armed forces (including flying 

hours and steaming days) and the maintenance of military equipment. 

The committee directs the Department to notify Congress regarding the use of this authority using guidelines similar to that of notifications to Congress for the use of general transfer authorities. 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities 

Extension of authority to support the unified counter-drug 

and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 2 

fiscal years, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 

campaign of the Government of Colombia. The provision would also 

incorporate an updated notification to Congress to improve transparency of the Department of Defense’s use of this authority. 

The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has made 

and continues to make progress combating narcotics trafficking and 

designated foreign terrorist organizations. This type of flexible authority is still required to assist the Government of Colombia consolidate its hard-fought gains, but the committee expects to see reductions in the level of assistance provided to Colombia, as has 

been agreed to in our bilateral engagements with the Colombians. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 2 

fiscal years, the support by joint task forces under section 1022(b) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), as most recently amended by section 1011 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239). 

While the committee continues to be pleased with the Department’s judicious use of this authority, the committee also believes 

there are additional activities that could potentially be conducted, 

most notably in additional investments in developing intelligence 

and supporting other departments’ and agencies’ efforts to develop 

additional intelligence on the nexus that exists between 

transnational criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations. The committee urges the Department to look closely at these 

matters in North Africa. 

Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional 

support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign 

governments (sec. 1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 5 

years, the authority to provide support for counterdrug activities of 

certain foreign governments under subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 

(Public Law 105–85), as most recently amended by section 1006 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). The provision would also expand the list of countries eligible to receive support to include the Governments of 

Chad, Libya, Mali, and Niger. 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for 

the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 231 of title 10, Unites Sates Code, to include a requirement 

to report on the total cost of construction for each vessel used to 

determine estimated levels of annual funding in the report, and an 

assessment of the extent of the strategic and operational risk to national security whenever the number or capabilities of the naval 

vessels in the plan do not meet requirements. 

Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment 

(sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2014, that 

would assess the current fleet capabilities compared to the threat 

and the likely situation over the next 30 years. The CNO should 

produce an unclassified report, and a classified annex to that report. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

Section 1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Secretary of the 

Navy to provide a comprehensive description of the current requirements for combatant vessels of the Navy, including submarines. 

The Navy submitted that report which reflected that, while the 

previous requirement was for a fleet of 313 ships, originally identified in a 2005 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) and revalidated 

in 2010, the new requirements have declined to a total of 306 

ships. 

Within this seven-ship net decrease to 306 ships, actual combat 

power is reduced by six large surface combatants, three small surface combatants, and four cruise missile submarines, for a total reduction of 13 combatant ships, offset by an increase of six command and support ships. The reduction in cruise missile submarines reflects a Navy plan not to replace these ships when they 

retire in the late 2020s. 

In congressional testimony this year about the 2012 FSA, representatives of the Department of the Navy asserted that the revised fleet size goal considered various factors, including the revised Defense Strategic Guidance in 2012, changed Navy mission 

requirements, different individual ship capabilities, fleet networking capabilities, and ship basing arrangements and operational cycles, as opposed to just platforms or numbers of ships. 

The committee notes that the current fleet of 283 battle force 

ships provides combatant commanders (COCOM) with a greater 

array of fire power than did the Navy fleets of 500 or more ships 

of the Cold War era, with precision-guided air-delivered weapons, 

numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the sophistication of 

command, control, communications, and computer systems; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems; and networking capabilities that did not exist during the Cold War. 

The President’s 2012 revised U.S. defense strategy calls for a rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region, a predominantly maritime and aerospace domain. This will most likely increase demands 

for Navy fleet resources and deployments in that region in competition with global demand. Regarding global demands for naval 

forces, Navy officials testified last year that fully satisfying 

COCOM requests for forward-deployed Navy forces in various regions would require more than 500 ships. 

The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2014, dated May 10, 2013, proposes near-term retirements of cruisers and amphibious ships, resulting in 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. The committee 

is concerned that the plan will not meet the goal of a 306-ship battle force inventory until 2037 and assumes risk over the 30-year 

period, with periodic shortages of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines, and amphibious ships. The committee 

notes that the Navy possesses only 28 amphibious ships, with an 

average of only 22 ships available for surge deployment, despite a 

Marine Corps requirement for 38 amphibious ships. As such, the 

committee is also concerned that the Navy’s shortfall in amphibious ships adds risk to the Marine Corps’ ability to meet current 

and future COCOM requests. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

There are also risks with the Navy’s plan beyond mere numbers 

of ships: 

(1) within the plan, the Navy intends that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will comprise over one third of the Navy’s total 

surface combatant fleet by 2028. This fact compounds risk, 

since the LCS to date has not completed operational testing or 

demonstrated adequate performance of assigned missions in 

critical areas of mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, or 

anti-submarine operations; 

(2) with its decision in the fiscal year 2013 budget to delay 

the procurement of the first Ohio-class replacement ballistic 

missile submarine by 2 years, to fiscal year 2021, the Navy has 

consumed all schedule margin for replacing the existing Ohioclass boats on a timely basis, and increased the risk that an 

unforeseen event affecting a strategic missile submarine’s operational availability would prevent the Navy from being able to 

fully satisfy U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) requirements; and 

(3) the 2012 FSA and the shipbuilding plan do not account 

for the possible effects of further budget cuts under the Budget 

Control Act of 2011. Various representatives of the Navy have 

testified that, if Department of Defense budgets are reduced 

below levels shown in the President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2014, the Navy will have to reduce the size and capabilities of the fleet to reflect further changes in U.S. defense strategy and available Navy resources. 

Given the risks inherent in the planned size of the Navy, the capabilities of the ships planned, the rate of Navy ship procurement, 

and the potential affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans at 

a time of significant uncertainty in defense budgets, the committee 

agrees that in order to adequately assess the ability of the fleet 

proposed by the 2012 FSA to meet national security requirements, 

there needs to be an objective set of standards to assess the ability 

of the Navy to meet national security objectives, as opposed to simply relying on numbers and types of platforms. 

The committee also believes that a failure to recapitalize our seabased strategic nuclear deterrent on time would have devastating 

impacts on deterrence and strategic stability. Accordingly, the committee directs the CNO to pay particular attention in producing the 

report to the Navy’s ability to fully meet STRATCOM requirements. 

Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new 

class of major combatant vessels of the strike forces of 

the United States Navy (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181). That section requires that the Navy 

build any new class of major surface combatant and amphibious assault ship with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the 

Secretary of the Navy notifies the congressional defense committees that, as a result of a cost-benefit analysis, it would not be 

practical for the Navy to design the class of ships with an integrated nuclear power system. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

As a matter of acquisition management laws and regulations, the 

Navy must conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for all such 

vessels to determine the ship characteristics, including the required 

propulsion and power generation mechanism. The AoA outcome for 

each surface combatant and amphibious assault ship should be 

based on an independent and objective systems engineering and 

business case analysis. Within that analysis, the Navy can evaluate 

the advisability of using an integrated nuclear propulsion system 

to determine the best value for the Federal Government. 

Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no cost to the Navy (sec. 1024) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (a) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code. Section 

7306, which governs disposition of vessels stricken from the Naval 

Vessel Register, authorizes the Department of the Navy to donate 

any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. The provision 

requires that, as a condition of a donation, donated naval vessels 

be maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Secretary of the 

Navy. The Navy has found that this statutory requirement presents numerous problems associated with ownership, maintenance 

costs, and historic preservation. The provision would eliminate the 

statutory requirement with regard to future donations, but would 

not affect prior donation contracts. 

The provision clarifies the purpose of any such transfer would be 

to operate the vessel as a museum or memorial for public display 

in the United States. This additional language would provide the 

Navy with the flexibility to oversee a vessel donee’s actions, without any implication that the Navy retains ownership of the vessel. 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer or release Guantanamo detainees 

to their country of origin or another country other than the United 

States if: (1) the Secretary of Defense has determined, based on the 

findings of the Periodic Review Board process, that the detainee no 

longer constitutes a threat to U.S. national security; (2) the transfer or release is required to effectuate a court order; or (3) the detainee has been tried in a court or competent tribunal on charges 

based on the same conduct that served as the basis for his designation as an enemy combatant and the detainee has been acquitted 

of such charges or has been convicted and served the sentence pursuant to the conviction. 

The provision would also require that for other transfers of 

Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the United States, 

the Secretary of Defense must determine prior to any such transfer 

that actions have been or will be taken that will substantially mitigate the risk of the detainee re-engaging in terrorist or other hostile activity against the United States, and that the transfer is in 

the U.S. national security interest. The Secretary would be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

quired to submit a notification to the appropriate congressional 

committees not less than 30 days in advance of the transfer or release, including a statement of the basis for the transfer or release. 

The committee notes that the administration has raised concerns 

that the certification requirements Congress has enacted on the 

transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries have made 

it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out such transfers. At the 

same time, the administration has yet to attempt to transfer any 

Guantanamo detainee under the certification requirements or to 

use the national security waiver granted under section 1028 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81) and section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). The committee 

emphasizes that the certification requirements for such transfers 

were never intended to constitute an absolute prohibition on the 

transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the 

United States, and believes the provisions of this section should 

help clarify the requirements applicable to such transfers. 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

the United States for emergency or critical medical 

treatment (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to authorize the temporary transfer of detainees 

at the Guantanamo detention facility (GTMO) to a Department of 

Defense (DOD) medical facility for the sole purpose of providing 

emergency or critical medical treatment that is not available at 

GTMO and is necessary to prevent death or imminent significant 

injury or harm to the individual’s health. The detainee would not 

be admitted into the United States during the period of the medical 

treatment and must be returned to GTMO as soon as medically 

feasible. 

The committee notes that the United States is obligated under 

domestic law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to 

provide for the humane treatment of detainees in its custody. The 

authority granted the Secretary of Defense under this section 

would address concerns that have arisen regarding the standard of 

medical care for GTMO detainees, particularly as that population 

ages, and U.S. compliance with its obligations to provide humane 

treatment. 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2014 the prohibition under section 1027 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1911) on the transfer or release of detainees held at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(GTMO) to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense 

to waive this prohibition for the transfer of GTMO detainees to the 

United States for detention and trial if: (1) the Secretary deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

mines that such a transfer is in the national security interest of 

the United States; (2) steps have been taken to address any risk 

to public safety; and (3) the appropriate congressional committees 

are notified not later than 30 days in advance of any such transfer 

to the United States. 

Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on 

military commissions (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, on military commissions to 

clarify the authority and procedures by which the convening authority may detail alternate members to a military commission. 

The provision would also clarify the military judge’s discretion to 

grant both parties additional peremptory challenges as may be required in the interests of justice. 

Subtitle E—Nuclear Forces 

Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements 

of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 179 of title 10, United States Code, by striking the responsibilities for nuclear command, control, and communications since other 

sections of this Act establishes a Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System. The provision adds a new responsibility to report on joint activities between the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Energy on nuclear security. 

Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear 

weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 

1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81), which provides for a report to the congressional defense committees with a 10-year funding profile for 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) strategic deterrent modernization program. Specifically, the provision would give both departments 60 days after 

budget submission to deliver the section 1043 report. If a delay is 

anticipated that is greater than 60 days, DOE and DOD must notify the congressional defense committees before the President’s 

budget submission and provide a briefing no later than 30 days 

after budget submission. The committee expects the briefing to be 

detailed enough and consistent with section 1043 to enable the congressional defense committees to conduct their oversight duties. 

Last year, the section 1043 report was submitted to the congressional defense committees on May 7, 2012, more than 60 days past 

the fiscal year 2013 budget submission and without the 10-year 

projection by DOE which Congress never received. This year, Congress received the 10-year DOE projection but has not received the 

10-year DOD budget projection nor the section 1043 report. 

The revised requirements recommended by the committee should 

be sufficient to accommodate the interagency coordination process 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

between DOD and DOE. If DOD and DOE fail to meet the standard of reasonableness laid out in this provision the committee will 

legislate with stronger measures. 

Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable 

warhead (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Department of Defense Cost Analysis and Program 

Evaluation to estimate life extensions of the W–78 and W–88 warheads and compare that to the interoperable warhead that is to replace both systems. In addition the provision would direct a cost estimation of the W–87 warhead. No funds may be spent past phase 

6.2A for the interoperable warhead until the cost comparison with 

straight life extensions of the W–88 and W–78 warheads has been 

completed and submitted to the congressional defense committees, 

which is to be no later than April 1, 2014. 

Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United 

States nuclear forces (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that states it is the policy of the United States to modernize or replace the nuclear triad 

and sustain the nuclear stockpile, its production facilities, and 

science base. 

Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile 

force (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that states the Secretary 

of Defense may in a manner consistent with international obligations, retain missile launch facilities currently supporting up to 800 

deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, maintain intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) on alert or operationally deployed status, and preserve ICBM silos in operational or warm status. A report is required not later than 180 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act on the feasibility and advisability of preserving ICBM silos in operational or warm status. 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a national security spectrum strategy to be performed at least once 

every 5 years. The strategy is to provide near-term (5 years), midterm (10 years), and long-term (30 years) assessments of the need 

for national security spectrum. 

Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution 

regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of 

electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (P.L. 106–65) to require that the Department of Defense 

be adequately represented to convey its views with the interagency 

process for spectrum allocation. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed 

Forces in child custody determinations (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that State courts should not consider military 

deployment as the sole factor in determining child custody in a 

State court proceeding involving a parent who is a member of the 

armed forces. The best interest of the child should always prevail 

in custody cases, but members of the armed forces should not lose 

custody of their children based solely upon service to our country. 

Subtitle G—Studies and Reports 

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 

1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or 

modify a number of reporting requirements that have been included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for repeal or modification in this provision are requirements identified by 

the committee as being no longer relevant or necessary and that 

can be repealed or modified without adversely affecting the committee’s oversight responsibilities. 

Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the Department’s analysis and plans for the disposition and sustainment of its fleet of 

mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. The committee 

is aware that long-term plans for the distribution and sustainment 

of the fleet have been studied by the Department of Defense and 

each of the military departments. Given the significant investment 

in MRAP vehicles over the last 10 years, the committee wants to 

understand the Department’s management and funding plans for 

MRAP disposal, retention, integration, and sustainment including 

modernization or upgrades, if any, necessary to meet current or future survivability and mobility requirements. 

Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department of Defense (sec. 1063) 

The committee recognizes that Department of Defense (DOD) operations require personnel with a range of foreign language skills 

and regional expertise, such as translation and interpretation capabilities. As evidenced in recent operational experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, these capabilities can be critical factors to mission 

success. Further, the committee believes that changes to the size 

and location of DOD’s overseas presence, such as forward-stationed 

or deployed military forces, and a renewed emphasis on developing 

partnerships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa, indicate that DOD will likely need to continue its significant investments in acquiring foreign language-related support for the foreseeable future. However, in the face of current fiscal pressures and 

budgetary constraints, the committee also believes that DOD has 

a heightened need to maximize efficiencies and that one way to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

achieve greater efficiencies is through more coordinated acquisition 

approaches. 

Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

identified opportunities for DOD to improve its approach to contracting from a broad perspective as well as in areas related to foreign language support. For example, DOD contract management 

remains on the GAO’s list of high-risk areas in the Federal Government and, in its 2013 annual report to Congress highlighting areas 

in the Federal Government where duplication, overlap, and fragmentation exist, and where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies in providing government services, GAO identified 

DOD’s management of foreign language support contracts as one of 

31 areas in the Federal Government where greater efficiencies 

might be achieved. At that time, GAO reported that DOD had obligated over $6.8 

billion from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 on contracts to acquire 

foreign language-related services and products for its forces. GAO 

also noted that DOD had centralized the contracting for certain foreign language-related services and products under an executive 

agent and had realized some efficiencies, but that the executive 

agent’s focus had been exclusively on translation and interpretation 

services and that DOD had not taken steps to comprehensively assess whether additional opportunities existed to gain efficiencies in 

fragmented contracts for other types of foreign language support 

which are estimated to cost more than $1.0 billion annually. Other 

GAO work has found that agencies, including DOD, reported savings ranging between 5 and 20 percent by implementing more coordinated acquisition approaches rather than fragmented contracting. Therefore, on the basis of the level of DOD’s considerable 

investment in contracts for foreign language support both now and 

in the future, the committee believes DOD may be able to achieve 

significant cost savings by comprehensively assessing whether additional opportunities exist to gain efficiencies in fragmented contracts for all types of foreign language support. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

direct the Secretary of Defense to assess the Department’s current 

approach for managing foreign language support contracts. At a 

minimum, such an assessment should include an analysis of spending for all the types foreign language support services and products 

that have been acquired by DOD components and a reevaluation, 

based on the results of the analysis of spending, of the scope of the 

DOD executive agent’s management of foreign language support 

contracts to determine whether any adjustments are needed. 

Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to produce a report on the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) that would assess certain aspects of the current CAP 

aircraft program, including: (1) what is the requirement for the 

total fleet of CAP aircraft; (2) how are those requirements for CAP 

aircraft derived; and (3) how are CAP aircraft allocated among that 

various operating locations. The Secretary should submit this report with the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air Force is considering options 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

to reduce the size of the CAP, but believes that the Secretary 

should conduct a more thorough assessment of requirements before 

making any final decision on these options. 

Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force, within 180 days of the enactment 

of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees and 

intelligence committees a report on the Eagle Vision imagery 

ground station. The report elements would include a description 

and assessment of the Department of Defense organizations to 

which the Eagle Vision system could be transferred, as well as the 

actions that would need to be taken prior to a transfer, the potential schedule for a transfer, and the possible effects of a transfer 

on the capabilities or use of the system. The provision would prohibit the Air Force from making changes to the organization and 

management of the program until 90 days after the submission of 

the report to Congress. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program (sec. 

1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) to extend the authority of the Secretary 

of Defense for 5 fiscal years, to advise foreign defense ministries. 

The provision would also extend the requirement of the Secretary 

of Defense to provide an annual report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

and would provide the Comptroller General of the United States an 

additional year to conduct the evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

program under the original authority. 

The committee supports the request of the Department of Defense (DOD) to extend this authority in order to ensure that they 

can effectively attract personnel to the program and determine 

whether this program and its associated activities could prove successful in implementing the priorities of the Secretary of Defense 

in high priority countries around the world. However, the committee is aware of concerns and recommendations raised by the 

DOD Inspector General about the financial management of a nearly identical program being conducted in Afghanistan pursuant to a 

different authority. The committee urges the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy to ensure that the matters raised by the DOD 

Inspector General about the similar program in Afghanistan are 

addressed promptly and that those modifications are incorporated 

into the management processes of the program conducted pursuant 

to section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

Further, the committee notes that to date, DOD has not deployed 

any personnel under this authority and that the first planned deployment will be to Montenegro. The committee hopes the Department will review the prospective deployment of officials under this 

authority to ensure that each deployment will be to a nation where 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

the United States and the prospective partner have significant mutual security interests. 

Items of Special Interest 

Airborne Nuclear Command Post 

The Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force are directed to report 

to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the 

Airborne Nuclear Command Post and the Airborne Launch Control 

System, including system electronics and trainers. The report shall 

also outline how a modernization plan will provide for battle staff 

training. The report shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2014. 

Air Force weapons storage areas 

The committee strongly supports the Air Force decision to move 

forward with reconstituting nuclear Air Force bases with weapons 

storage areas (WSA). Reconstituting WSA will provide a second nuclear weapons storage capability for Air Force Global Strike Command and provide necessary survivability of the Nation’s enduring 

strategic nuclear deterrents. Given the Air Force’s 15-year proposal, the committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force to provide an up-to-date report detailing the reexamined plans, including 

requirements and costs, for reconstituting a second nuclear weapons storage capability for nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, as well as the potential benefits of such a reconstitution and 

potential savings or benefits achieved through shortening the timeframe. 

Army force structure and installation alignment 

The committee is aware that beginning in January 2007, in response to the demands for the support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the active duty Army grew by 65,000 soldiers and five 

combat brigades. To accommodate this growth the Army initiated 

a variety of programs, including facilities improvements and military construction, necessary to house and train these additional 

forces. 

As force requirements for Iraq have concluded and for Afghanistan have declined, in January 2012 the President announced the 

Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) in which the active duty Army 

would decrease by 80,000 soldiers and inactivate up to eight combat brigades by the end fiscal year 2017. At the same time the 

Army is reducing end strength and combat brigade force structure, 

it is likely to change the structure of the remaining infantry and 

armor combat brigades by adding to some a third maneuver battalion. 

The committee is concerned that end strength and force structure 

reductions and changes so soon after efforts to accommodate 

growth may result in the misalignment of remaining forces with installations and facilities to maximize the readiness and the quality 

of life of soldiers and their families. In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a March 2013 letter, requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment of the Army’s analVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

ysis and decision-making processes associated with planned force 

structure reductions and their alignment with installations. 

As a supplement to this work by the GAO, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional 

defense committees, not later than October 1, 2013, explaining how 

the Army is maximizing existing installation capacities and capabilities, including facilities related to combat brigade training and 

readiness, to meet future force requirements. 

Counter threat finance efforts 

Counter threat finance (CTF) leverages the capabilities of the 

interagency to help detect, deter, disrupt, and destroy terrorist organizations and those supporting terrorism by targeting the foundation of their operations, their financial resources. CTF is a critical component of the United States Strategy to Combat 

Transnational Organized Crime, which was released on July 25, 

2011. The Department of Defense (DOD) has played a significant 

role in interagency CTF efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

continues to develop and expand its ability to disrupt our adversaries both on and off the battlefield. Pursuant to the DOD CTF 

Directive (DODD 5205.14) issued in August 2010, DOD has recognized the CTF discipline as an essential tool in combating criminal 

networks and terrorist organizations worldwide, and has outlined 

a plan to integrate this capability into its doctrine, strategy, and 

operational planning. 

The committee recognizes DODD 5205.14 as a welcome step towards institutionalizing the successful efforts of the joint interagency CTF cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq Threat Finance 

Cell (ITFC) under joint DOD-Department of Treasury leadership 

and the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) under Drug Enforcement Agency leadership both led efforts to identify and disrupt 

funding sources supporting insurgent and terrorist organizations, 

aided in the identification of key insurgency members and 

enablers, and supported threat finance intelligence (TFI) collection 

and analysis. It is important for DOD to ensure that lessons 

learned from these initiatives are captured and institutionalized to 

build upon successes and mature DOD’s capability to apply the 

CTF discipline to new problem sets. DOD must be able to integrate 

with, support, and enable other law enforcement and government 

agencies’ CTF activities. Moreover, it is important that DOD, in accordance with DODD 5205.14, operationalize TFI and CTF efforts 

in a way that prevents duplication and maximizes effectiveness. 

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act, a report outlining each CTF and 

TFI activity currently being planned or conducted by DOD. Each 

summary should include a detailed description of the activity, identification of lead and supporting agencies, both within and outside 

DOD, a description of each agency’s role, the level and source of 

funding associated with each activity, a description of the desired 

outcomes from each activity, and a description of how this activity 

aligns with the goals of existing interagency strategies to find terrorism, corruption, crimes, narcotics, and other transnational 

threats, including United States Strategy to Combat Transnational 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

Organized Crime. The report should also include a summary of 

operational lessons, best practices, and tools employed in ITFC and 

ATFC efforts and how they can be replicated to advance other DOD 

CTF missions, as well as a description of the efforts, both within 

DOD and between DOD and other relevant agencies, to foster communication and ensure integrated support to interagency partners. 

Further, the report should contain the Secretary’s assessment of 

the progress made to date in the implementation of DODD 5205.14, 

any current gaps in DOD’s CTF capabilities and authorities, and 

any other information the Secretary deems appropriate. The report 

shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, 

if warranted. 

Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic facilities 

overseas 

While the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have primary 

responsibility for the security of American diplomatic facilities 

around the globe, it does provide the State Department and other 

departments and agencies—on an as-requested basis—support to 

ensure they can fulfill its varying security requirements. The committee recognizes the value of these facilities—including facilities 

in high-risk/high-threat locations—in establishing a U.S. presence 

in such areas, not only for diplomatic objectives but also for essential national defense missions. For this reason, it is critical that 

DOD be both funded and postured to fulfill its commitments as a 

supporting agency. 

One element of this support is the United States Marine Security 

Guard Program. Section 404 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the 

Marine Security Guard Program, and to report to Congress by October 1, 2013, on the results of this review. The provision also required the Secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of 

Marines in the Marine Security Guard Program by up to 1,000 personnel to improve security at our embassies, consulates, and other 

diplomatic facilities. The budget request for fiscal year 2014 begins 

implementation of that requirement. 

In addition, the State Department’s Accountability Review Board 

(ARB) recommended that the State Department and DOD identify 

additional flexible Marine Corps Security Guard structures and 

provide more capabilities and capacities at higher risk posts. DOD 

has already started to address this recommendation by: (1) forward 

deploying and adjusting the alert posture of security augmentation 

forces in the most volatile areas; (2) supporting the State Department’s efforts to look at hardening facilities and reassessing diplomatic security; and (3) enhancing intelligence collection and ensuring that military forces in critical areas are prepared to respond to 

crisis, if necessary. The committee endorses these improvements 

and directs the Secretary to submit a report to the committee by 

no later than August 1, 2013, on DOD’s implementation of these 

measures, as well as any additional steps that should be taken to 

ensure we are doing everything possible to protect our personnel 

and facilities abroad. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

Fiscal priorities 

The committee notes that on May 17, 2013 the Department of 

Defense (DOD) submitted two reprogramming actions to the congressional defense committees totaling $9.6 billion. Of this, $7.3 

billion of the transfers seek to offset shortfalls in fiscal year 2013 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. These shortfalls 

have occurred because operating tempo exceeds the level anticipated in the fiscal year 2013 budget; transportation costs are higher due to unanticipated problems with the Ground Lines of Communication; and fuel costs are higher. The Department has informed the committee that even if the congressional defense committees approve all the items in these reprogramming actions that 

the services will still face a fiscal year 2013 OCO shortfall totaling 

$3.7 billion. 

The committee notes that the pending reprogramming actions in- clude $3.4 billion in DOD base budget to OCO transfers and will 

exhaust nearly all of the transfer authority available to the Department. The Department will not leave troops in combat without fuel 

or ammunition or any needed item. Without relief to these shortfalls, the Department will have to implement additional reductions 

to base operation and maintenance accounts to ensure the 

warfighter will have what they need on the front lines. The result 

will be to further exacerbate the already serious problems that face 

DOD as a result of sequestration. 

DOD faces serious problems due to sequestration, affecting every 

individual in the Department. The Department has issued furlough 

notices to nearly 700,000 civilian employees—roughly 85 percent of 

its workforce—to begin furlough for one day per week beginning on 

July 8, 2013, and lasting through the end of the fiscal year. Civilian furloughs impact everything from DOD schools to military medical facilities to military family support programs. 

Active duty, Reserve, and National Guard members are also feeling the brunt of sequestration. As we have heard from senior leader testimony this spring, the Army has already cancelled two-thirds 

of its training. As a result of sequestration cuts to flying hours, civilian furlough actions, and facilities sustainment, the Army will 

feel readiness impacts into fiscal year 2014 with many active component units untrained for immediate deployment, a backlog of 

aviation training, deferred reset of equipment, and cancelled training courses. In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force has a $4.4 billion shortfall in 

its operations and maintenance accounts, impacting flying hours 

and readiness. As a result, the Air Force has already grounded onethird of fighter and bomber squadrons, and warns that it will be 

in a state of ‘‘tiered readiness,’’ diminishing combat readiness to be 

able to respond to contingencies. As a result of shortfalls in its operation and maintenance accounts, the Navy had to make decisions 

to maintain its readiness, by deferring the deployment of the USS 

Truman to the Middle East, and deferring critical ship maintenance and repair in the third and fourth quarter. As a result, by 

the end fiscal year 2013, two-thirds of Navy non-deployed ships 

and aviation squadrons will be less than fully mission capable and 

not certified for combat operations. Sequestration impacts the 

DOD’s ability to respond to contingencies, resource its defense 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

strategy, and plan for the future. It threatens stability in the defense industrial base, threatening a lost investment in a skilled 

workforce that is critical to national security. 

Domestic agencies also face serious problems due to sequestration, including severe cuts to Head Start programs, both on the 

side of educators and children enrolled in the program. Head Start 

serves over a million disadvantaged children and their families 

each year. Crippling cuts in other domestic agencies are extremely 

counterproductive, at a time when the economy is still recovering. 

All domestic agencies are harmed by sequestration, and there are 

counterproductive impacts on students, our education system, 

small businesses, infrastructure, homeland security, and the general economy. These are all also fundamental underpinnings to our 

national security. Sequester threatens harm to all. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages Congress and the 

Administration to work together to repeal sequestration and replace it with strategic and credible deficit reduction. 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

The committee supports the Air Force’s evaluation of possibilities 

for Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to follow the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), but shares the 

concerns expressed by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global 

Strategic Affairs, Madelyn R. Creedon, when she testified at a Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on April 17, 2013, that: ‘‘I 

know this has taken a lot longer than we anticipated. But, one of 

the things that we want to make sure that we fully examined is 

all the options,’’ as well as the concerns expressed by Lieutenant 

General James M. Kowalski, USAF, Commander of the Air Force 

Global Strike Command, when he testified at the same hearing 

that: ‘‘we had some bureaucratic delays as the study plan went 

back and forth. The study is about to begin.’’ The administration’s 

2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that: ‘‘studies to inform that 

decision [on a follow-on ICBM] are needed now.’’ 

The committee believes it is important that the Air Force complete its review in 2014 and expeditiously brief the congressional 

defense committees on its results. 

In the interim, the committee directs the Air Force to brief the 

congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on the Analysis of Alternatives for 

the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, including its terms of reference. 

Impact of B–61 program delay 

Testimony before this committee by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) stated that the first production unit of 

the B–61 Mod 12 will be in 2019. However testimony this year to 

the committee by the Sandia Laboratory Director Paul Hommert 

has stated ‘‘From what I can tell now, as a result of sequestration 

in ’13, and what we have seen in the ’14 budget, we are going to 

slip off that plan . . . not dramatically . . . but in my view we will 

see schedule impact.’’ 

Given the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing resolutions and their possible impact on the 2019 date, the committee diVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

rects the Department of Defense in consultation with the NNSA to 

develop a joint plan to mitigate the impact to the existing stockpile 

of fielded B–61 weapons in the event that the first production units 

fail to meet the 2019 date. The mitigation plan shall include technical mitigation details and estimated costs for each year of delay. 

The mitigation plan shall be due no later than February 28, 2014. 

Reforming the security classification system 

Multiple independent commissions over the last two decades 

have stressed the need for reform of the security classification system, noting that the system that has evolved since World War II 

is overly complex, and leads to over-classification, depriving citizens unnecessarily of information about their government’s operations. In 2000, Congress established the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), with distinguished members appointed by 

the President and the leadership of both parties in the Senate and 

the House of Representatives. 

In 2009, in his Implementing Memorandum for Executive Order 

13526, the President directed the PIDB to work with the National 

Security Advisor to design a transformation of the security classification system. After a long period of study, in November 2012, the 

PIDB submitted its report to the President, which included a recommendation for the White House to establish a steering committee to implement the recommended reforms. 

The PIDB report, titled ‘‘Transforming the Security Classification 

System,’’ states that the current system, designed for manual processing in the pre-digital era, is breaking under the increasing pace 

and volume of data generated today. According to the PIDB report, 

a single intelligence agency classifies a petabyte of information 

every 18 months. One petabyte is equivalent to approximately 20 

million filing cabinets filled with text or about 13.3 years of high 

definition video. The cost of managing and securing these records 

government-wide has doubled over the past decade from $4.7 billion in 2001 to $11.4 billion in 2011. 

Reforming current practices will require active participation from 

stakeholders across the national security community. The committee expects the Department of Defense to be a meaningful participant in any future interagency effort to overhaul security classification processes and systems. The committee also directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to review the PIDB report and provide an 

assessment of the PIDB recommendations to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees 

within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. 

Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget 

to meet the savings requirement established by the 

Budget Control Act 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request and the fiscal year 2014 

budget resolutions passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives all assume that sequestration currently required by 

the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112–25) will be avoided in fiscal year 2014. To date, there has been virtually no sign of movement toward a bipartisan agreement that would vitiate sequestration in fiscal year 2014. In the absence of such an agreement the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

Department of Defense (DOD) will face an across-the-board reduction of $52.0 billion early next year. 

Virtually every DOD witness who has come before the Committee on Armed Services this year has testified that an additional 

round of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 would be devastating for 

the Department. Despite this testimony many members of Congress and the public seem to believe that sequestration is an effective way to cut government spending and can be made workable by 

providing the Department with additional flexibility of making 

minor adjustments. 

The committee believes that there is an increasing risk that DOD 

and other federal agencies will face sequestration again in fiscal 

year 2014. Understanding the consequences of another sequestration is important to avoiding it. For this reason, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2013, that describes in detail a package of reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget that the Secretary believes to be the most workable 

approach for meeting the $52.0 billion savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act. The report should also discuss 

the impact on the Department of Defense and on military readiness 

if the Secretary is required to implement sequestration cuts in fiscal year 2014. 

Strategic Automated Command and Control System Modernization Plan 

The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the Strategic 

Automated Command and Control System, including system electronics and trainers as well as integration into the new United 

States Strategic Command Headquarters. The report shall be due 

to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 

2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(189) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 

1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to extend through 

September 30, 2018 the authority of the Secretary of Defense or 

the secretary of a military department to allow certain civilian employees to volunteer for reduction-in-force separations. 

Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend until October 1, 2018 the authority for the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to pay the total amount of severance pay to an eligible civilian employee in one lump sum. 

Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated 

fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1587(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align protections 

from reprisals for employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities with protections from reprisals for other Department of Defense civilian personnel. 

Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for civilian personnel for care and treatment of 

wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1599c of title 10, United States Code, to extend through December 31, 2020, the existing authority of the Secretary of Defense 

to exercise any authority for the appointment and pay of health 

care personnel under chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, for 

purposes of recruitment, employment, and retention of civilian 

health care professionals for the Department of Defense. The provision would repeal the now-obsolete section 1599c requirement for 

the service secretaries to develop and implement a strategy to disseminate the authorities and best practices for the recruitment of 

medical and health professionals. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal, that would increase 

the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to determine the amount 

of the financial assistance delivered by the Science, Mathematics, 

and Research for Transformation (SMART) program. 

The committee acknowledges the DOD’s request to also allow 

this program to accept non-U.S. citizens, as SMART scholarship recipients. While the committee recognizes that DOD needs the flexibilities to attract the best and brightest scientists and engineers, 

it notes that DOD does not appear to have a strategy to hire these 

students into DOD laboratories—given that the SMART program 

requires one year of DOD employment for each year of financial assistance. Hence, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering, working with the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to develop a 

strategy that would address how it would hire those non-U.S. citizens that would be funded by the SMART program and provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of 

the enactment of this Act. With such a strategy in place, the committee would give additional consideration of this proposed authority. 

Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at certain additional Department of Defense schools 

(sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to add the Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management and the Joint Special 

Operations University to the list of Department of Defense schools 

at which the Secretary of Defense may employ and compensate civilian faculty as the Secretary considers necessary. 

Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec. 1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow Department of Defense laboratories direct hire authority for qualified candidates possessing a bachelor’s degree as well as qualified veteran 

candidates. This authority would sunset on December 31, 2019. 

Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 

1108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, to remove the reference 

to Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and Navy Ship’s 

Stores Ashore and replace it with the Navy Ships Stores Program 

in order to provide a more accurate and current definition of nonappropriated fund instrumentality employees. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

Item of Special Interest 

Department of Defense civilian leadership programs 

The committee notes that section 1112 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Department of Defense (DOD) Civilian Leadership Program in order to recruit individuals with the academic merit, work experience, and demonstrated leadership skills needed for the Department’s civilian 

employee workforce. The statute further mandates that program 

participants must include both entry-level and midcareer individuals. 

The committee understands that DOD currently provides three 

programs for civilian leadership development: (1) the Defense Civilian Emerging Leader Program (DCELP) for entry-level employees; 

(2) the Executive Leadership Development Program (ELDP) for 

midcareer employees; and (3) the Defense Senior Leader Development Program for senior employees. The committee has learned 

that DOD has cancelled the remainder of the scheduled training for 

the ELDP as a result of implementing sequestration guidance on 

training and travel restrictions, and that DOD does not believe the 

ELDP is a leader development program required by law. 

The committee believes that all three of these leadership development programs are important and that the ELDP fulfills the statutory mandate set forth by section 1112 in the same way as the 

DCELP. Therefore, the committee expects the Department to 

robustly pursue all three of these civilian leadership development 

programs in future years. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(193) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build the capacity of foreign military forces 

(sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through September 30, 2018, the authority under section 1206 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for the Secretary of 

Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to carry 

out a program to build the capacity of foreign military forces to 

conduct counterterrorism operations or to participate in or support 

military and stability operations in which the United States is a 

participant. The provision would require a report by the Secretary 

of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State that delineates the scope of counterterrorism operations for which assistance 

is authorized to be provided under section 1206 of Public Law 109– 

163, to include purpose, activities, and measures of effectiveness. 

The report also requires a prioritized list of threats to be addressed 

in order to ensure that assistance is focused on the highest priority 

threats within a regional and global strategic framework. 

Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority 

(sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make certain 

technical amendments to the authority for the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) under section 1207 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 

Stat. 1625). 

The GSCF is intended to provide the Department of State and 

the Department of Defense (DOD) a flexible authority to enable a 

timely response to security challenges that may arise outside the 

normal budget planning process. The committee is concerned, 

therefore, about the lengthy delays in standing up this program 

due to a range of bureaucratic issues, such as legal interpretations 

of GSCF authorities, which have contributed to the program’s failure to date to initiate any projects under GSCF. The committee understands that concerns have arisen about how broadly to interpret 

the types of assistance authorized under the program. It is the 

committee’s view that the GSCF’s authority to provide training 

should be understood broadly to include educational activities, professional guidance, and ministerial-level institutional advice. 

The committee understands that another issue that has contributed to delays in standing up the GSCF program is the need for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

further clarification of the appropriate level of programmatic detail 

required in the congressional notification process. The committee 

believes that the notification processes that have been developed 

under other similar security assistance authorities, such as the 

Global Train and Equip program under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, have provided an appropriate level of congressional notification and should serve as a 

guide for the notification process under the GSCF program. The 

committee hopes that the Department of State and DOD will continue to consult closely with this committee should issues relating 

to the GSCF arise in the future. 

Training of general purpose forces of the United States 

Armed Forces with military and other security forces of 

friendly foreign countries (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of Defense to authorize training with the military forces 

or other security forces of a friendly foreign country in order to prepare the United States armed forces to train the military forces or 

other security forces of a friendly foreign country and enhance 

interoperability. Training with foreign military forces under this 

authority must be in the U.S. national interest and consistent with 

U.S. national security strategy as well as the recent Presidential 

guidance on security sector assistance. 

United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation 

in North Africa (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic framework for U.S. 

counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa, including but not limited to programs conducted under the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, Operation Enduring Freedom–Trans Sahara (OEF–TS), and other related security assistance activities. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to Congress on the details of this framework, as well as on lessons-learned from recent developments in 

Mali and the region. 

The committee notes that the military-led coup against Mali’s 

democratically elected government in 2012, the ensuing expansion 

of violent extremist organizations in Northern Mali, and the collapse of the Malian military raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism cooperation and assistance programs 

in the Sahel region. Most prominently, concerns were highlighted 

concerning the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership 

(TSCTP) and OEF–TS which were intended to be of benefit to Mali. 

In particular, units and individuals who had been targeted for U.S. 

training and assistance figured prominently in both the collapse of 

Mali’s military in the North and in the coup in Bamako. Unquestionably, these developments constitute a setback for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region and they also lead to questions about 

the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in recent years, though some 

participating nations, most notably Chad, have played key roles in 

mounting a response to events in Mali. Unfortunately, the Mali exVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

perience is not unique. U.S. efforts to develop regional counterterrorism partnerships are being undertaken in a context in which 

coups, instability, and concerns about human rights abuses constitute historical and often ongoing risks. 

Recent events on the ground underscore issues raised by outside 

evaluators regarding TSCTP, OEF–TS, and related programs. For 

example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008 

identified concerns about a lack of clearly identified objectives, 

challenges in interagency coordination at the regional level, and inadequate program evaluation. GAO recommended that the agencies 

involved develop a comprehensive strategy designed to clarify objectives, priorities, and milestones for use in program evaluation. 

While the Departments of Defense and State agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations, 5 years have passed without strategy articulation. 

Events in Mali have underscored the importance of continued 

focus on developing long-term regional counterterrorism capabilities instead of short-term tactical operations focused primarily on 

individual country conditions and outcomes. The committee is concerned that existing efforts, when assessed from a regional perspective, have been compromised by lack of clarity about objectives and 

priorities, incoherent planning, poor interagency coordination, and 

unclear metrics for evaluating success. 

Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border security 

operations (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense—upon a determination from the President 

that it is in the national security interests of the United States— 

to use up to $75.0 million of amounts authorized for the Coalition 

Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support the 

border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces. 

Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of 

foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide assistance to the military 

and civilian first responders of a foreign country to enhance the capability of that country to respond effectively to incidents involving 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 

The committee notes that the U.S. strategy and policy for reducing the risks from WMD includes the participation and cooperation 

of foreign countries. The provision would permit the Defense Department to enhance the ability of foreign countries to respond to 

and reduce the consequences of WMD incidents, thus assisting in 

meeting the goals of U.S. strategy and policy to reduce the risks 

of WMD. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the Lord’s Resistance Army (sec. 1207) 

Pursuant to the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and 

Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–172), the 

committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Department of Defense to obligate not more than $50.0 million in 

each fiscal year in operation and maintenance funding to provide 

logistical support, services and supplies, and intelligence support 

to: (1) the national military forces of Uganda participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA); and (2) the national military forces of any 

other countries determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of State, to be participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. The 

Secretary’s authority would expire upon the termination of Operation Observant Compass. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 

Iraq 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 

(sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 

$60.0 million available during fiscal year 2014 for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) under section 1201 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1619), as amended by section 1221 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1992). The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on 

the lessons learned and best practices regarding the implementation of the CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report would include a review of: training requirements for CERP managers; 

project planning, management, sustainability, and transfer; the 

project approval process; CERP oversight by the Department of Defense and Congress; and recommendations for the use of CERP in 

future contingency operations. 

The committee notes that with the drawdown of U.S. forces in 

Afghanistan, responsibility for reconstruction efforts conducted by 

the U.S. military must continue to shift to other U.S. Government 

departments and agencies and to the Government of Afghanistan, 

which has a critical need to improve its governance capacity and 

delivery of services to the Afghan people. In addition, since one of 

the purposes of CERP is to provide force protection for U.S. combat 

forces by winning the support of local communities, the requirement for CERP should continue to decline as U.S. combat forces 

withdraw from Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee believes continuing reductions in CERP spending are appropriate and necessary as the December 2014 date nears for the end of combat operations in Afghanistan. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1215 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1631; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), as amended by 

section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), for the Secretary of Defense to 

support transition activities in Iraq by supporting the operations 

and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSCI). The provision would authorize the use of up to $209.0 million 

in fiscal year 2014 to support OSC-I operations and activities. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional authority for the OSC-I to conduct non-operational training of Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Counter Terrorism Service personnel in an institutional environment to address capability gaps and integrate 

certain processes within the Iraqi security forces. The provision 

would add a requirement that such training include elements to 

promote respect for human rights, military professionalism, and respect for legitimate civilian authority in Iraq. 

The provision would also extend and modify the requirement to 

update the report required under section 1211 of Public Law 112– 

239 to provide additional information and evaluations of the activities of the OSC-I. 

The committee encourages OSC-I to further reduce unnecessary 

overhead and support-function staffing in order to maximize the 

use of authorized funds for ensuring adequate force protection and 

supporting efforts to address capability gaps of the Iraqi security 

forces. The committee anticipates that colocation of OSC-I personnel within embassy facilities will improve interagency cooperation of this vital function. 

One-year extension and modification of authority to use 

funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 

1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

1-year extension of the authority under section 1216 of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(Public Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4392), as amended, to use Department of Defense funds to support the reintegration of former insurgent fighters into Afghanistan society. For fiscal year 2014, up to 

$25.0 million may be used to support reintegration activities under 

this section. 

The committee is concerned about the adequacy of procedures 

under the Afghanistan Reintegration Program for ensuring accountability of individuals who have reintegrated, due to the potential impact on the ability to track rates of recidivism and the integrity and viability of the reintegration program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the strategy and mechanisms used by the Government of Afghanistan and the Department 

of Defense to ensure accountability of reintegrees, including 

through such means as documenting the pledge process, collecting 

the biometric data of reintegrating individuals, and other identiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

fication procedures. The Secretary is further directed to report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House 

of Representatives on the findings of this review not later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in 

Afghanistan (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 

Stat. 4393) for the Secretary of Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds to support the Afghanistan Infrastructure Program (AIP) which carries out large-scale infrastructure projects in 

support of the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize up to $250.0 million for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF) to support the AIP. In addition, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States 

Agency for International Development, to report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the enactment of this 

Act on a plan for transitioning responsibility for the management 

of the AIP projects that are funded with AIF amounts authorized 

by this Act to the Government of Afghanistan by no later than December 31, 2014. 

The committee believes that the AIP has made important contributions to the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. By expanding the delivery of such key services as electricity, irrigation, 

and roads, the AIP provides local communities a powerful incentive 

to work with the Government of Afghanistan and coalition forces. 

At the same time, with the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan 

and the transition of responsibility to the Afghan National Security 

Forces for security throughout Afghanistan by no later than the 

end of 2014, DOD’s role in funding these large infrastructure 

projects becomes hard to justify. The committee expects that, with 

the possible exception of unanticipated project management costs, 

no additional AIF amounts will be required after fiscal year 2014. 

Responsible transition of program management to Afghan authorities will maintain the viability of AIP-funded efforts as a component of the counterinsurgency campaign of Afghan security forces. 

In addition, the committee urges DOD to undertake the necessary 

planning to expeditiously and responsibly transition project management of AIP projects to the Government of Afghanistan or the 

Afghan utility Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat. 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 

122 Stat. 393), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds (‘‘Coalition Support Funds’’) to 

reimburse key nations for support they have provided to or in conVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

nection with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or to use such 

funds to provide specialized training or loan specialized equipment 

to key nations participating in OEF. The provision would limit the 

amount of Coalition Support Funds that could be provided in fiscal 

year 2014 to $1.5 billion. 

The provision would also extend for one year two requirements 

related to Coalition Support Funds for Pakistan. 

The first would be the requirement under section 1232(b)(6) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended, to provide as part of the 15-day 

prior notification of a reimbursement to Pakistan, a detailed description of the logistical and other support being reimbursed. 

The second would be the requirement under section 1227(d) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to make certain certifications regarding Pakistan’s cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism and other efforts 

prior to any payment of Coalition Support Funds to Pakistan. The 

provision includes a national security waiver. 

Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 

1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to provide logistical support to coalition forces 

under section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as most recently amended 

by section 1216(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant 

visa program (sec. 1217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend—for 1 

fiscal year—and modify the Iraq Special Immigrant Visa program. 

Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa program (sec. 1218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend—for 1 

fiscal year—and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program. 

Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation building or large-scale infrastructure development 

projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek not 

to commence any new long-term nation-building or large-scale infrastructure-development projects in Afghanistan after 2014. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional 

assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) capabilities for 

2 additional years. 

The committee appreciates the Department’s efforts to improve 

its reporting on activities conducted under the NAR authority, but 

believes additional details are necessary in the notifications and 

quarterly reports submitted to Congress. Specifically, the report 

should include more detailed descriptions of the requirement for 

NAR capabilities in a particular region or country, the number and 

types of NAR capabilities developed under the authority, and the 

extent to which established NAR capabilities are exercised to ensure they remain reliable. The report should also, where applicable, 

describe how NAR networks are augmented by other authorities 

available to combatant commanders. The committee also believes 

that, given the potential sensitivity of the presence of NAR capabilities in a particular region or country, the establishment of such 

capabilities should be limited to those countries and regions where 

U.S. personnel are at greatest risk. 

Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report 

on military and security developments involving the 

People’s Republic of China (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a requirement for the Department of Defense to include information on 

China’s 5th generation fighter programs in the congressionallymandated Annual Report on Military and Security Developments 

involving the People’s Republic of China. Although recent versions 

of the report include information about China’s 5th generation 

fighters, this provision make this aspect of China’s military development a permanent part of the annual report. 

Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from entering into a contract or providing 

a loan to the Russian state corporation, Rosoboronexport, after fiscal year 2013. The provision would allow the Secretary of Defense 

to waive this prohibition if he determines that doing so is in the 

U.S. national security interest. Should the Secretary of Defense invoke the waiver, the Secretary would be required to notify Congress of the obligation of funds pursuant to the waiver not later 

than 30 days before the funds are obligated. 

The provision would also require, not later than 15 days after 

submitting the notification specified above, that the Secretary provide Congress certain information on Rosoboronexport’s activities 

with Syria. 

Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical amendments to title 10 and title 22, United States Code, to 

replace certain statutory references to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) organizations or agreements with appropriate references to successor organizations or agreements resulting from reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

cent organizational reforms within the NATO structure. The technical amendments would facilitate completion of the NATO reform 

process by ensuring that the amended authorities under title 10 

and title 22, United States Code, apply to the new NATO agencies. 

Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special 

Operations Headquarters (sec. 1235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical modifications to section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), as amended, 

that authorized the Secretary of Defense to use up to $50.0 million 

from Operation and Maintenance, Army, in any fiscal year to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations 

Headquarters (NSHQ). The technical modification is consistent 

with an agreement between the Army and U.S. Special Operations 

Command (USSOCOM) and the April 2013 Resource Management 

Decision transferring resourcing responsibility from the Army to 

USSOCOM. The recommended provision would allow for the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $50.0 million in support to the 

NSHQ in any fiscal year from any Operation and Maintenance 

funds available to the Department of Defense. 

Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in the Middle East and 

North Africa Region (sec. 1236) 

The committee recommends a provision that directs the President to prepare a strategy and implementation plan for preventing 

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa not later than March 31, 

2014. 

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region represents a 

new generation of immediate and growing WMD-related proliferation challenges. Factors lending urgency to regional threat dynamics in this region include Syria’s chemical weapons program, Iran’s 

nuclear program and the influence of terrorist groups operating in 

the region. The Committee believes that it is critical that the 

United States develop a comprehensive, effective and efficient cooperative threat reduction (CTR) and nonproliferation strategy to address the challenge of WMD-related proliferation in the MENA region. 

Items of Special Interest 

Inter-American Defense College 

The committee notes that the Inter-American Defense College 

(IADC) is an international educational institution operating under 

the sponsorship and funding of the Organization of American 

States and the Inter-American Defense Board. IADC serves as a 

senior-service, international, joint academic institution center for 

security and defense studies of military, national police, and government civilians from nations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since it was established in 1962, the IADC has had over 

2,500 graduates, including general and flag officers, ministers, and 

heads of state. The committee supports IADC’s mission and manVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

date and is pleased that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to serve as the host to this important international academic 

institution, which in addition to providing a comprehensive education for civilian and military officials across the Western Hemisphere, provides officials with a better understanding of the importance of respect for human rights, rule of law, and civilian control 

of the military. 

The committee is aware that the IADC Council of Delegates has 

directed its leadership to seek the authority to award advanced 

level degrees and the committee is also aware that DOD submitted 

a legislative proposal that would fulfill one element of a series of 

requirements established by the Department of Education for IADC 

to meet from its Council of Delegates. However, the committee is 

concerned that enacting just one element at this time will only 

serve to confuse IADC’s authorities as an academic institution. As 

such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of Education, to conduct a review of IADC 

to determine what, if any, steps must be taken for the IADC to be 

considered a fully accredited degree granting institution in the 

United States. Should the Secretary find that legislative action is 

required, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to submit 

any legislative proposals with the budget request for fiscal year 

2015. 

Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia 

The establishment of the National Government of Somalia in August 2012 brings the promise of a new era for the people of Somalia, and follows the considerable and hard-fought successes of the 

African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and Somali National 

Security Forces efforts to secure the country over the past 2 years. 

Recognizing the significance of Somalia’s newly established government and improved but tenuous security environment, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2093 suspends the 21-year-old 

arms embargo to allow for ‘‘deliveries of weapons or military equipment or the provision of advice, assistance or training, intended 

solely for the development of the National Security Forces of the 

Federal Government of Somalia,’’ and calls for the training, equipping, and capacity-building of Somalia National Security Forces, including both its armed forces and police. 

The committee believes that U.S. national security interests in 

the region would be well-served by Somali National Security Forces 

that are capable of maintaining and expanding security within Somalia, confronting international security threats such as piracy and 

terrorism, and preventing human rights abuses. U.S. military-tomilitary cooperation offers an important opportunity to build critical capacities that are accountable to civilian authorities and adhere to the tenets of human rights within the Somali National Security Forces and to build relationships in order to promote a 

strong future partnership. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue military-to-military cooperation with 

the Somali National Security Forces through existing authorities as 

soon as practicable. 

In pursuit of that objective, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to formulate a strategy for military-to-military cooperaVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

tion, including security assistance, professional military education, 

information sharing, and training between the U.S. armed forces 

and the Somali National Security Forces. The strategy should include, but not be limited to, the following elements: 

(1) identification of specific U.S. national security objectives 

addressed through military-to-military cooperation activities; 

(2) identification of mechanisms for coordinating U.S. security cooperation with other international donors, notably the 

European Union Training Mission; 

(3) a strategy for ensuring that military-to-military cooperation serves to enhance integration and coherence of the Somali 

National Security Services, including improving multi-ethnic 

representation, strengthening unit coherence and chain of command, and bolstering civilian control of the Somali armed 

forces; 

(4) an evaluation of unmet equipment and weaponry needs 

of the Somali armed forces, as well as an assessment of the 

ability of the Somali Armed Forces to maintain custody and accountability of its weapons inventory and of the benefits and 

risks of the provision of weaponry to the Somali armed forces 

by the United States; 

(5) an assessment of the security risks to U.S. personnel conducting security cooperation activities within Somalia; 

(6) an assessment of the ability of the Somali National Security Forces to maintain control of any equipment and deny violent extremists access to it; 

(7) plans for integrating training to prevent human rights 

abuses into military-to-military cooperation activities; 

(8) plans to assist the Somali National Security Forces in 

preventing infiltration and insider attacks, including through 

the application of lessons learned in U.S. military training efforts in Afghanistan; and 

(9) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report 

may take the form of a briefing, unclassified report, or unclassified 

report with a classified annex, as the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Status of United States military engagements with Burma 

The committee notes the developments in Burma over the past 

year or so that indicate the commitment by the Government of 

Burma toward democratization and to address human rights 

abuses, including abuses by the Burmese military. As a result of 

these developments, the Department of Defense has begun modest 

and measured military-to-military interactions with the Burmese 

military. While such military engagement activities can be positive 

reinforcement for meaningful reforms, the committee remains 

mindful of the history of human rights abuses within the Burmese 

military, concerns regarding continuing abuses, and the possibility 

that any well-intended U.S. military engagement could be misdirected toward a negative result. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide written updates 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

to the relevant congressional committees on the status of militaryto-military engagement between the United States armed forces 

and the Burmese military. The first such update shall be provided 

by September 30, 2013, and the next update by March 31, 2014. 

These updates, which may be in the form of a written report or in 

the form of a briefing that includes a written description of activities, shall include at a minimum: (1) a written list of ongoing military-to-military activities with a description of each; (2) a written 

update on activities that were listed in previous reporting; (3) a 

written list of activities that are planned to occur over the upcoming months with a written description of each; and (4) the status 

of the Burmese military’s cooperation with civilian authorities to 

investigate and resolve cases of military human rights violations. 

For purposes of this requirement, the relevant congressional committees include the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 

Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 

the House of Representatives. 

Taiwan air power assessment 

Section 1281 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) expressed the sense of Congress 

that the President should take steps to address Taiwan’s shortfall 

in fighters, whether through the sale of F–16C/D fighters or the 

procurement of other aircraft. The conference report accompanying 

Public Law 112–239 also requires the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to ensure that a briefing is 

prepared and made available to congressional defense committees 

that sets forth the administration’s plan for meeting the statutory 

requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8) as 

they relate to how the Taiwan Air Force can contribute appropriately to Taiwan’s defense. This briefing has yet to be presented 

to the Congress. Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to brief the congressional defense committees no later than 

July 15, 2013. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a classified report assessing the capabilities and readiness 

of the Taiwanese Air Force no later than December 1, 2013. The 

classified report shall include: a qualitative assessment of the capabilities of each type of fixed wing tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese 

inventory; an assessment of the readiness of each type of fixed 

wing tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory; and the expected 

timeframe of obsolescence of each category of aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory compared to the People’s Liberation Army Air 

Force fixed-wing aircraft in both quantity and quality. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(205) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$528.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. The provision accounts for 

the change in the umbrella agreement with Russia ending June 17, 

2013, in which the following programs will be terminated (as compared to being funded as proposed in the fiscal year 2014 budget 

request): (1) SS–24 Missile Disassembly and storage, $4.3 million, 

(2) Chemical Weapons Technical Support—Russia, $21.3 million, 

(3) Nuclear Security Enhancements—Russia, $4.0 million, and (4) 

Nuclear Weapons Transportation—Russia, $49.7 million. 

The resulting cancellation of funds ($79.3 million) transfers $62.3 

million to the Proliferation Prevention Program for Middle East cooperative threat reduction activities to prevent and detect acquisition, proliferation, and use of Syria’s chemical weapons, weaponsusable and related materials, equipment or means of delivery, and 

knowledge. This activity will continue partnerships with Jordan, 

Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon. $13.0 million is transferred to Chemical Weapons Eliminations—Libya/Middle East to prepare for potential requirements in Syria if the U.S. Government has a Syrian 

partner with whom to work to potentially secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. $4.0 million is transferred to the 

Threat Reduction Engagement Program for exercises and bilateral 

workshops with Russia that does not require the expiring CTR umbrella agreement to carry out. 

This provision authorizes specific amounts for each CTR program 

element, requires notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2014 funds for 

a purpose other than a purpose listed in the provision, and requires 

notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2014 funds in excess of the specific 

amount authorized for each CTR program element. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(207) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of 

this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$67.8 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

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

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 

Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer $143.1 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by 

section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for the operations of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Budget Items 

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan 

The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of the 

Inspector General (DOD IG) included $311.1 million in Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M). 

The committee recognizes that the independent audit and investigative functions of the DOD IG continues to play a valuable role 

in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in Department of Defense 

programs and operations. In fiscal year 2012, DOD IG audits and 

investigations resulted in a $3.6 billion return on investment, 

which is an increase of $1.0 billion in returns compared to fiscal 

year 2011. A $3.6 billion return on investment equates to a return 

of $2.3 million per employee and $10.81 for every dollar appropriated. The 147 reports issued in fiscal year 2012 led to 149 arrests, 247 convictions, 126 suspensions, and 207 debarments. 

The committee continues to believe that the DOD IG should 

focus on conducting oversight related to military operations in Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee also believes that contractor oversight by the DOD IG 

should include detailed accounting of the number of personnel used 

and the capabilities provided by contractors. The committee notes 

that in the language of Senate Report 112–173, to accompany S. 

3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(P.L. 112–239) the committee directed the DOD IG to reevaluate 

the 2008 growth plan and establish future staffing objectives on the 

basis of audit and investigation need and current budgetary realities. The committee received an updated growth plan on May 15, 

2013, which calls for a fiscal year 2018 end state of 1,900 versus 

2,061 full-time equivalents (FTE), 161 less than originally planned; 

a 7.8 percent downward adjustment. The committee notes this end 

state still represents an increase of 286 FTEs over the fiscal year 

2013 authorized FTE level of 1,614, and will allow for substantive 

increases in the DOD IG’s oversight capabilities. The committee 

also notes that the DOD IG budget request for fiscal year 2014 still 

falls $35.9 million short of their requirements for increased oversight capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.9 million in O&M for the DOD IG. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
209 

Defense Health Program funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 

Health Program includes the following change from the budget request. This addition would replace savings assumed by the Department of Defense (DOD) for proposed establishment of enrollment 

fees and increases to certain other TRICARE fees, which the committee did not adopt. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Restore DOD assumed savings for TRICARE proposals .................................... 218.0 

Total ................................................................................................................. 218.0 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities 

The budget request included $816.0 million to support the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug 

Activities. Of those amounts, $19.9 million supported the Joint 

Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF–W, project code 3309); $1.6 

million supported the United States European Command’s 

(EUCOM) headquarters (project code 2346); and $1.2 million for 

special operations forces counternarcotics (CN) support to EUCOM 

(project code 6505). The committee recommends a decrease of $5.8 million to DOD’s 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, which will decrease 

by $3.0 million funding for the JIATF–W, and provide no funding 

for the two aforementioned programs at EUCOM. 

The committee understands the importance of interagency cooperation, particularly as it relates to CN and efforts to combat the 

related threats posed by transnational organized criminal organizations. However, the committee is concerned the JIATF–W and its 

associated activities are not fully integrated into the intelligence, 

and policy and planning directorates of United States Pacific Command (PACOM). As result, the committee believes that there is duplication in these two important areas. The committee urges the 

Commander of PACOM to review JIATF–W’s activities and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort within the PACOM’s CN, intelligence, and capacity-building activities. 

On the reductions to EUCOM, the committee has noted since 

2012 its concern with DOD’s efforts to maintain CN programs at 

EUCOM. The committee believes partner nations within the 

EUCOM area of responsibility are best positioned to fund both intelligence activities and capacity building on their own. As such, 

the committee is eliminating funding for EUCOM’s CN programs 

and urges the Secretary to approve no funding for these programs 

in the next fiscal year. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army industrial operations activity group 

The committee notes that recent analysis on the Army industrial 

operations activity group conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that the Army needs to improve the 

budgeting and management of carryover. The committee remains 

concerned that the Army underestimated industrial operations new 

orders every year during a 7-year period of review by the GAO, 

from a low of 11 percent to a high of 70 percent. For orders funded 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

with procurement appropriations, the Army underestimated new 

orders by 118 percent for the 7-year period. The committee is also 

concerned that the carryover grew to $5.8 billion in fiscal year 

2011. The three primary causes for the carryover were: (1) the 

scope of work was not well defined, (2) parts needed to perform the 

work were not available, and (3) some orders were received late in 

the fiscal year which provided little time to resolve any scope of 

work or parts issues. The committee notes that the arrival of direct 

appropriation funding late in a fiscal year only exacerbates the 

ability to effectively manage carryover. 

The committee has learned that the Army has recently formed 

a working group to resolve these budgeting and management 

issues. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Army to promptly finalize the working group results and implement the actions 

identified to improve the budgeting and management of carryover. 

The committee directs the Army to prepare a briefing or a report 

to the committee on their progress no later than September 15, 

2013. 

Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel 

rate pricing 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to struggle with the management of cash 

balances and carryover in working capital funds (WCF), resulting 

in increased risk and unnecessary negative impacts to Operation 

and Maintenance funding due to inadequate fuel rate determinations. For several years now the Government Accountability Office 

has documented the DOD’s significant cash fluctuation in multiple 

reports. The committee notes that the effect of sequestration as a 

result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the recent string of latearriving annual appropriations, and the volatile global price of fossil fuels only exacerbate the issue. 

The committee remains concerned that while the function of the 

WCF is designed to protect customer programs in the year of execution, the reality of the last several years is that frequently 

changing WCF rates and reprogramming requests have evolved 

from exceptions to common practice. For example, in 2009 the 

standard composite fuel price charged to DOD customers changed 

five times, and at least once per year since 2005. Additionally, in 

fiscal year 2012 the committee received a reprogramming request 

for $1.0 billion to offset a change in fuel rates. A similar reprogramming request occurred in fiscal year 2013 for $1.4 billion. 

The committee notes that the DOD bases its fuel rate charged to 

the services from the Office of Management and Budget’s set price 

for a refined barrel of fuel based on an estimated future market 

price projection. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 

7–10 day window has not been effective in enabling the services to 

adapt and absorb WCF rate changes in fuel and transportation 

costs in the budget year of execution, resulting in negative impacts 

to readiness, specifically in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 

1, 2014 with recommendations as to how the DOD can better deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

mine and manage their WCF and fuel rates in the budget year of 

execution. 

Joint Interagency Task Force—South 

Sequestration and budget restrictions are having a negative impact not only on readiness and modernization accounts, but also on 

the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to carry out ongoing missions. While DOD’s decision to allocate scarce budgetary resources to forces engaged with the enemy in Afghanistan is both 

understandable and justifiable, that decision has had a significant 

impact on the operations of other combatant commands. 

For example, budgetary restrictions have drastically reduced the 

ability of DOD and partner agencies to allocate assets—particularly 

surface vessels and personnel to the Joint Interagency Task Force 

South (JIATF—South) mission of countering illicit drug trafficking 

and disruption of transnational criminal organizations in the 

United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, thereby increasing the supply of narcotics hitting U.S. 

streets at the same time that state and local law enforcement are 

also seeing funding reductions. During his March 2013 testimony 

before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General John F. 

Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, warned that sequestration 

could hinder the ability of SOUTHCOM to detect and monitor the 

flow of drugs to the United States, support the counterdrug efforts 

of partner nations, and curtail counternarcotics air and surface operations. He said, ‘‘[t]aken together, these limitations would undermine the significant gains we have made through the highly successful and ongoing Operation Martillo; the 152 metric tons of cocaine seized to date represents over $3.0 billion in revenue that 

will not go to fund powerful criminal groups, violence in Mexico, 

and the destabilization of our Central American partners. These 

152 metric tons will also not reach the streets of America nor fuel 

costly crime and drug addiction.’’ 

The committee believes that the across-the-board sequestration 

cuts to the DOD budget are arbitrary and irrational and undermine the national security of the United States. In the absence of 

legislation removing the threat of continued sequestration, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to do as much as practicable to continue key operations of the geographic combatant commands, such as the counternarcotics mission of SOUTHCOM and 

JIATF—South. 

National Guard Counterdrug Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense requests 

funding annually to support the National Guard Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP plays an important role in providing military-specific capabilities and expertise 

resident within the National Guard to support the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and local authorities. This support includes 

the provision of linguists, intelligence, transportation, logistics, reconnaissance, training, education, and prevention outreach. The 

committee believes this support has proven effective in helping to 

meet national counterdrug objectives. The committee notes that 

over the last 2 fiscal years, budgetary pressures have led the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

partment to decrease the budget request for the CDP. The committee understands that these cuts have caused a disruption or 

curtailment of CDP operations, including the activities of the five 

regional Counterdrug Training Centers. As such, the committee encourages the Department to continue its support for the CDP and 

provide adequate funding to ensure the sustainability of the program. 

Additionally, the committee notes that beginning in 2008, the 

National Guard Bureau began development of a threat-based approach to its counterdrug activities. The committee supported this 

initiative and, in fiscal year 2011, DOD approved the Threat-Based 

Resource Model (TBRM) and began implementation of the new construct in fiscal year 2012, with plans to achieve full implementation by fiscal year 2015. The basis of the TBRM construct is to 

align funding in support of state counterdrug plans based on an analytical assessment of security threats associated with narcotics 

trafficking. 

In prepared testimony submitted to Congress in 2012, the Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau stated: ‘‘the implementation of the 

[TBRM] budget will strengthen the National Guard’s national security capability by allocating resources to all states and territories 

based on the severity of the narcotics threat faced by each state.’’ 

As implementation of the TBRM continues, the committee urges 

the National Guard Bureau to ensure that the data, metrics, and 

analyses associated with the TBRM are reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and reflect the changing nature of narcotics 

trafficking activities. In addition, the committee urges the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to cooperate and share information associated with the TBRM in a routine, systemic manner with relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(213) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 

costs due to overseas contingency operations. 

Procurement (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in 

section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the levels 

identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the 

levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at 

the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destrucVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

tion, defense, at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D 

of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide, at the level identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4502 

of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health program (sec. 1511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that 

amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding 

authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2014, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to 

use funds to investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies, 

services, personnel, and funds to assist efforts to defeat improvised 

explosive devices (IED). 

The committee continues to maintain that the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is a temporary organization created by the Department of Defense (DOD), with the 

support of Congress, to respond rapidly to IED threats against our 

deployed forces. The committee believes it is now the appropriate 

time for DOD to assess the roles and missions of JIEDDO and 

DOD in maintaining a capability to counter the IED threat. The 

committee believes the military departments can absorb into their 

operations and doctrine the appropriate capabilities and training 

required to counter the threat posed by IED in current and future 

operations. JIEDDO, in its various iterations, has now been in existence for nearly a decade, and the military departments have had 

ample time to plan accordingly. As such, the committee has exVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

tended this authority until the end of calendar year 2014—when 

operations in Afghanistan will reach an inflection point. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to develop a clear strategy 

to ensure the military departments absorb the enduring capabilities and associated funding that JIEDDO has benefitted from over 

the past decade. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on the disposition of 

JIEDDO as an organization and a strategy that identifies and transitions those enduring capabilities and associated funding to the 

military departments. Further, the report will also address what 

mechanisms will be put in place to ensure adequate coordination 

across the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in their science and technology activities related to defeating IEDs in order to focus on priority areas and 

avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

funds available for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund for fiscal 

year 2014 be used subject to the conditions specified in subsections 

(b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 428), 

as amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 

Stat. 4424). The provision would also allow for equipment previously transferred to the Afghanistan security forces to be returned to the stocks of the Department of Defense (DOD) with congressional notification. The Secretary of Defense would be required 

to report to the congressional defense committees semi-annually on 

the equipment transferred to DOD stocks under this authority. 

Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business 

and Stability Operations (TFBSO) in Afghanistan to promote strategic business and economic development in support of the civilmilitary campaign in Afghanistan. For fiscal year 2014, up to $63.8 

million would be authorized to fund TFBSO projects, which include 

mining sector development, industrial development, and facilitating 

private investment. The provision would restrict the availability of 

the fiscal year 2014 funds for developing the mining and oil and 

gas sectors until after the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 

Government of Afghanistan has agreed to reimburse the Government of the United States for the amount of any such funds, from 

royalties received from mining or oil and gas contracts awarded by 

the Government of Afghanistan. The amendment would also revise 

the period for providing an update on the implementation of the 

TFBSO Transition Action Plan that was submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives in May 2012 from every 90 days to every 180 days. 

The TFBSO has contributed to the stability of Afghanistan’s 

economy, particularly the development of its mining sector. HowVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

ever, the committee strongly believes that TFBSO funds for the development of Afghanistan’s mining should not go towards subsidizing the ability of foreign companies, in particular the Chinese 

mineral extraction industry, to exploit the estimated $1.0 trillion 

worth of Afghanistan resources. The committee believes that companies who mine Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals should be the 

ones investing in the mining infrastructure of Afghanistan. 

Further, the committee expects that with the transition of full security responsibility to the Government of Afghanistan by the end 

of 2014, the activities of the TFBSO will transition, either to another U.S. Government department or agency or to the Government of Afghanistan, or be promptly concluded. 

Budget Items 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters 

The budget request for overseas contingency operations included 

$7.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for support to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations 

Headquarters (NSHQ). As requested by the Department of Defense 

and consistent with the agreement between the Army and U.S. 

Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the April 2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing responsibility 

from the Army to USSOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of this funding to Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. 

BuckEye 

The budget request included $29.2 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA) for Overseas Contingency Operations, 

of which $1.3 billion was for forces readiness operations support. 

The committee understands that the Army’s funding request for 

the BuckEye system that provides high-resolution 3-dimensional 

terrain data (10 centimeter electro-optical color imagery, combined 

with 1-meter post spacing elevation data) was eliminated during 

budget reviews due to a misunderstanding about the enduring requirement for this data or about the availability of alternative 

sources of such data. The Department of Defense has assured the 

committee that U.S. Central Command’s Joint Urgent Operational 

Needs Statement for five systems remains in effect through fiscal 

year 2014, and that no other available system can provide this 

data. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.3 million in OMA (subactivity 121) for BuckEye terrain data. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

The budget request included $1.0 billion for the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Fund, of which funding is distributed to 

four lines of operation (LOO): (1) $417.0 million for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization’s (JIEDDO) operations 

attacking the network; (2) $248.9 million for JIEDDO’s operations 

to develop and procure capabilities to defeat improvised explosive 

devices (IED); (3) $106.0 million to fund efforts to train service 

members prior to deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

and procedures; and (4) $227.4 million for JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure expenses. 

The committee recommends the following modification’s to 

JIEDDO’s budget: (1) a decrease of $106.0 million for JIEDDO’s 

training activities; (2) a decrease $45.0 million for JIEDDO’s staff 

and infrastructure expenses; (3) an increase of $80.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army within the Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO) account to train soldiers prior to deployment on 

counter-IED tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs); and (4) an 

increase of $26.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine 

Corps within the OCO account to train marines prior to deployment on counter-IED TTPs. 

It is the committee’s view that JIEDDO’s train-the-force activities should be terminated. These activities are the responsibilities 

of the military departments and JIEDDO should no longer support 

them. As such, the committee’s recommendation would eliminate 

funding for JIEDDO’s train-the-force operations and redistribute 

the funding to Army and Marine Corps operation and maintenance 

accounts for counter-IED training activities. 

The committee’s second reduction to JIEDDO’s budget would require the Director of JIEDDO to reduce the size of its overhead. As 

such, the committee recommendation would make a 20 percent reduction to JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure LOO. Many of 

JIEDDO’s headquarters activities duplicate identical or similar 

processes that already exist within the various military departments or the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As such, the committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to identify elements of those 

organizations to assume these tasks. 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 

The budget request included $62.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of 

which $279.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 

(AIF) in fiscal year 2014 to support a program to develop and construct large-scale infrastructure projects that support the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee’s concerns 

about the need to transition responsibility for large-scale infrastructure project management from the Department of Defense to 

the Government of Afghanistan or an Afghan Government-owned 

utility company are discussed in another title of this Act. In this 

regard, the committee understands that the Afghan power utility 

company, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), has begun 

planning to assume responsibility for the operation of the diesel 

generators supplying electricity to the Kandahar City area. The 

committee expects DABS to assume a portion of the costs of operating the Kandahar diesel generators in fiscal year 2014 and to assume the full costs associated with the operation of the generators 

in fiscal years 2015 and beyond. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0 million for OM, OCO, for AIF, to a level of $250.0 million. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

Item of Special Interest 

Counter improvised explosive device training 

The Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2000.19E establishing the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO) requires the Director of JIEDDO to ‘‘[d]evelop and manage, within the military service combat training centers, a distributed Joint Center of Excellence (CoE) for the development of new 

operational techniques and tactical procedures, and provide a 

venue for training, experimentation, and testing of new equipment 

and concepts.’’ As the committee awaits the reports required pursuant to section 1535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), the committee directs the 

Secretary to undertake as part of that assessment a review of DOD 

Directive 2000.19E to ensure that the synchronizing function 

across the military departments and defense agencies is preserved 

so that lessons-learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 

not lost and that the investments made by DOD over the past decade, where appropriate, are preserved and maintained. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(219) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, 

environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by account. Funding 

for base closure projects is summarized in title XXVII of this report 

and is explained in additional detail in the table included in title 

XLVI of this report. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget requested $11.01 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $8.65 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.54 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $451.4 million for 

base closure activities. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $9.67 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in 

the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014’’. 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure 

program as of October 1, 2016, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, 

whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(221) 

TITLE XXI— ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction and $556.9 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction and $540.3 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee understands the Department of Defense is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review 

designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate 

forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. The 

budget requests $16.6 million for construction of 29 new family 

housing units at Camp Vilseck, Germany. The committee believes 

authorization of this project would presume the outcome of the Department’s European Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, 

therefore, recommends no funding for this project. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Army. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2011 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military ConstrucVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

tion Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public 

Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4437) for construction of a Regional Logistic Support Complex at Fort Lewis, Washington. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2010 project (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public 

Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2629) for construction of APS Warehouses 

at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2004 project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public 

Law 108–136; 117 Stat. 1697) for construction of an Explosives Research and Development Loading Facility at Picatinny Arsenal, 

New Jersey. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for four projects until October 1, 

2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 

projects (sec. 2108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October 1, 

2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United 

States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109) 

The budget request includes $42.0 million to fund the second increment of the cadet barracks at the U.S. Military Academy 

(USMA), New York. The committee remains concerned about the 

condition of the existing barracks at the USMA and believes that 

renovation of those barracks should be a high priority for the Secretary of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for the second increment of USMA barracks construction, as requested, until the Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Secretary has entered into a contract for the renovation of MacArthur Short Barracks at the USMA, consistent with 

the plan provided to the congressional defense committees in 

March 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 

Items of Special Interest 

Access Control Point Equipment Program 

The committee notes that the Army has requested $30.3 million 

for its Access Control Point Equipment Program (ACPEP) which 

would be installed at five Army installations. The committee further notes that Recommendation 3.9 of the Fort Hood commission 

report states that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to improve its ability to screen contractors coming onto military installations. Specifically, the report recommended that DOD ‘‘accelerate 

efforts to automate access control that will authenticate various 

identification media against authoritative databases’’ and ‘‘obtain 

sufficient access to appropriate threat databases and disseminate 

information to local commanders to enable screening at continental 

United States and overseas installation access control points.’’ 

The committee notes that the Navy has used U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and DOD approved solutions to implement its access control requirements to military installations that 

provide electronic verification for enhanced security for contractors 

requiring access to military installations by sharing the cost of implementation with the contractors. The committee notes that the 

Army may save resources by adopting existing GSA-approved solutions for base access control. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

review existing GSA-approved access control programs in use at 

DOD installations and report to the committee with a cost-benefit 

analysis of using current installation force protection practices 

versus further deployment of the ACPEP. 

Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by 

the Military Housing Privatization Initiative 

The committee notes that over the past 12 years, the Department 

of the Army has entered into a series of transactions with various 

partners to construct, renovate, maintain, and operate most of the 

Army’s military family housing unit inventory in the United States. 

While this military family housing privatization initiative 

(MHPI) has resulted in successful partnerships between the Army 

and the private sector to significantly improve the quality of housing offered to military members and their families over a relatively 

short period of time, the long-term success of this program depends 

on maintaining the quality of those homes in order to continue to 

attract and retain military occupants. The Army and their partners 

jointly manage a series of operations and investment accounts to 

fund maintenance, repairs, and the recapitalization of housing 

units for this purpose. 

Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) was intended to strengthen the 

oversight of MHPI by implementing a series of financial integrity 

and accountability measures. The provision also required the Secretary of Defense to submit expanded reports to Congress on expenditures and receipts related to MHPI. 

It is the committee’s expectation that funds generated from the 

original transactions are being appropriately reinvested in activities that directly benefit military members and their families living 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

in the privatized housing. The committee notes that the provision 

described above was also written to provide a greater degree of 

transparency on those withdrawals and expenditures that do not 

have a direct benefit to military families. The committee believes 

that the use of funds to pay for internal litigation costs associated 

with lawsuits between private entities involved with MHPI should 

be among those withdrawals and expenditures reported to Congress. 

In addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States, not later than October 30, 2013, to carry out a complete review of the costs incurred to the various Army MHPI accounts as a result of unique litigation activities. The review should 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) a description of actions taken by the Department of the 

Army to minimize the use of MHPI funds for unique litigation; 

(2) a description of documentation provided to the Army by 

its partners to justify legal expenses; 

(3) a review of the internal Army and partner processes used 

to approve major withdrawals and expenses for litigation; 

(4) an assessment of the applicable Army guidance or transactional documentation governing potential withdrawals or expenditures for litigation expenses; 

(5) an assessment of the impact of litigation expenses associated with specific projects on the availability of funding for 

purposes directly beneficial to such projects; 

(6) an estimate of the total costs to Army MHPI projects that 

have been incurred to date and the extent to which the Army 

has estimated any future litigation expenses; 

(7) a review of plans to replenish MHPI asset management 

accounts impacted by withdrawals and expenses for litigation; 

and 

(8) any other subject matter that the Comptroller General 

may deem appropriate on this subject. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(225) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.7 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.61 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2014. 

The budget requested $85.7 million for an Aircraft Maintenance 

Hangar at the North Ramp of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Because of continuing concerns with the realignment of United States 

Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later in a recommended provision in this title, the committee recommends no 

funding for this project. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2012 project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1666) for construction of Explosives Handling Wharf No. 2 at Kitsap, Washington. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2011 project (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public 

Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4441), for construction of Navy Central 

Command ammunition magazines in Bahrain. 

One-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 

2011 project (sec. 2207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 

2011 project (sec. 2208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2015, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later. 

Item of Special Interest 

Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition 

The committee notes that the budget request includes $61.7 million to acquire real estate interests as the first phase of an expansion of the Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia in order to support the training of Navy and Marine Corps aviators in air-toground employment of precision guided munitions. Considering the 

fact that the first phase of the expansion will require the purchase 

of approximately 20,000 acres, the committee commends the Department of the Navy for its efforts to engage community representatives from Long County, Georgia and McIntosh County, 

Georgia and supports efforts for a mutually acceptable agreement 

regarding use of the real property to be acquired for the expansion 

of the Townsend Bombing Range that protects and supports the 

mission of the range. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(227) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.2 billion for military construction and $464.9 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $964.2 million for military construction and $464.9 million for family housing for fiscal year 2014. The budget requested $132.6 million for a hardened tanker air- craft maintenance hangar and $20.0 million for the construction of 

hardened structures around existing and new fuel systems buildings at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The committee believes 

that the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome 

of U.S. Pacific Command’s completion of a comprehensive operational resiliency study and, therefore, recommends no funding for 

these projects. 

The committee understands the Department of Defense is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review 

designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate 

forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. The 

budget requested $22.0 million for Guardian Angel Operations Facilities at Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath, United Kingdom, 

and $12.0 million for a Main Gate Complex at Royal Air Force Station Croughton, United Kingdom. The committee believes that the 

authorization of these projects would presume the outcome of the 

Department’s European Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, 

therefore, recommends no funding for these projects. 

The budget requested $192.7 million for KC–46A Main Operating 

Base (MOB) #1 facilities and $63.0 million for KC–46A Formal 

Training Unit (FTU) facilities at unspecified locations. On May 22, 

2013, the Air Force announced McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, 

as its preferred alternative for the KC–46A MOB #1 and Altus Air 

Force Base, Oklahoma, as its preferred alternative for the KC–46A 

FTU. Concurrent with this announcement, the Air Force also requested an amendment to its budget request specifying locationspecific requirements for KC–46A bed down, including $219.1 million for eight military construction projects at McConnell Air Force 

Base and $30.9 million for five military construction projects at 

Altus Air Force Base. The committee recommends these amounts. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including 

housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Air Force family 

housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Air Force. The state list contained in this report is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(229) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$4.0 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for 

chemical demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family 

housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.9 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family housing for the defense 

agencies for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee understands the Department of Defense (DOD) is 

currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission requirements. 

The budget requested $17.7 million to replace fuel storage systems, 

$11.6 million for a squadron operations facility, $24.4 million for a 

hangar, $24.0 million for airfield improvements, and $6.8 million 

for storage facilities at Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, United 

Kingdom. The budget also requested: $49.9 million for an elementary school at Kaiserslautern Military Community, Germany; $98.8 

million for a high school at Ramstein Air Base, Germany; $58.9 

million for an elementary school and $50.7 million for a middle 

school at Wiesbaden, Germany; and $69.6 million for a high school 

at Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath. The committee believes 

that the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome 

of the Department’s European Infrastructure Consolidation Review 

and, therefore, recommends no funding for these projects. 

The budget requested $431.0 million for the third increment of 

the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade, Maryland. 

The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and 

expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $50.0 million reduction. 

The budget requested $265.0 million for an Ambulatory Health 

Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The committee understands DOD 

would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the 

budget request and, therefore, recommends a $190.0 million reduction. 

The budget requested $210.0 million for replacement of the Public Health Command Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $135.0 million reduction. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
230 

The budget requested $76.2 million for the second increment of 

the Ambulatory Care Center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. 

The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and 

expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $38.1 million reduction. 

The budget requested $251.2 million for the fifth increment of 

the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full 

amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $152.1 

million reduction. 

The budget requested $151.5 million for the third increment of 

the Medical Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $75.0 million reduction. 

The budget requested $1.8 million for a Tour Bus Drop Off at the 

Pentagon Reservation, Virginia. The committee believes this project 

is unjustified given the current fiscal pressures facing DOD and 

does little to improve the safety of visitors to the Pentagon and, 

therefore, recommends no funding for this project. 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The state list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 

construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the chemical demilitarization program for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(231) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $239.7 million for military construction in fiscal year 2014 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. 

The committee recommends a total of $239.7 million for military 

construction for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $239.7 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(233) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $693.3 million for military construction in fiscal year 2014 

for facilities for the guard and reserve components. The committee 

recommends this amount. The detailed funding recommendations 

are contained in the state list table included in this report. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location 

basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are 

listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2013 project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 2135), for construction of a Joint Reserve 

Center at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 

project (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 2014, 

or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(235) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $451.4 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends this 

amount. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in 

the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Precondition for any future base realignment and closure 

round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish, as 

a precondition for the authorization of a future Base Realignment 

and Closure round, a requirement for the Department of Defense 

to submit to Congress a formal review of overseas military facility 

structure. 

Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing 

initiative (sec. 2703) 

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round created 

12 joint bases from 26 service installations that were in close proximity or shared a boundary. While the Department of Defense 

(DOD) originally planned to save $2.3 billion over 20 years through 

these consolidations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

has found that the 20-year savings estimate has fallen by nearly 

90 percent to approximately $249.0 million. GAO has further noted 

that: ‘‘it is unclear whether DOD has achieved any significant cost 

savings to date, in part due to its adoption of more costly common 

support standards, higher projected administrative costs, and 

weaknesses in its approach to tracking costs and estimated savings.’’ However, GAO has suggested that DOD may still be able to 

achieve significant savings through the adoption of ‘‘a more rigorous and comprehensive department-wide approach to managing 

this initiative.’’ 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the 2005 

BRAC joint basing initiative. At a minimum, the report should include: (1) an analysis and explanation of the costs necessary to implement the joint basing initiative; (2) an analysis and explanation 

of any savings achieved to date and planned in future years, including quantifiable goals and a timeline for meeting such goals; 

(3) a description of implementation challenges and other lessons 

learned; (4) an assessment of any additional savings that could be 

achieved through more rigorous management and streamlined administration of joint bases; and (5) any other matters the Under 

Secretary considers appropriate. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(237) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Modification of authorities to fund military construction 

through payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind (sec. 2801) 

The committee released a report on April 15, 2013, titled ‘‘Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support the U.S. 

Military Presence Overseas.’’ Among other things, the committee’s 

inquiry found that in-kind payments from partner nations to support the overseas presence of U.S. military forces in Germany, 

South Korea, and Japan, have been used to fund questionable military construction projects. Given the current fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense (DOD), it is critical that in-kind 

payments be utilized for identified U.S. priorities to offset costs 

that DOD would otherwise pay with appropriated funds. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would require that all future military construction projects funded using inkind payments pursuant to bilateral agreements with partner nations be submitted for congressional authorization in the Military 

Construction Authorization Act. This provision would exclude 

projects funded using in-kind payments under the Facility Improvement Program in Japan, since it is a voluntary program, not 

a program conducted pursuant to a bilateral agreement. The provision would also exclude from the requirement for congressional authorization particular military construction projects identified in bilateral agreements entered into before the date of enactment. However, that exclusion would not extend to general references to replacement facilities such as those contained in the U.S.-Korea Land 

Partnership Plan. 

Furthermore, the committee strongly encourages DOD, when 

using any future in-kind payments from partner nations, to first 

consider and prioritize operational expenses and facilities restoration, sustainment, and modernization improvements ahead of military construction. The recommended provision would also require 

that DOD include operational expenses funded through residual 

value payments in-kind in the budget justification documents submitted to Congress in connection with the annual budget request. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
238 

Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority 

to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States 

(sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 

United States for an additional year and revise the list of countries 

in which such authority may be used in the United States Africa 

Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR). If the Secretary of Defense determines that expansion of this authority to additional countries in the AFRICOM AOR is necessary, the committee asks that the Department submit a formal legislative proposal and justification to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative 

expenses associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow for the use of 

proceeds from leases and easements to be used to offset administrative costs incurred by the military departments in entering into 

and managing such leases and easements. 

Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretaries of the military departments, beginning in fiscal year 

2014, to credit cash payments received as compensation for utilities 

or services provided to eligible entities that operate family or military unaccompanied housing projects to the appropriation or working capital account currently available for the purpose of furnishing 

such utilities or services. This provision was requested by the Department of Defense to ensure that such reimbursements remain 

available in current appropriations to meet the requirements of the 

Department of Defense rather than being credited to an expired account, making them unusable. 

Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts 

for receipt of utility services as consideration for utility 

systems conveyances (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2688(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of a military department, prior to conveying a utility system 

under this section, to obtain an independent estimate of the level 

of investment that should be required to maintain adequate operation of the utility system over the term of the conveyance. 

Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, 

California (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to acquire 300 units of military family housVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
239 

ing constructed under section 801 of the Military Construction Act 

of 1984 (Public Law 98–115) at Naval Base Ventura County, California. The committee understands this housing would be acquired 

for the purposes of converting it to meet an enduring need for transient and unaccompanied housing. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military 

Realignment 

Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region 

(sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend a prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan, with certain exceptions. 

Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

reporting period for the annual Guam realignment report from calendar year to fiscal year. 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii 

(sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 11 acres of Joint 

Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Hale Keiki School in return for a cash payment, in-kind consideration, or a combination 

thereof, in an amount that is not less than the fair market value 

of the conveyed property, as determined pursuant to an appraisal 

acceptable to the Secretary. 

Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to sell or exchange the Mt. Soledad Veterans 

Memorial in San Diego, California, to an eligible entity on the condition that it continues to be maintained as a veterans’ memorial. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would name the 

Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as 

the ‘‘Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies’’ and 

make other conforming changes. 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s (DOD) commitment to promote a policy for sensible and cost-effective sustainVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
240 

able designs for DOD facilities to reduce life cycle costs and provide 

for efficient and effective support of military missions. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Department’s revision of the Unified Facilities Code (UFC) issued in March 2013 regarding High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements 

included direction to DOD components to design all new construction and major renovation projects to meet a specific third party 

certification. The committee is concerned that the UFC exclusively 

references a single certification to the exclusion of other green 

building certification systems. 

The committee recommends that the Department’s revised policy 

should provide for an equal consideration of other sustainable 

building certification systems which provide design standards for 

cost-effective facilities, incorporate life cycle assessments, and are 

created through a voluntary consensus process or through international sustainable building codes. 

Homeowners Assistance Program 

The committee notes that the Homeowners Assistance Program 

(HAP) was created in 1966 to provide monetary relief to eligible 

service members and federal employee homeowners who suffered financial loss on the sale of their primary residences when a base 

closure or realignment announcement created a decline in the residential real estate market and owners were not able to sell their 

homes under reasonable terms or conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) expanded 

the HAP to provide assistance to: (1) wounded members of the 

Armed Forces, surviving spouses of fallen warriors, and wounded 

Department of Defense (DOD) civilian homeowners reassigned in 

furtherance of medical treatment or rehabilitation or due to medical retirement in connection with their disability; (2) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 impacted homeowners relocating 

during the mortgage crisis; and (3) service member homeowners 

given Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders by the Federal 

Government during the mortgage crisis. 

The committee notes that as of June 2013, HAP benefits totaling 

$1.6 billion have been paid to 9,940 applicants. However, the committee also understands that payments were made in error to at 

least 240 applicants totaling more than $4.5 million in improperly 

paid HAP benefits. The DOD, as required by law, is currently in 

the process of recovering these improperly paid benefits. 

The committee is concerned by the significant number of documented improper payments under HAP and questions the adequacy of the Department’s process to vet and approve applications 

for such benefits. The committee is also concerned about the financial hardship for service members who received HAP payments in 

error and were subsequently directed to repay the Federal Government. In many cases, service members have made significant decisions with regard to selling a home based on their receipt of HAP 

benefits only to find out later that such benefits were provided in 

error and must be repaid. 

The committee notes that the Department has established a 

multi-phase review process for service members to challenge a determination by the Department that HAP benefits were provided 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
241 

improperly. The committee also notes that the Department may, in 

some cases, waive its right to collect repayment if the debt is a result of an erroneous payment and collection would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United 

States. The committee expects the Department, when it deems appropriate, to exercise this waiver. 

Military Construction Project Data Sheets 

The committee notes that the President’s budget request is accompanied by Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also 

known as DD Form 1391 forms, containing the justification, scope, 

and cost of each requested military construction project. The congressional defense committees use each DD Form 1391 as the basis 

for reviewing the Department’s military construction requirements, 

proposed new construction to meet each requirement, and limits of 

cost and scope of the project. The committee is aware that the Department considers the authorization of the proposed military construction project to be contract authority and the DD Form 1391 

is used by the contracting officer to define the limits of that contract authority. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense prepares 

DD Form 1391s with the intent of establishing flexibility within 

each congressional authorization of a military construction project 

in order for design agents, construction agents, and contracting officers to be able to make decisions about site adaptations, final 

scope, proposed methods of construction, and consideration of 

emerging requirements without the need for additional authorization from Congress. While the committee is aware of the need for 

some degree of flexibility in order to make efficient use of resources 

and to respond to unforeseen requirements that could not feasibly 

be discovered during preparation of the defense budget request, 

each military construction project should have a clearly defined primary scope and costs, an identified and characterized site, a clear 

estimate of the supporting utility and infrastructure scope and 

costs, and a mature plan for other considerations such as ancillary 

facilities and real property necessary to meet the requirement. To 

ensure this degree of certainty, Congress each year authorizes and 

appropriates funds to carry out planning and design activities without a congressional authorization for the construction of a project. 

The committee is concerned that the justification data provided 

for many projects in the budget request and accompanying DD 

Form 1391s does not contain information that is critical to its oversight of the scope and construction of such projects. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that each DD 

Form 1391 clearly and concisely defines the proposed scope of both 

the primary and supporting facilities and infrastructure that will 

result in a complete and useable facility without the need for a congressional authorization of additional construction. The Secretary 

shall also ensure that the proposed use of each facility, as represented by a five or six digit category code, is included in each DD 

Form 1391 and is not allowed to be changed during construction 

or immediately following construction. Each DD Form 1391 shall 

also include a proposed method of construction and a specification 

of the proposed design life of the construction method in order for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
242 

Congress to be able to assess the Department’s justification for the 

investment in comparison to the military requirement. Each DD 

Form 1391 shall also include information regarding the need for future phases, related construction, land acquisitions or leases, and 

other activities that will be required to be carried out as part of the 

military construction project. 

The committee strongly believes that clear, complete, and concise 

DD Form 1391s are critical to both the Department of Defense’s effort to manage resources effectively and the integrity of the congressional authorization of military construction projects. 

Scope of work variations for military construction projects 

A February 27, 2012, report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG), titled ‘‘Guidance Needed to Prevent 

Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved Scope 

of Work,’’ found several instances where military construction 

projects in Afghanistan significantly exceeded the scope authorized 

by Congress. According to the DOD IG, ‘‘DOD [Department of Defense] officials do not have assurance that military construction 

projects are built consistent with congressional intent and in accordance with legislative requirements.’’ The DOD IG recommended: (1) the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment (DUSD(I&E)) issue clarification guidance to 

define the scope of work outlined in section 2853 of title 10, United 

States Code, that may not be exceeded; and (2) the Commanding 

General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Director of 

the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment develop 

and implement procedures to perform scope verifications to ensure 

compliance with the law. Therefore, the committee directs the 

DUSD(I&E), not later than September 30, 2013, to provide the congressional defense committees a report describing actions taken in 

response to the February 2012 DOD IG report. 

Traffic safety 

The committee has seen anecdotal evidence that the frequency 

and severity of traffic accidents at some military installations have 

increased significantly in recent years. For example, at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, traffic accidents have increased by more than 400 

percent and injuries resulting from traffic accidents have increased 

by more than 200 percent since 2005. The committee is concerned 

that the increase in traffic accidents may be, at least partly, attributed to on-base transportation infrastructure projects not keeping 

pace with base population growth. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, not later than September 30, 

2013, regarding traffic accidents at installations with 25,000 or 

more permanently assigned service members, including: (1) an 

analysis of trends in on-base traffic accident data; (2) an assessment of whether transportation infrastructure projects have kept 

pace with growth in base populations at such installations; (3) an 

analysis of the factors contributing to traffic accidents on large 

military installations; (4) any recommendations for reducing the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
243 

number of traffic accidents on large military installations; and (5) 

any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. 

U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific 

The committee remains interested in the posture of U.S. forces 

in the Asia-Pacific region and the implications of the strategic rebalance announced as part of the Defense Strategic Guidance in 

January 2012. While this rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific encompasses more than just U.S. military presence and posture, the current and future U.S. military force posture in the Asia-Pacific region is a critical element of the overall geo-political security strategy in Asia. 

The committee understands that U.S. Pacific Command is currently conducting a study of resiliency and developing an associated resiliency plan as one element of the force posture and supporting infrastructure. The committee is reluctant to support new 

investments in infrastructure until it has reviewed the study and 

the plan and better understands both the linkage between resiliency and strategy and the long term affordability and sustainability of the plan. 

Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to provide the results of the U.S. Pacific Command’s study of resiliency, 

with an explanation of how the resiliency plan supports the overall 

theater strategic plan, to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(245) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2014, 

including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 

capital equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; 

naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste 

management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to 

carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in 

three categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA); (2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense 

activities. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department (rounded up to the first significant decimal point) totaled $17.8 billion, a 3.2 percent increase above the fiscal year 2013 

appropriated level. Of the total amount requested: (1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator; (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities; 

(4) $94.0 million for Idaho site-wide security; and 

(5) $16.0 million for grid security in the Office of Electricity 

and Transmission. 

The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $11.7 billion for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and 

(d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator, 

the amount of the budget request; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
246 

(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning fund); (3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities, the amount 

of the budget request; (4) $95.0 million is for Idaho site-wide security; and 

(5) $0 is provided for grid reliability as this is a homeland 

security function. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $11.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 

year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $7.9 billion for weapons activities, 

the amount of the budget request. 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as fol- lows: $2.4 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion for site stewardship; $744.5 million for nuclear 

operations; $219.2 million for the secure transportation assets, the 

amount of the budget request; $256.0 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request; and 

$827.4 million for defense nuclear security and the Chief Information Officer. 

The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the committee urges 

the NNSA to find efficiencies where and whenever possible. The 

ability to sustain these increases during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be increasingly difficult as time goes 

on. Good stewardship of the funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons complex, is critical to the long-term 

support for and sustainment of the projected increases. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $2.4 billion for directed stockpile 

work. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related 

to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as 

well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs. This account also 

includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and 

support equipment. 

The committee understands that for fiscal year 2014, the W–76 

program has been corrected to meet the Navy’s need by 2019 and 

has a proposed budget of $235.4 million. The B–61 is undergoing 

a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one variant reducing the 

number overall needed for the air leg of the triad. 

The funding for B–61 life extension program is proposed at 

$537.0 million. The committee understands the importance of the 

Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 2019 

deadline for the version deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty OrVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
247 

ganization allies and needs to know what backup plan, if any, the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have to provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons if the 

Mod 12 schedule slips, as it most likely will. 

The committee remains concerned about overall workflow coordination between the design laboratories and the production facilities, Pantex, Y–12, and Kansas City. There could be up to five life 

extension programs underway; the B–61, the long-range stand off 

weapon, the W–88 fuse program, an interoperable warhead to replace the W–88 and W–87 systems, and the ongoing W–76 program. Concurrency, funding delays, or program slips in any one of 

these programs can impact the others given they all use the three 

production facilities. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has 

asked the Government Accountability Office to examine this issue. 

Finally, the committee has concern about the overall cost growth 

of the interoperable warhead which is to replace the W–88 and W– 

78 warheads. The total cost profile is not all clear nor is the balance of this cost profile with the risk of such a system, which will 

be certified primarily on computer models. The Navy’s W–88 warhead is in relatively good condition and over $1.0 billion is being 

spent on a new fuse system for the warhead. Certain commonsense questions must be asked why this W–88 is being replaced by 

the interoperable system that is proposed. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving the three 

nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, 

and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on 

a specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile 

without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form 

the scientific underpinning of the Department of Energy’s annual 

certification that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable 

without nuclear weapons testing. 

The committee remains concerned about the hurdles to ignition 

at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), as it is not at all clear what 

effect not achieving sustained burn or ignition will have on the 

stockpile stewardship program. NNSA needs to communicate clearly what the effects of this gap in knowledge will have on future 

computer calculations on the stockpile. 

The committee notes that as life extension programs take on 

more importance in the future years, the campaigns, particularly 

those associated with science, must not be put under pressure to 

curtail ongoing work and budget. The stockpile stewardship program by all accounts has exceeded all expectations compared to 

what it was envisioned in the 1990s. More importantly, it is the 

seed corn to bring in the best and brightest young post-doctorate 

scientists to work with senior scientists. Testimony this year before 

the committee by the three weapons laboratory directors and the 

National Academy of Sciences has supported the success of this 

program. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
248 

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations 

The committee recommends $2.4 billion for site stewardship and 

nuclear operations. These two programs comprised the former readiness in the technical base (RTBF). This account funds facilities 

and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex and includes 

construction funding for new facilities. 

The committee remains concerned about the additional increase 

of over $500.0 million for the main building to replace building 

9212, while pushing the scope out for the other two phases to replace buildings 9215 and 9204–2E. The original top line cost estimate of $6.5 billion included all three phases. That appears not to 

be the case. So, in addition to the $500.0 million cost increase, the 

scope has been reduced or effectively the total cost has increased 

to a number that will far exceed the $6.5 billion top line. The committee still remains concerned about the technology and manufacturing readiness levels of the processing equipment that must go 

into the facility while it is still under design, particularly the 

microwave processing equipment. These readiness level issues 

should have been fully resolved before design of the facility was undertaken. The committee directs the Government Accountability 

Office to continue quarterly reviews of this project to the congressional defense committees. 

With the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project, the committee continues to be concerned about 

the lack of a long-term strategy for plutonium sustainment. Testimony by Dr. Charles F. McMillan before this committee indicated 

that a modular approach to a smaller series of buildings holds 

promise for lower costs and greater flexibility. The committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Weapons 

Council to examine the business case for such a concept and if 

proven feasible, to proceed with engineering design and cost estimation. If a detailed cost estimate past an initial business case 

analysis is performed for this modular building approach, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office to review the 

detailed cost estimate. 

The committee is supportive of the High Explosives Pressing Facility at Pantex and encourages the NNSA to make this facility a 

center of excellence in the NNSA for high explosives pressing and 

manufacturing. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $219.1 million for the secure transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The secure 

transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of nuclear 

weapons, weapons materials and components, and other materials 

requiring safe and secure transport. 

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer 

The committee recommends $827.4 million for safeguards and security and the Chief Information Officer, the amount of the budget 

request. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
249 

Naval Reactors 

The committee recommends $1.3 billion for naval reactors, the 

amount of the budget request. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million to the Naval Reactors and Infrastructure to 

$453.7 million and an increase to project 13–D–904 KS Radiological 

Work and Storage Building of $2.6 million. The committee supports 

the Spent Fuel Handling Facility to be constructed at the Idaho 

National Laboratory. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, an increase of $80.0 million to the budget request. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as fol- lows: $388.3 million for nonproliferation and verification research 

and development; $141.7 million for nonproliferation and international security; $369.6 million for international nuclear materials 

production and cooperation, the amount of the budget request; 

$582.6 million for fissile materials disposition; and $424.5 million 

for the global threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget 

request. 

The committee notes that this year the NNSA moved the nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ($256.0 million) to 

the Nonproliferation Account, which artificially inflates the top line 

for nonproliferation as compared to prior years. The result is that 

the nonproliferation account, excluding the counterterrorism line, 

decreases by $400.0 million, 17.2 percent compared to fiscal year 

2013. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee directs the Administrator 

of the NNSA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to critically review the status of the NNSA nonproliferation program and provide long-term direction to help stem 

any future possible decreases to the nonproliferation account, as 

there is clearly no shortage of nuclear nonproliferation work 

around the world. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends $388.8 million for nonproliferation 

and verification research and development. The committee requests 

a 5–year road map for the nuclear detonation detection mission as 

integrated with the Department of Defense (DOD) no later than 

January 31, 2014. 

The committee continues to support the valuable research and 

development work that is conducted under this program. The additional funding will support high-priority research requirements, including work to support the long-term ability of the United States 

to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal Government and serves 

as the technical basis for work by many other agencies, including 

the Department of Homeland Security and DOD. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
250 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends $150.1 million for nonproliferation 

and international security. The committee authorized a program 

last year for scientific engagement in the area of non-proliferation 

and encourages NNSA to budget for it accordingly. 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation 

The committee recommends $369.6 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the budget request, and awaits a review of the Second-Line-of-Defense program. 

Fissile Materials Disposition program 

The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in commercial power reactors. The U.S. and Russia have signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) where each 

country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of excess 

weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility that this 

plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so that they will not 

produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium in fast reactors. 

After the U.S. considered more than 40 different options on how to 

disposition surplus plutonium, a 2010 amendment to the agreement eliminated immobilization as an option and selected MOX as 

the disposition path for the U.S. share of the plutonium. The U.S. 

has agreed to assist Russia in its effort with a contribution of 

$400.0 million. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Fissile Materials Disposition program, 

which will blend surplus weapons plutonium with depleted uranium to be used as commercial reactor fuel—MOX—will slow down 

program and construction activities to conduct a strategic review. 

The committee is concerned that NNSA’s decision to slow down 

construction and study alternatives to MOX could add considerable 

costs and uncertainty to the Fissile Materials Disposition Program, 

result in fines due to South Carolina of $100 million per year, 

strand surplus plutonium at Pantex and the Savannah River Site, 

and lead to the renegotiation of the PMDA. As such, the committee 

directs the strategic review to include but not be limited to MOX. 

In considering MOX, the strategic review must take account of the 

investments made to date and ways to increase efficiency and to reduce the cost of the MOX program. Because the committee added 

$80.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to the program, the committee 

stresses to the Department of Energy, that during the review, it 

minimizes any impact to the progress of the program. 

While the current MOX construction project is over 50 percent 

complete, it is approximately $3.0 billion over budget (from $4.8 

billion to $7.7 billion) and three years late to completion (fiscal 

year 2020 instead of fiscal year 2017) due to a range of factors including a lower than planned funding profile, poor contractor performance, and poor management by NNSA. The Government Accountability Office has testified before the committee that the total 

life cycle cost will exceed $24.2 billion, including actual costs of 

$5.2 billion for prior years (fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2012). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
251 

The estimate stretches out to fiscal year 2036. Last year, the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request had a proposal of funding the program 

at $921.0 million for fiscal 2013 and $721.0 million for fiscal year 

2014, a reduction of $200.0 million. In an effort to minimize the impacts of the strategic review, the committee recommends $582.6 

million for fissile materials disposition, an increase of $80.0 million 

above the amount of the budget request. 

Global threat reduction initiative 

The committee recommends $424.5 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request. The committee supports this effort to secure within 4 years vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb or in an improvised nuclear device. 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response 

The committee recommends $256.0 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $397.8 million for the Office of the 

Administrator. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.3 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the 

DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support the 

cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and surface water, 

and the treatment and disposal of radioactive and other waste generated through the production of nuclear weapons and weapons 

materials. The Environmental Management program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials including plutonium and 

highly enriched uranium. The committee notes that a legislative 

assumption accompanies the budget request of $463.0 million for 

the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 

fund, to reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 

(P.L. 102–48, 42 U.S.C. 2297g) for industry contributions. As in fiscal year 2013, this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee redistributes the $462.0 million associated 

with this assumption to other higher priority cleanup needs in the 

Department. 

Savannah River Site 

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah River 

Site cleanup, an increase of $150.0 million, to help accelerate and 

meet tank stabilization milestones under the consent order with 

the State of South Carolina. The committee commends the NNSA 

and the Office of Environmental Management for continuing operations at the H canyon, which is the only large-scale reprocessing 

line left in the United States. The H canyon is the Nation’s last full 

reprocessing line and will continue to serve vital missions whether 

it involves purifying plutonium for mixed oxide fuel or down blendVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 

ing waste from Canada containing highly enriched uranium. The 

committee is aware of the critical milestones with the State of 

South Carolina for tank close-out by 2028. In that regard, the 

start-up of the Salt Waste Processing Facility is a critical element 

to separate high level waste from the low level waste. The committee expects to be informed of the final baseline cost estimate for 

the Salt Waste Processing Facility due to the delays of the large 

vessels that are part of the facility. 

Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste 

Treatment Plant (WTP) at DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. Unlike the Savannah River Site, the composition of the 

waste in the tanks is non-uniform adding complexity to the separation and treatment of high and low level waste. The Department 

is encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low level waste 

streams and come to a decision on whether an additional pre-treatment plant is needed for the high level waste stream. The overall 

completion cost of the project has risen from $5.8 billion to $12.3 

billion. The construction of an additional pre-treatment plant for 

high level waste will increase the cost further. The committee directs the Department to ensure the committee is informed of decisions on directly treating the low level waste and whether another 

pre-treatment plant is needed for the high level waste. Elsewhere 

in this Act, the committee has directed the Government Accountability Office to give the committee quarterly reviews of the project. 

Hanford Site 

The committee recommends $941.8 million for the Hanford River 

Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization plant), an 

increase of $20.0 million for the River Corridor cleanup to help accelerate and stabilize the chromium groundwater contamination as 

well as nuclear facility cleanup. 

Idaho National Laboratory 

The committee recommends $395.0 million, an increase of $30.0 

million for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to remove the 

transuranic waste and other buried waste, as applicable, for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to continue sodium 

bearing waste treatment operations. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

The committee recommends $259.8 million for Los Alamos National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and monitor groundwater 

contamination. 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

The committee recommends $203.9 million for the Oak Ridge 

Reservation, an increase of $10.0 million to continue consolidation 

of special nuclear material associated with uranium 233. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
253 

Office of River Protection 

The committee recommends $1.2 billion, an increase of $50.0 million for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition 

to increase surveillance and treat transuranic waste applicable to 

shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

The committee recommends $236.4 million, an increase of $33.0 

million to continue operations and replace aging equipment, especially those related to safety. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is an 

important operation upon which the entire cleanup operations relies upon to dispose of defense transuranic waste. 

Security 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for security at the Richland/Hanford site to $89.1 million. The Department 

should accelerate efforts at Hanford to remove the category I nuclear material from the site to lower security costs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for security at the Savannah River Site given the large quantity of category I nuclear material it must safeguard. 

Technology Development 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for technology development to $34.1 million. 

Program Direction 

The committee recommends $300.8 million for program direction, 

an increase of $20.0 million. The Office of Environmental Management has a staff of over 1,400 civil servants who manage this long 

and difficult job of honoring the cleanup commitment made by the 

Department to the local communities at these former defense sites. 

The committee notes that the recommended level is still some 

$20.0 million short of the levels in fiscal years 2012 and 2103. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$749.1 million for other defense activities, the amount of the budget request; the committee recommends $251.9 million for health, 

safety, and security, the amount of the budget request; $196.3 million for specialized security, the amount of the budget request; 

$176.9 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget 

request; $118.8 million for other defense-related administrative 

support, the amount of the budget request; and $5.0 million for the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request. 

Legislative proposals elsewhere in the Act speak to security at facilities containing categories I and II of nuclear material. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
254 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program 

Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration 

(sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401 et. 

Seq.) to establish an Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) whose director is Senate confirmed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has recently established a 

position in an attempt to control program cost escalation, and they 

should be commended for this action. This provision makes the position and office permanent in statue given that several such positions and offices have been established and then de-established in 

both the Department of Energy and the NNSA. The cost growth of 

nearly every program in the NNSA requires a permanent office and 

position, but even more important is that the position be Senate 

confirmed so that individual answers to Congress on their views 

and progress in controlling cost growth of programs such as the B– 

61 life extension, the Uranium Processing Facility, the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Program, and eventually the Chemistry and Metallurgy 

Research Replacement Facility. The Government Accountability Office estimates that through 2031, the NNSA will undertake an estimated $200.0 billion in work scope whether it is life extension programs or recapitalizing new facilities in the complex. While the 

staff size of the NNSA is relatively small, approximately 1,800 federal positions, the committee expects the office to phase in its activities in over several years and to work jointly with the Department of Defense (DOD) CAPE Office, not only to train personnel 

but to conduct joint cost estimates of an entire strategic weapon 

system consisting of the delivery vehicle and the warhead. Currently, these estimates are conducted separately; the warhead 

through the Nuclear Weapons Council under the 6.X process, and 

the delivery systems through the DOD acquisition processes. 

Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to develop a plan for a common cost structure between activities at different sites with the purpose of comparing how efficiently different sites within the NNSA complex are carrying out 

similar activities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 

commented numerous times that each site in the NNSA complex 

uses a different cost accounting structure for direct and indirect 

costs. While such cost accounting structures are compliant with the 

requirements outlined in section 9904.418 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, it is virtually impossible to compare how funds 

are spent at different sites. This dilemma has resulted in a degraded ability to perform oversight of the NNSA sites and their 

contractors. GAO pointed out this issue with respect to accurate 

costing of facility operations in their report, GAO–10–582, ‘‘Actions 

Needed to Identify Total Costs of Weapons Complex Infrastructure 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
255 

and Research Production Capabilities,’’ and earlier across the Department of Energy complex in GAO–05–897, ‘‘Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist for reducing Laboratory Contractors’ Support Costs.’’ The committee recognizes that such a 

transition will take time and effort given the number of different 

business systems at each site and accordingly gives a 4–year implementation date for bringing the NNSA complex to a common cost 

structure. 

Not later than June 15, 2014, the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation shall brief the congressional defense committees on an assessment of the plan developed by the Administrator in this provision that includes the extent to which the plan 

will result in the improvement and integration of the financial 

management of the nuclear security enterprise and whether sufficient resources are available to enable implementation of the plan. 

Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense 

facilities (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to certify facilities containing categories I and 

II quantities of special nuclear material as meeting Department of 

Energy (DOE) security standards and regulations for physical security of facilities and surrounding infrastructure. For facilities that 

cannot be certified, the facility will stop routine operations until 

they meet the applicable standards and regulations. There is a national security waiver for continued operations of non-certified facilities. 

The security of special nuclear materials in quantities that 

present a threat to national security demand nothing short of perfection. There simply is no other acceptable standard. Accountability should be clear and direct starting at the highest official in 

the responsible organization. The Atomic Energy Act defines that 

official as the Secretary of Energy. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a system that tracks deficiencies in securing special nuclear materials at 

DOE atomic energy defense facilities. The system shall meet the 

auditing standards of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

The committee directs GAO to perform an audit of the tracking 

system no later than June 30, 2014, to and report the findings to 

the congressional defense committees. 

Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a longterm strategy on exascale computing in the stockpile stewardship 

program. The provision would ensure that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues its leadership role, a role 

held since the Manhattan Project’s collaboration with John Von 

Neumann, of developing large-scale computing machines. This provision would require the NNSA to provide a long-term strategy for 

achieving exascale levels of computing (10 to the 18th floating 

point operations per second) that is necessary to model the full 

three-dimensional physics of a nuclear weapon. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a longterm plutonium strategy for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as part of its Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. Plutonium sustainment is at the core of the NNSA 

stockpile mission. This integrated plan would ensure the NNSA remains focused on its plutonium mission. 

Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the replacement project for the Chemistry and 

Metallurgy Research Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3144(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to permit consideration of a modular building strategy for engineering and design if it meets long 

term stockpile requirements. 

Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

major capital construction design threshold for the National Nuclear Security Administration from $600,000 to $1.2 million to account for increased construction costs. 

Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life 

extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 

3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4217(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2537(b)) 

to require an unclassified version of the cost estimate with a classified annex if necessary. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to undergo a review of 

their nuclear nonproliferation programs by the National Academies 

of Science. There is concern in the committee that as programs finish their near-term goals, there is no thought given to future efforts in nuclear non-proliferation. This provision seeks to ensure 

such future missions are considered. 

Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of 

management and operating contracts of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3121(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to lower the number of mandatory 

reports by the Government Accountability Office. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
257 

Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 

3123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3122(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to require a 30–day notice for extending the program on scientific engagement for non-proliferation 

to a new country. The provision gives the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration a national security waiver 

of the requirement as long as there is a report filed within 30 days. 

Modification of certain reports on cost containment for uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3123(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (P.L. 112–239) to change the Government Accountability 

Office reporting requirement from the end of project life to 1 year 

after the date of enactment in consultation with the congressional 

defense committees. The end of project life would require reporting 

for approximately the next 23 years with 90 such reports. 

Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory 

Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3166(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to extend the date of the interim 

report from 180 days after the date of enactment to 180 days after 

the first meeting of the advisory panel. 

Subtitle D—Technical Corrections 

Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (sec. 3131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

National Nuclear Security Administration Act (41 U.S.C. 2401 et. 

seq.) with technical and clarifying corrections. 

Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act 

(sec. 3132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act (42 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) with technical 

and clarifying corrections. 

Budget Item 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 

2014 made an assumption of $463.0 million based on a legislative 

proposal being enacted to reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102–48, 42 USC 2297g). A similar legislative assumption was made in the fiscal year 2013 request, which 

the committee assumed would not be reauthorized. Similar to last 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

fiscal year, the committee assumes again that this legislation will 

not be reauthorized ($463.0 million decrease) and increases by 

$462.0 million the following accounts: Mixed Oxide Fuel construction, project 99–D–143, $80.0 million; Hanford River Corridor and 

other clean-up operations, $20.0 million; Idaho clean-up and waste 

disposition, $30.0 million; Hanford radioactive waste liquid tank 

stabilization, $50.0 million; Savannah River radioactive waste tank 

stabilization, $150.0 million; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, $33.0 million; Program Direction, $20.0 million; security at Richland and 

Hanford, $10.0 million; security at Savannah River Site, $10.0 million; and Technology Development, $10.0 million. 

Items of Special Interest 

B–61 Mod 12 life extension program 

The National Nuclear Security Agency has now entered phase 

6.3, engineering development, of the B–61 Mod 12 life extension 

program (LEP). The committee has reviewed the Weapons Design 

and Cost Report and is concerned about possible concurrency in the 

overall program, work load scheduling with other programs underway at the production sites (Kansas City, Y–12, and Pantex), as 

well as technology and manufacturing maturation. The committee 

directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report that examines key elements of the B–61 Mod 12 LEP within 

180 days of the enactment of this Act. These elements shall include: (1) technology readiness and manufacturing readiness levels; 

(2) research and development and productions concurrency; (3) 

work load and scheduling between the production sites and the 

weapons laboratories; (4) coordination and integration with other 

LEP programs such as W88 Alt 370, W76, W78/88, and long-range 

standoff warhead life extensions; and (5) ongoing developmental 

and production work by the Air Force for the tail kit guidance assembly. After the initial report, GAO shall review the B–61 at key 

phases of the 6.X process (production engineering, first production, 

and quantity production) at the direction of the committee. 

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital 

Projects 

Serious questions have been raised about the National Nuclear 

Security Administration’s (NNSA) analyses of project alternatives 

associated with critical decision 1 under Department of Energy 

(DOE) Order 413.3B, ‘‘Program and Project Management of Capital 

Assets’’ stemming from NNSA’s decisions in 2012 to cancel and 

defer two major nuclear facilities after spending more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars on the design of each facility. Specifically, NNSA announced in January 2012 its decision to 

cancel the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) after 

having spent 12 years and $730 million on the facility design. 

PDCF was one of two planned high-hazard nuclear facilities needed 

to support NNSA’s Plutonium Disposition Program. In cancelling 

PDCF, NNSA explained that other alternatives had been identified 

that would better meet the mission need. Also, in February 2012 

NNSA announced its decision to defer for at least five years another planned major nuclear facility needed for plutonium reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

search—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement 

(CMRR) Nuclear Facility. NNSA spent about 10 years and more 

than $350 million on the design of the CMRR Nuclear Facility. In 

cancelling this project, NNSA explained that it has adequate alternatives for conducting plutonium research in the near term using 

existing facilities and that it is investigating other alternatives to 

building the CMRR. Other projects that have had similar issues include NNSA’s Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility 

(RLWTF) at Los Alamos and the Uranium 233 Disposition Project 

managed by the Office of Environmental Management (EM). NNSA 

is currently reaffirming the CD–1 decision regarding the alternatives analysis for the RLWTF and EM cancelled the U–233 

project after spending approximately $255 million on design and 

construction. 

Given the amount of time and money spent on designing these 

facilities before they were cancelled and deferred, these decisions 

raise serious questions about how well NNSA scrutinizes the analyses of alternatives prior to submitting them for review and approval. The committee is also concerned about the extent to which 

other NNSA projects are proceeding through design without a rigorous analysis of alternatives and the extent to which NNSA 

projects may languish in the design phase without proper oversight 

to ensure that the need for these projects remains viable. As such, 

the committee directs that the Government Accountability Office 

investigate the following questions and report back to the committee with initial results no later than February 28, 2014 and a 

final report no later than September 9, 2013 on the following 

issues: 

(1) What is NNSA’s process for conducting analyses of alternatives prior to project starts, and to what extent have projects 

deviated from the alternatives originally selected for those 

projects? 

(2) How does NNSA plan for and execute its projects’ design 

phases prior to the establishment of a cost and schedule baseline, and what improvements if any can be made? 

(3) How much has NNSA spent in recent years on capital acquisition projects prior to critical decision 2, the point at which 

90 percent design maturity is now required for high-hazard nuclear facilities, and how do these costs compare to total project 

costs? 

(4) What are the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of 

federal project directors during the design phases of capital acquisition projects? 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project 

The committee notes that the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant may change scope for the high level waste pretreatment systems and begin treating only low level waste streams. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

monitor the status of this construction and to periodically brief the 

committee on the status of construction and operations at the facility through the end of fiscal year 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that will be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) currently 

operates in a number of older nuclear facilities that will be transferred to the Office of Environmental Management (EM) for demolition and decontamination. The committee directs the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the inventory of facilities that 

NNSA plans to transfer to EM, which will have the responsibility 

to remove and remediate the surrounding area. GAO shall provide 

the results of this assessment to the committee by June 30, 2014, 

or at a date determined by the committee. 

Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences and other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission 

The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) to assess the impact that recent 

Office of Management and Budget directives have had on the ability of federal and national laboratory scientists and other technical 

personnel to travel to professional conferences and other venues associated with advancing scientific and technical knowledge that is 

of benefit to the NNSA mission. This assessment shall be due to 

the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2014. 

Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic 

Energy Defense Act 

The committee notes that the use of the term ‘‘National Security 

Laboratory’’ in the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501 et. 

seq.) is not meant to preclude the use by the Federal Government 

of other Department of Energy national laboratories as defined in 

section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58, 42 

U.S.C. 15801) who perform important work in a broad area of national security activities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(261) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.9 million. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(263) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(265) 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis 

of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) 

The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 

guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance with 

the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also display the 

line-item funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2014 budget request and show where the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense, without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(267) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

National Defense, Base Budget 

Function 051, Department of Defense-Military 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

Title I—Procurement 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................. 5,024,387 –19,984 5,004,403 

Missile Procurement, Army .............................................................. 1,334,083 1,334,083 

Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ........ 1,597,267 –159,439 1,437,828 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................. 1,540,437 –84,800 1,455,637 

Other Procurement, Army ................................................................ 6,465,218 6,465,218 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................... 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ....................... 589,267 589,267 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy .................................................... 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................. 6,310,257 6,310,257 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................. 1,343,511 1,343,511 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ....................................................... 11,398,901 –17,200 11,381,701 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ........................................................ 5,343,286 5,343,286 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ........................................... 759,442 759,442 

Other Procurement, Air Force .......................................................... 16,760,581 16,760,581 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................. 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ............................................. 98,800 98,800 

Subtotal, Title I—Procurement ..................................................... 98,227,168 –75,879 98,151,289 

Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ...................... 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ...................... 15,974,780 –100,875 15,873,905 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force ................ 25,702,946 –49,600 25,653,346 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ........ 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ......................................... 186,300 186,300 

Subtotal, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ..................................................... 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ....................................... 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ........................... 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ..................................................... 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................ 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ........................................ 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .......................... 263,317 263,317 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ............................................... 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ................................. 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ............................... 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ....................................... 32,997,693 –244,401 32,753,292 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ................... 13,606 13,606 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid ............................ 109,500 109,500 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ......................................................... 528,455 528,455 

DoD Acquisition Workforce Development 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-Wide ...................................... 10,757 10,757 

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites .............. 237,443 237,443 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ........................... 5,000 5,000 

Subtotal, Title III—Operation and Maintenance .......................... 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808 

Title IV—Military Personnel 

Military Personnel Appropriations ................................................... 130,399,881 –270,000 130,129,881 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ..................... 6,676,750 6,676,750 

Subtotal, Title IV—Military Personnel .......................................... 137,076,631 –270,000 136,806,631 

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, Defense Commissary Agency ..................... 1,412,510 1,412,510 

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................ 730,700 –112,200 618,500 

Defense Health Program ................................................................. 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense ...................... 1,057,123 1,057,123 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................... 938,545 –5,840 932,705 

Office of the Inspector General ....................................................... 312,131 35,900 348,031 

Subtotal, Title XIV—Other Authorizations .................................... 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714 

Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations ........... 515,560,830 1,345,107 516,905,937 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Military Construction 

Army ................................................................................................. 1,119,875 1,119,875 

Navy ................................................................................................. 1,700,269 –85,673 1,614,596 

Air Force .......................................................................................... 1,156,573 –192,377 964,196 

Defense-Wide ................................................................................... 3,985,300 –1,054,641 2,930,659 

Army National Guard ....................................................................... 320,815 320,815 

Air National Guard .......................................................................... 119,800 119,800 

Army Reserve ................................................................................... 174,060 174,060 

Navy Reserve ................................................................................... 32,976 32,976 

Air Force Reserve ............................................................................. 45,659 45,659 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction .......................................... 122,536 122,536 

NATO Security Investment Program ................................................ 239,700 239,700 

Subtotal, Military Construction ...................................................... 9,017,563 –1,332,691 7,684,872 

Family Housing 

Construction, Army .......................................................................... 44,008 –16,600 27,408 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Operation and Maintenance, Army .................................................. 512,871 512,871 

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................................ 73,407 73,407 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ................... 389,844 389,844 

Construction, Air Force .................................................................... 76,360 76,360 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ........................................... 388,598 388,598 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide .................................... 55,845 55,845 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ................................................. 1,780 1,780 

Subtotal, Family Housing ............................................................... 1,542,713 –16,600 1,526,113 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Army ................................................................................................. 180,401 180,401 

Navy ................................................................................................. 144,580 144,580 

Air Force .......................................................................................... 126,376 126,376 

Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure ..................................... 451,357 451,357 

Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations ............... 11,011,633 –1,349,291 9,662,342 

Total 051, Department of Defense-Military .................................. 526,572,463 –4,184 526,568,279 

Function 053, Atomic Energy Activities 

Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations 

Department of Energy Authorizations 

Energy Programs 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ...................................... 16,000 –16,000 

Nuclear Energy ................................................................................ 94,000 94,000 

Subtotal, Energy Programs ............................................................ 110,000 –16,000 94,000 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons Activities .......................................................................... 7,868,409 7,868,409 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................... 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142 

Naval Reactors ................................................................................ 1,246,134 1,246,134 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................. 397,784 397,784 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration .................... 11,254,685 80,000 11,732,469 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 5,316,909 –80,000 5,236,909 

Other Defense Activities .................................................................. 749,080 749,080 

Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................ 6,065,989 –80,000 5,985,989 

Subtotal, Department of Energy Authorizations ........................... 17,828,458 –16,000 17,812,458 

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 

and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations .................... 17,858,373 –16,000 17,842,373 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Total, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities .............................. 17,858,373 –16,000 17,842,373 

Total, National Defense, Base Budget .......................................... 544,430,836 –20,184 544,410,652 

National Defense, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget 

Function 051, Department of Defense-Military 

Procurement, OCO 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................. 771,788 771,788 

Missile Procurement, Army .............................................................. 128,645 128,645 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................. 180,900 180,900 

Other Procurement, Army ................................................................ 603,123 603,123 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 1,000,000 –151,000 849,000 

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 

Subtotal, Procurement ................................................................... 6,366,979 –151,000 6,215,979 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, OCO 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ...................... 7,000 7,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ...................... 34,426 34,426 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force ................ 9,000 9,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ........ 66,208 66,208 

Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation .............. 116,634 116,634 

Operation and Maintenance, OCO 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ..................................................... 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ....................................... 42,935 42,935 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ........................... 199,371 199,371 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund .................................................. 7,726,720 7,726,720 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund ..................................................... 279,000 –29,000 250,000 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ..................................................... 6,067,993 6,067,993 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................ 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ........................................ 55,700 55,700 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .......................... 12,534 12,534 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ............................................... 10,005,224 10,005,224 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ................................. 32,849 32,849 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ............................... 22,200 22,200 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ....................................... 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078 

Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance .......................................... 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352 

Military Personnel, OCO 

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, OCO 

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 & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................... 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, OCO Budget ........................................... 80,722,187 –17,700 80,704,487 

MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS 

Department of Defense-Military, Base Budget (051) ..................... 526,572,463 –4,184 526,568,279 

Department of Defense-Military, OCO Budget (051) ...................... 80,722,187 –17,700 80,704,487 

Total, Department of Defense-Military (051) ............................... 607,294,650 –21,884 607,272,766 

Atomic energy defense activities, Base Budget (053) ................... 17,858,373 –16,000 17,842,373 

Total, National Defense (050) ........................................................ 625,153,023 –37,884 625,115,139 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ........... 67,800 67,800 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority (non-add) .............................. [4,000,000] [4,000,000] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority (non-add) ............................. [4,000,000] [4,000,000] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(273) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Defense Discretionary Authorizations 

(Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee) 

National Defense (050) 

Department of Defense-Military, Base Budget (051) ............... 526,572,463 –4,184 526,568,279 

Department of Defense-Military, OCO Budget (051) ................ 80,722,187 –17,700 80,704,487 

Atomic energy defense activities, Base Budget (053) ............. 17,858,373 –16,000 17,842,373 

Total, National Defense (050) .................................................. 625,153,023 –37,884 625,115,139 

Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations 

(Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committees or Already Authorized) 

Department of Defense-Military (051) 

Defense Production Act 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, Department of Defense-Military (051) .................... 65,135 65,135 

Atomic energy defense activites (053) 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ..................... 104,000 104,000 

Subtotal, Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................. 104,000 104,000 

Defense-related activities (054) 

Other Discretionary Programs .................................................... 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Subtotal, Defense-related activities (054) .............................. 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Total, Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations (050) ...... 7,576,135 7,576,135 

Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050) 

National Defense (050) 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ................................... 607,359,785 –21,884 607,337,901 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 17,962,373 –16,000 17,946,373 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 7,407,000 7,407,000 

Total, Discretionary Budget Authority Implication, 050 ........ 632,729,158 –37,884 632,691,274 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Department of Defense-Military (051) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement Fund ............................................................................. 7,126,000 7,126,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory .............................. 1,156,000 1,156,000 

Offsetting receipts ..................................................................... –1,752,000 –1,752,000 

Subtotal, Department of Defense-Military (051) .................... 6,530,000 6,530,000 

Atomic energy defense activites (053) 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and other ................................................................... 1,281,000 1,281,000 

Subtotal, Atomic energy defense activities (053) .................. 1,281,000 1,281,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2014 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Defense-related activities (054) 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ........................... 76,000 76,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other .............................. 514,000 514,000 

Subtotal, Defense-related activities (054) .............................. 590,000 590,000 

Total, National Defense Mandatory Programs (050) .............. 8,401,000 8,401,000 

Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) 

Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050) 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ................................... 613,889,785 –21,884 613,867,901 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 19,243,373 –16,000 19,227,373 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 7,997,000 7,997,000 

Total, Budget Authority Implication (050) .............................. 641,130,158 –37,884 641,092,274 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(277) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

01 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 1 19,730 1 19,730 

03 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) ..................................................................... 4 142,050 –4 0 0 142,050 

Reduction of 4 EMARSS LRIP aircraft ................................................................. [–4] [–114,700 ] Modification of transferred Liberty A/C ............................................................... [114,700 ] 

04 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 15 518,460 15 518,460 

05 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ......................................................................................................... 10,772 10,772 

ROTARY 

06 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ............................................................................ 10 96,227 10 96,227 

07 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 42 608,469 42 608,46908 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN ADV PROC (CY) ........................................... 150,931 150,931 09 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ................................................................... 0 0 10 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ADV PROC (CY) .................................... 0 0 12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 65 1,046,976 –19,984 65 1,026,992 

Transfer to PE 0203774A at Army request .......................................................... [–19,984 ] 

12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 116,001 116,001 14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 28 801,650 28 801,650 

15 CH–47 HELICOPTER ADV PROC (CY) ................................................................... 98,376 98,376 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

16 MQ–1 PAYLOAD—UAS .............................................................................................. 97,781 97,781 17 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ........................................................................................... 10,262 10,26218 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 12,467 12,467 19 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 53,559 53,559 20 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 149,764 149,764 21 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 17,500 17,500 22 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 167 74,095 167 74,095 23 KIOWA MODS WARRIOR ............................................................................................. 3 184,044 3 184,044 24 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 152,569 152,569 25 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 92,779 92,779 26 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 65,613 65,613 27 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 121,902 121,902 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

28 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 47,610 47,610 29 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 5,700 5,700 

30 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 126,869 126,869 

OTHER SUPPORT 

31 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 705 6,809 705 6,809

32 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 65,397 65,397 33 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 45,841 45,841 34 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 79,692 79,692 35 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 1,615 1,615 36 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 2,877 2,877 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ................................................................... 5,024,387 –19,984 5,004,403 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

02 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 56 540,401 56 540,401 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

03 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4,464 4,464 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

04 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 449 110,510 449 110,510 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

05 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 988 49,354 988 49,354 06 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ADV PROC (CY) ......................................................... 19,965 19,965 07 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 1,788 237,216 1,788 237,216 08 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 2,412 19,022 2,412 19,022 

MODIFICATIONS 

11 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 256,438 256,438 12 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 37,252 37,252 13 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 14 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 11,571 11,571 15 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 6,105 6,105 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

16 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 11,222 11,222 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

17 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 3,530 3,530 18 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MISSILES) ........................................................................ 1,748 1,748 19 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 5,285 5,285 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ...................................................................... 1,334,083 0 1,334,083 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

01 STRYKER VEHICLE ..................................................................................................... 374,100 374,100 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

02 STRYKER (MOD) ......................................................................................................... 20,522 20,522 

03 FIST VEHICLE (MOD) ................................................................................................. 29,965 29,965 04 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 158,000 158,000 05 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ....................................................... 4,769 4,769 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

06 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 18 260,177 –40,700 18 219,477 

Transfer to PE 0604854A at Army Request ......................................................... [–40,700 ] 

07 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 111,031 111,031 08 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 09 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 14 62,951 14 62,951 

10 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 28,469 28,469 11 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 2,002 2,00212 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 178,100 178,100 13 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 0 0 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

14 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................... 1,544 1,544 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

15 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY .................................................. 1,424 69,147 –1,424 –69,147 0 

XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement ........................................................ [–1,424] [–69,147 ] 

18 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 5,310 5,310 19 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 5,061 24,049 5,061 24,049 21 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 41,897 70,846 –29,897 –49,592 12,000 21,254 

Individual Carbine early to need ......................................................................... [–29,897] [–49,592 ] 

23 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 242 56,580 242 56,580 24 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 300 300 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

26 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 39,300 39,300 

27 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 10,300 10,300 28 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 33,691 33,691 29 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 7,608 7,608 30 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 2,719 2,719 31 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 7,017 7,017 32 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 18,707 18,707 33 M16 RIFLE MODS ...................................................................................................... 2,136 2,136 34 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 1,569 1,569 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

35 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 2,024 2,024 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

36 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 10,108 10,108 37 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ..................................................................................... 459 459 38 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 1,267 1,267 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY Total .................................................................. 1,597,267 –159,439 1,437,828 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 112,167 –25,000 87,167 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–25,000 ] 

3 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 58,571 –5,000 53,571 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 9,858 9,858 5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 80,037 –25,000 55,037 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–25,000 ] 

7 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 16,496 –10,300 6,196 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–10,300 ] 

8 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 69,533 –19,500 50,033 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–19,500 ] 

9 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 55,781 55,781

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

10 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 38,029 38,029 11 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 24,656 24,656 12 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 60,781 60,781 

TANK AMMUNITION 

13 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 121,551 121,551 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

14 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 39,825 39,825 15 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 37,902 37,902 16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 802 67,896 802 67,896 17 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 71,205 71,205 

ROCKETS 

20 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 1,012 1,012 21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 108,476 108,476 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

22 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 24,074 24,074 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 33,242 33,242 24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 7,609 7,609 25 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 5,228 5,228 

MISCELLANEOUS 

26 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 16,700 16,700 27 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 7,366 7,366 28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 3,614 3,614 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 12,423 12,423 30 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 16,604 16,604 31 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 14,328 14,328 32 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES .............................................................................................. 108 108 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

33 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ..................................................................... 242,324 242,324 34 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 179,605 179,605 35 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 3,436 3,436 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY Total ......................................................... 1,540,437 –84,800 1,455,637 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 25 4,000 25 4,000 2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 40 6,841 40 6,841 

3 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 837 223,910 837 223,910 4 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 11,880 11,880 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 220 14,731 220 14,731 6 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 74 44,252 74 44,252 9 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 77 39,525 77 39,525 

10 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM ..................................................................... 0 0 11 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 746 51,258 746 51,258 12 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 34 49,904 34 49,904 13 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 2,200 2,200 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

14 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ........................................................................................... 400 400 15 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 716 716 16 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 5,619 5,619 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

18 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 2,139 973,477 2,139 973,477 19 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 14,120 14,120 20 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 7,869 7,869 21 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 5,296 5,296 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

22 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 31 147,212 31 147,212 23 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 7,998 7,998 24 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 7,232 7,232 25 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) .................................................... 3,308 3,308 26 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 13,992 13,992 28 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 94 28,206 94 28,206 29 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ............................................................................ 15 2,778 15 2,778 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

31 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) ........................................................ 17,590 17,590 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

32 ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) ................................................... 786 786 33 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ................................................................................ 10,523 382,930 10,523 382,930 

34 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................. 130 19,200 130 19,200 35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 1,438 1,438 36 SINCGARS FAMILY ..................................................................................................... 9,856 9,856 37 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................... 2,066 14,184 2,066 14,184 38 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 6,271 6,271 40 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS ....................................... 1,030 1,030 41 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 15,967 31,868 15,967 31,868 42 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 18,000 18,000 44 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ....................................................................... 1,166 1,166 45 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 22,867 22,867 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

48 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 1,512 1,512 49 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 323 61,096 323 61,096 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

50 TSEC—ARMY KEY MGT SYS (AKMS) ........................................................................ 13,890 13,890 51 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................... 1,133 23,245 1,133 23,245 52 BIOMETRICS ENTERPRISE ......................................................................................... 3,800 3,800 53 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 877 24,711 877 24,711 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

55 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 43,395 43,395 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

57 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 104,577 104,577 

58 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) .......................................................................... 612 612 59 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 39,000 39,000 60 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 248,477 248,477 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

64 JTT/CIBS-M ................................................................................................................ 824 824 65 PROPHET GROUND ..................................................................................................... 10 59,198 10 59,198 67 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 2,717 267,214 2,717 267,214 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

68 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .............................................................. 5 9,899 5 9,899 69 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 24,598 24,598 70 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 1,927 1,927 71 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 6,169 6,169 72 MACHINE FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M ......................................... 2,924 2,924 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 18 40,735 18 40,735 75 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 13 13 76 ENEMY UAS ............................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 1,237 1,237 80 CI MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 1,399 1,399 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

82 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 86 47,983 86 47,983 

83 SENSE THROUGH THE WALL (STTW) ......................................................................... 142 142 84 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 6,879 202,428 6,879 202,428 85 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ........................................ 5,183 5,183 86 NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT ........................................................................ 14,074 14,074 87 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 1,491 22,300 1,491 22,300 89 GREEN LASER INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS) ........................................................... 1,016 1,016 90 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 5 55,354 5 55,354 91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 800 800 92 PROFILER ................................................................................................................... 3,027 3,027 93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ......................................................... 1,185 1,185 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 3,866 103,214 3,866 103,214 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 167 26,037 167 26,037 97 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 120 23,100 120 23,100 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 19 312,727 19 312,727 

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 34,951 121 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (A/V) ................................................................................. 7,440 7,440 122 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 16 1,615 16 1,615 123 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 554 554 124 BCT EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................ 20,000 20,000 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

124 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 3,558 3,558 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 5,547 81,680 147 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 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

155 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 25 19,427 25 19,427 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

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 38,007172 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 

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 5,110 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

185 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 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ......................................................................... 6,465,218 0 6,465,218 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

1 EA–18G ...................................................................................................................... 21 2,001,787 21 2,001,787 

3 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 206,551 206,551 5 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 4 1,135,444 4 1,135,444 6 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV—ADV PROC (CY) ....................................................... 94,766 94,766 7 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 6 1,267,260 6 1,267,260 8 JSF STOVL—ADV PROC (CY) ................................................................................ 103,195 103,195 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 18 1,432,573 18 1,432,573 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT)—ADV PROC (CY) ............................................................... 55,196 55,196 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 25 749,962 25 749,962 12 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z)—ADV PROC (CY) ............................................. 71,000 71,000 13 MH–60S (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 18 383,831 18 383,831 14 MH–60S (MYP)—ADV PROC (CY) ........................................................................ 37,278 37,278 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

15 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 19 599,237 19 599,237 16 MH–60R (MYP)—ADV PROC (CY) ........................................................................ 231,834 231,834 17 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 16 3,189,989 16 3,189,989 18 P–8A POSEIDON—ADV PROC (CY) ...................................................................... 313,160 313,160 19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 5 997,107 5 997,107 20 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE—ADV PROC (CY) ............................................................... 266,542 266,542 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

21 JPATS ......................................................................................................................... 29 249,080 29 249,080 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

22 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 134,358 2 134,358 

23 KC–130J—ADV PROC (CY) .................................................................................. 32,288 32,288 25 RQ–4 UAV—ADV PROC (CY) .................................................................................... 52,002 52,002 26 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 1 60,980 1 60,980 28 OTHER SUPPORT AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................... 1 14,958 1 14,958 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

29 EA–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 18,577 18,577 

30 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 48,502 48,502 31 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 41,575 41,575 32 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 2,992 2,992 33 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 875,371 875,371 34 H–46 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 2,127 2,127 36 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 67,675 67,675 37 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 135,054 135,054 38 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 41,706 41,706 39 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 55,903 22,000 77,903 

12th aircraft to Spiral 3 ...................................................................................... [8,000 ] Sensor obsolescence ............................................................................................. [14,000 ] 

40 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 37,436 37,436 

41 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 31,044 31,044 42 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 43,720 43,720 43 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 902 902 44 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 47,587 47,587 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

45 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 665 665 46 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 14,587 14,587 47 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 189,312 189,312 48 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 85,537 85,537 49 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 3,684 10,000 13,684 

Program office sustainment ................................................................................. [5,000 ] Sensor obsolescence ............................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

50 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 98,128 98,128 

51 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 22,999 22,999 52 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 1,576 1,576 53 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ................................................................................. 6,267 6,267 54 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 141,685 141,685 55 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 120,660 120,660 56 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 3,554 3,554 57 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 41,800 41,800 58 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 9,485 9,485 59 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 14,431 14,43160 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 1,001 1,001 61 RQ–7 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 26,433 26,433 62 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 160,834 160,834 63 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 147,130 147,130 64 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 31,100 31,100 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

65 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 1,142,461 1,142,461 

66 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 410,044 410,044 67 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 27,450 27,450 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

68 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 28,930 28,930 69 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 5,268 5,268 70 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 60,306 60,306 71 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 1,775 1,775 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total .................................................................... 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 1,140,865 1,140,865 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 7,617 7,617 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 196 312,456 196 312,456 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 54 95,413 54 95,413 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 225 117,208 225 117,208 6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 328 136,794 328 136,794 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 81 367,985 81 367,985 8 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 66 67,596 66 67,596 9 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 363 33,916 363 33,916 

11 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 50 6,278 50 6,278 12 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 41,799 41,799 13 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 3,538 3,538 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

14 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 53 76,749 53 76,749 15 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 143 111,902 143 111,902 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 1,138 1,138 17 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 23,014 23,014 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 84,318 84,318 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

19 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 3,978 3,978 20 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 8,031 8,031 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

21 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 150 125,898 150 125,898 

22 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 108 53,203 108 53,203 

23 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 7,800 7,800 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

24 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 59,730 59,730 25 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 4,222 4,222 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

26 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 3,963 3,963 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

27 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 12,513 12,513 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

28 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 56,308 6,400 62,708 

Additional RMA kits .............................................................................................. [6,400 ] 

29 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 10,727 10,727 30 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 72,901 72,901 

31 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS ........................................................................ 1,943 1,943 32 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 19,758 19,758 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

34 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 52,632 52,632 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total .................................................................... 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 37,703 37,703 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 65,411 65,411 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 20,284 20,284 4 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 37,870 37,870 5 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 53,764 53,764 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 67,194 67,194 7 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 2,749 2,749 8 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ........................................................... 3,906 3,906 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 24,151 24,151 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 33,080 33,080 11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 40,398 40,398 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 61,219 61,219 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 10,637 10,637 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 4,578 4,578 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 26,297 26,297 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 6,088 6,088 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 7,644 7,644 

18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 3,349 3,349 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 13,361 13,361 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 2,149 2,14923 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 27,465 27,465 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 26,366 26,366 28 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 8,403 8,403 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 5,201 5,201 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC Total .......................................................... 589,267 0 589,267 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 944,866 944,866 3 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 2,930,704 2 2,930,704 

4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ADV PROC (CY) ...................................................... 2,354,612 2,354,612 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 1,705,424 1,705,424 6 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS ADV PROC (CY) ..................................................... 245,793 245,793 7 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 231,694 231,694 8 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 1 1,615,564 1 1,615,564 9 DDG–51 ADV PROC (CY) ...................................................................................... 388,551 388,551 

10 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 4 1,793,014 4 1,793,014 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

12 AFLOAT FORWARD STAGING BASE ............................................................................. 1 524,000 55,300 1 579,300 

Navy requested adjustment ................................................................................. [55,300 ] 

14 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ....................................................................................... 2,732 2,732 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

16 MOORED TRAINING SHIP ........................................................................................... 183,900 183,900 

17 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 450,163 450,163 19 LCAC SLEP ................................................................................................................. 4 80,987 4 80,987 20 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 625,800 100,000 725,800 

Help buy 3rd DDG–51 in FY 13 ........................................................................... [100,000 ] 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY Total ........................................................ 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ............................................................................................ 10,180 10,180 2 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE .................................................................................... 5,536 5,536 3 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ................................................................................ 16,956 16,956 

GENERATORS 

4 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 19,782 19,782 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

5 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 39,509 39,509 

PERISCOPES 

6 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP ........................................................................ 52,515 52,515 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

7 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 285,994 285,994 8 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 14,389 14,389 9 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 2,436 2,436 

10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 12,700 12,700 11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM ....................................................... 40,329 40,329 12 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 19,603 19,603 13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 8,678 8,678 14 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 74,209 74,209 15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 47,078 47,078 16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 37,000 37,000 17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 25,053 25,053 18 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 12,986 12,986 19 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 2,455 2,455 20 CG MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 10,539 10,539 21 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 14,431 14,431 22 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 36,700 36,700 23 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 119,902 119,902 24 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 3,678 3,678 25 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 8,292 8,292 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

27 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 286,744 286,744 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

28 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 8,780 8,780 

SMALL BOATS 

29 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 36,452 36,452 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

30 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 36,145 36,145 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

31 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 69,368 69,368 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

32 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ............................................................................................. 106,328 106,328 

33 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 45,966 45,966 34 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 59,885 59,885 35 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 37,168 37,168 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

36 LSD MIDLIFE .............................................................................................................. 77,974 77,974 

SHIP SONARS 

38 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 27,934 27,934 

39 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 83,231 83,231 40 SSN ACOUSTICS ......................................................................................................... 199,438 199,438 41 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 9,394 9,394 42 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ..................................................................... 12,953 12,953 43 ELECTRONIC WARFARE MILDEC ................................................................................ 8,958 8,958 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

44 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 24,077 24,077 45 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 11,925 11,925 46 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 94,338 94,338 47 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 9,680 9,680 48 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE ................................................... 18,130 18,130 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

49 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 203,375 203,375 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

50 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 123,656 123,656 

51 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 896 896 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

52 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ................................................................. 49,475 49,475 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

53 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 34,692 34,692 54 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) ...................................................................... 396 396 55 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 15,703 15,703 56 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 3,836 3,836 57 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 7,201 7,201 58 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 54,400 54,400 59 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 8,548 8,548 60 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 11,765 11,765 61 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 6,483 6,483 62 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 7,631 7,631 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

63 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 53,644 53,644 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

64 MATCALS .................................................................................................................... 7,461 7,461 

65 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................... 9,140 9,140 66 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ................................................................... 20,798 20,798 67 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 19,754 19,754 68 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................... 8,909 8,909 69 LANDING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 13,554 13,554 70 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 38,934 38,934 71 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 14,131 14,131 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

72 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL ............................................................. 3,249 3,249 73 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ........................................................... 11,646 11,646 74 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 18,189 18,189 75 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 17,350 17,350 76 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 340,567 340,567 77 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 9,835 9,835 78 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 59,652 59,652 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

79 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 6,253 6,253 80 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 4,963 4,963 81 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 4,664 4,664 82 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 66,889 66,889 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

84 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 23,877 23,877 86 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 28,001 28,001 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

87 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 7,856 7,856 88 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 74,376 74,376 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

89 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 27,381 27,381 90 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 215,952 215,952 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

91 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 4,463 4,463 92 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 778 778 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

94 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 133,530 133,530 95 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 96 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 12,251 12,251 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

97 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 2,893 2,893 

SONOBUOYS 

99 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 179,927 179,927 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

100 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 55,279 55,279 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

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 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

114 NATO SEASPARROW ................................................................................................... 58,368 58,368 115 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 ........................................................................ 224,484 224,484 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

128 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM .......................................................................... 62,361 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 5,540 136 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 5,741 5,741 137 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 3,852 3,852 138 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 25,757 25,757139 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

151 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 24,294 24,294 152 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 4,287 4,287 153 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 

156 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 12,140 12,140 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

157 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 317,234 317,234

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total ......................................................................... 6,310,257 0 6,310,257 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

01 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 32,360 32,360 

02 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 6,003 6,003 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

03 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................... 589 589 04 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 3,655 3,655 05 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 5,467 5,467 06 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 20,354 20,354 

OTHER SUPPORT 

07 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 38,446 38,446 08 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 4,734 4,734 

GUIDED MISSILES 

09 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 15,713 15,713 10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 219 36,175 219 36,175 12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 1,136 1,136 

OTHER SUPPORT 

13 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 33,976 33,976 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

14 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER ....................................................................................... 16,273 16,273 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

15 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 41,063 41,063 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

16 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 2,930 2,930 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

18 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 1,637 1,637 19 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 18,394 18,394 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

20 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 114,051 114,051 21 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 25 66,612 25 66,612 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 3,749 3,749 23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 75,979 75,979 26 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 1,653 1,653 

27 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 9,494 9,494 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

28 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 6,171 6,171 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

29 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 121,955 121,955 30 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 83,294 83,294 31 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 74,718 74,718 

32 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 47,613 47,613 33 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 19,573 19,573 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

33 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 5,659 5,659 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

34 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES ........................................................................ 1,039 1,039 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

35 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 31,050 31,050 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

36 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) ...................................................................................... 36,333 36,333 37 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 3,137 3,137 40 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 27,385 27,385 

OTHER SUPPORT 

41 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 7,016 7,016 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

42 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 14,377 14,377 43 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 24,864 24,86444 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 21,592 21,59245 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 61,353 61,353 46 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 4,827 4,827 47 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 40,011 40,011 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

48 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 16,809 16,809 49 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .................................................. 3,408 3,408 50 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ...................................................................................... 48,549 48,549 51 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 190 190 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

52 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 23,129 23,129 53 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 8,346 8,346 

54 CONTAINER FAMILY ................................................................................................... 1,857 1,857 55 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 36,198 36,198 56 RAPID DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN .................................................................................... 2,390 2,390 

OTHER SUPPORT 

57 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 6,525 6,525 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

58 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 13,700 13,700 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Total ..................................................................... 1,343,511 0 1,343,511 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 19 3,060,770 19 3,060,770 2 F–35—ADV PROC (CY) ........................................................................................ 363,783 363,783 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

5 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 6 537,517 6 537,517 

6 C–130J—ADV PROC (CY) .................................................................................... 162,000 162,000 7 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 1 132,121 1 132,121 8 HC–130J—ADV PROC (CY) .................................................................................. 88,000 88,000 9 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 4 389,434 4 389,434 

10 MC–130J—ADV PROC (CY) .................................................................................. 104,000 104,000 

HELICOPTERS 

15 CV–22 (MYP) ............................................................................................................. 3 230,798 3 230,798 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

17 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 6 2,541 6 2,541 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

20 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 41 138,669 41 138,669 

22 AC–130J .................................................................................................................... 5 470,019 5 470,019 24 RQ–4 ......................................................................................................................... 27,000 27,000 27 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 12 272,217 –30,000 12 242,217 

Prior year savings ................................................................................................ [–30,000 ] 

28 RQ–4 BLOCK 40 PROC ............................................................................................. 1,747 1,747 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

29 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 20,019 20,019 30 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 132,222 132,222 31 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 111,002 111,002 32 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 27,197 27,197 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

33 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 47,598 47,598 34 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 354,624 354,624 35 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 11,794 11,794 36 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 285,830 285,830 37 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 157,777 157,777 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

38 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 2,456 2,456 39 C–5M ......................................................................................................................... 1,021,967 1,021,967 42 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 143,197 143,197 43 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 103 103 44 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 9,780 9,780 45 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 452 452 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

47 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 128 128 

48 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 6,427 6,427 49 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 277 277 50 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 28,686 28,686 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

52 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 45,591 45,591 

53 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 70,918 70,918 54 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 1,876 1,876 55 MC–12W .................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 56 C–20 MODS ............................................................................................................... 192 192 57 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 263 263 58 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 6,119 6,119 59 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 58,577 47,300 105,877 

C–130 avionics upgrades .................................................................................... [47,300 ] 

61 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 10,475 10,475 62 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 46,556 46,556 63 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 34,494 34,494 64 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 171,813 171,813 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

65 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 197,087 197,087 66 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 14,304 14,304 67 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 57,472 57,472 68 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 6,627 6,627 69 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 27,654 27,654 70 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 9,313 9,313 71 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 16,300 16,300 72 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 6,948 6,948 73 MQ–1 MODS .............................................................................................................. 9,734 9,734 74 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 102,970 –34,500 68,470 

Lynx radar reduction ............................................................................................ [–34,500 ] 

76 RQ–4 GSRA/CSRA MODS ........................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 77 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 23,310 23,310 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

78 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 463,285 463,285 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

79 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 49,140 49,140 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

81 B–1 ............................................................................................................................ 3,683 3,683 83 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 43,786 43,786 84 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 87 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 81,952 81,952 89 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 8,597 8,597 90 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 2,403 2,403 91 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 3,455 3,455 92 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 5,911 5,911 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

94 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 21,148 21,148 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

95 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 94,947 94,947 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

96 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 1,242,004 1,242,004

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

96 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 75,845 75,845 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ........................................................... 11,398,901 –17,200 11,381,701 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 39,104 39,104 

TACTICAL 

2 JASSM ........................................................................................................................ 183 291,151 183 291,151 

3 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 225 119,904 225 119,904 4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 199 340,015 199 340,015 5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 413 48,548 413 48,548 6 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 144 42,347 144 42,347 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

7 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 752 752 

CLASS IV 

9 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 21,635 21,635 

10 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 276 276 11 AGM–88A HARM ........................................................................................................ 580 580 12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 6,888 6,888 13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

14 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 72,080 72,080 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

15 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 379,586 379,586 16 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 38,398 38,398 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

17 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 2 486,047 2 486,047 17 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... –82,616 –82,616 18 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 74,167 74,167 19 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 5,244 5,244 20 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .................................................................................. 55,997 55,997 21 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ................................................................ 95,673 95,673 22 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 5 1,852,900 5 1,852,900 23 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 583,192 583,192 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

29 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 36,716 36,716 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

29 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 829,702 829,702 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ............................................................. 5,343,286 0 5,343,286 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 15,735 15,735 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 129,921 129,921 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 30,840 30,840 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 187,397 187,397 5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 6,965 188,510 6,965 188,510 

OTHER ITEMS 

6 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 35,837 35,837 

7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 7,531 7,531 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

8 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 499 499 9 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 480 480 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 9,765 9,765 

FLARES 

11 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 55,864 55,864 

FUZES 

13 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 76,037 76,037 

SMALL ARMS 

14 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 21,026 21,026 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Total ................................................ 759,442 0 759,442 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 2,048 2,048 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 8,019 8,019 3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 946 946 

4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 7,138 7,138 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 13,093 13,093 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 13,983 13,983 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 23,794 23,794 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 8,669 8,669 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 6,144 6,144 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 1,580 1,580 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 149,661 149,661 13 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) ........................................................................................ 726 726 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

14 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 2,789 2,789 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 31,875 31,875 16 ADVANCE TECH SENSORS ......................................................................................... 452 452 17 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 14,203 14,203 18 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 46,232 46,232 19 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 11,685 11,685 20 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 19,248 19,248 21 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 19,292 19,292 22 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 17,166 17,166 23 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 22,723 22,723 24 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 27,930 27,930 25 TAC SIGNIT SPT ......................................................................................................... 217 217 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 49,627 49,627 28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 13,559 13,559 29 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 11,186 11,186 30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 43,238 43,238 31 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 10,431 10,431 32 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 13,769 13,769 33 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 19,138 19,138 

34 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 8,809 8,809 35 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ................................................................ 26,935 26,935 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

36 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 80,558 80,558 38 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 97,588 97,588 39 VOICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 8,419 8,419 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

40 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 34,276 34,276 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

41 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE .................................................................... 28,235 28,235 42 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ................................................................................................ 2,061 2,061

43 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ................................................................................. 4,415 4,415 44 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ................................................................ 30,237 30,237 45 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 98,062 98,062 46 MILSATCOM SPACE .................................................................................................... 105,935 105,935 47 SPACE MODS SPACE ................................................................................................. 37,861 37,861 48 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 7,171 7,171 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

49 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 83,537 83,537 50 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER ..................................................................... 11,884 11,884 51 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 14,711 14,711 52 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 10,275 10,275 53 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 50,907 50,907 

MODIFICATIONS 

54 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 55,701 55,701 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

55 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ............................................................................................ 14,524 14,524 

56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 28,655 28,655 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

57 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 9,332 9,332 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

58 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 16,762 16,762 59 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 33,768 33,768 60 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT ........................................................................ 2,495 2,495 61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 12,859 12,859 62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 1,954 1,954 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

64 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 24,528 24,528 65 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 137,819 137,819 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

67 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 479,586 479,586 68 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .............................................................. 45,159 45,159 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

68 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 14,519,256 14,519,256 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

70 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 25,746 25,746 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ................................................................ 16,760,581 0 16,760,581 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 1,291 1,291 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 5,711 5,711 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 47,201 47,201 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

09 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 16,189 16,189 12 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 66,075 66,075 

13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 83,881 83,881 14 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 2,572 2,572 15 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 125,557 125,557 17 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 16,941 16,941 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 13,137 13,137 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 5 15,414 5 15,414 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

20 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 1,454 1,454 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 

21 EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................ 978 978 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 5,020 5,020 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

23 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 2 100 2 100 

24 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 3 13,395 3 13,395 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

26 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 36 581,005 36 581,005 27 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 52 580,814 52 580,814 

28 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 62,000 62,000 29 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 1 131,400 1 131,400 31 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 1 220,309 1 220,309 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

39 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 14,363 14,363 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 37,345 37,345

41 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE ........................................................................... 16,678 16,678 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 14,792 14,792 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 35,259 35,259 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

43 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 544,272 544,272 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

45 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 112,456 112,456 46 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 81,457 81,457 47 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 2,650 2,650 48 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 56,208 56,208 49 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 19,766 19,766 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

50 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ........................................................................ 850 850 51 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 3 98,927 3 98,927 52 MQ–1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 20,576 20,576 53 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 1,893 13,000 14,893 

Capability Improvements ...................................................................................... [13,000 ] 

55 STUASL0 .................................................................................................................... 13,166 13,166 56 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 107,687 107,687 57 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 51,870 51,870 59 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 71,940 71,940 

SHIPBUILDING 

61 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 37,439 37,439 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 159,029 159,029 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

66 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 79,819 79,819 

68 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 14,906 14,906 70 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 81,711 81,711 71 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 35,053 –1,156 33,897 

CCFLIR—Transfer at USSOCOM Request ............................................................ [–1,156 ] 

74 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 41,526 41,526 

75 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 43,353 43,353 76 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 210,540 210,540 78 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 20,000 20,000 82 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 6,645 6,645 83 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 25,581 25,581 89 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 191,061 191,061 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

CBDP 

91 INSTALLATION FORCE PROTECTION ........................................................................... 14,271 14,271 92 INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ........................................................................................... 101,667 101,667 

94 JOINT BIO DEFENSE PROGRAM (MEDICAL) ............................................................... 13,447 13,447 95 COLLECTIVE PROTECTION .......................................................................................... 20,896 20,89696 CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ..................................................................................... 144,540 144,540 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE Total ..................................................................... 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

01 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 98,800 98,800 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND Total .................................................... 98,800 0 98,800 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT .............................................................................................. 98,227,168 –75,879 98,151,289 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 SATURN ARCH (MIP) ................................................................................................. 4 48,000 4 48,000 

4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 4 31,988 4 31,988 

ROTARY 

9 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ................................................................... 4 142,000 4 142,000 

11 KIOWA WARRIOR WRA ............................................................................................... 14 163,800 14 163,800 

14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 10 386,000 10 386,000 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ................................................................... 771,788 0 771,788 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

3 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 550 54,000 550 54,000 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

7 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 383 39,045 383 39,045 

10 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM ..................................................... 38 35,600 38 35,600 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ...................................................................... 128,645 0 128,645 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 8 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 60,000 60,000

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

10 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

14 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 10,000 10,000 15 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 10,000 10,000 16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 120 11,000 120 11,000 

ROCKETS 

21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 57,000 57,000 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

22 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 4,000 4,000 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 3,000 3,000


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 8,000 8,000 

MISCELLANEOUS 

28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY Total ......................................................... 180,900 0 180,900 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

13 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 321,040 321,040 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

60 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 25,000 25,000 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

67 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 7,200 7,200 

71 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 5,980 5,980 74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 67 57,800 67 57,800 78 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 15,300 15,300 79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 4,221 4,221 91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 34 1,834 34 1,83496 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 137 21,000 137 21,000 98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 4 85,830 4 85,830 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

146 FORCE PROVIDER ...................................................................................................... 3 51,654 3 51,654 

147 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 18 6,264 18 6,264 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Total ......................................................................... 603,123 0 603,123 JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

1 ATTACK THE NETWORK .............................................................................................. 417,700 417,700 

JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 

2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE .................................................................................................. 248,886 248,886 

FORCE TRAINING 

3 TRAIN THE FORCE ..................................................................................................... 106,000 –106,000 0 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–106,000 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

4 OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 227,414 –45,000 182,414 

Program decrease ................................................................................................. [–45,000 ] 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND Total ................................................... 1,000,000 –151,000 849,000 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 1 29,520 1 29,520 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

26 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 1 13,100 1 13,100 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

31 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 57,652 57,652 

33 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 35,500 35,500 39 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 2,700 2,700 49 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 3,375 3,375 54 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 49,183 49,183 55 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 4,190 4,190 59 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 20,700 20,700

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

65 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 24,776 24,776 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total .................................................................... 240,696 0 240,696 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

9 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 270 27,000 270 27,000 

10 LASER MAVERICK ...................................................................................................... 500 58,000 500 58,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

11 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 9 1,500 9 1,500 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total .................................................................... 86,500 0 86,500 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 11,424 11,424 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 30,332 30,332 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 8,282 8,282 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 31,884 31,884 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 409 409 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 11,976 11,976 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 2,447 2,447 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 7,692 7,692 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 13,461 13,461 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 3,310 3,310 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 6,244 6,244 

18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 3,368 3,368 19 81MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 9,162 9,162 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 10,266 10,266 21 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................. 1,887 1,887 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 1,611 1,61123 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 37,459 37,459 24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 970 970 25 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 418 418 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 14,219 14,219 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC Total .......................................................... 206,821 0 206,821 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

135 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 17,968 17,968 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY Total ......................................................................... 17,968 0 17,968 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 180 29,334 180 29,334 11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 105 105 

OTHER SUPPORT 

13 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 16,081 16,081 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

15 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 16,081 16,081 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

17 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

18 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 8,170 8,170 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 2,700 2,700 26 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 2,830 2,830 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

29 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 4,866 4,866 30 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 265 265 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

42 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 114 114 43 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 523 523 44 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 365 365 45 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 2,004 2,004 47 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 42,930 42,930 

GENERAL PROPERTY 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 

55 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 385 385 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Total ..................................................................... 129,584 0 129,584 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

32 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 94,050 94,050 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

52 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 11,300 11,300 

59 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 1,618 1,618 64 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

79 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 6,000 6,000 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ........................................................... 115,668 0 115,668 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 211 24,200 211 24,200 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ............................................................. 24,200 0 24,200 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 326 326 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 17,634 17,634 

BOMBS 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 37,514 37,514 5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 2,879 84,459 2,879 84,459 

FLARES 

11 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 14,973 14,973 

12 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 3,859 3,859 

SMALL ARMS 

14 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Total ................................................ 159,965 0 159,965 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

22 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 1,800 1,800 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

46 MILSATCOM SPACE .................................................................................................... 5,695 5,695 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

59 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 60,600 60,600 61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 68,000 68,000 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

68 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .............................................................. 58,250 58,250 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

68 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 2,380,501 2,380,501 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Total ................................................................ 2,574,846 0 2,574,846 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

12 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 4,760 4,760

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

41 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 78,986 78,986 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

62 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT ..................................................................................... 25 2,841 25 2,841

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

66 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 1 13,300 1 13,300 

84 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS ...................................................... 53 8,034 53 8,034 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
325 

89 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 126 3,354 126 3,354

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE Total ..................................................................... 111,275 0 111,275 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 15,000 15,000 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND Total .................................................... 15,000 0 15,000 TOTAL, PROCUREMENT .............................................................................................. 6,366,979 –151,000 6,215,979 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(327) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 21,803 21,803 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 221,901 221,901 3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 79,359 79,359 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 113,662 113,662 

BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL ................................................................................................................. 436,725 0 436,725 APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 26,585 26,585 6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 43,170 43,170 

7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 36,293 36,293 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 55,615 55,615 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 17,585 17,585 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 51,528 51,528 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 26,162 26,162 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 24,063 24,063 13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 64,589 64,589 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 68,300 10,000 78,300 

WIAMan schedule adjustment ..................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 4,490 4,49016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 7,818 7,818 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 37,798 37,798 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 59,021 59,021 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 43,426 43,426 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 20,574 20,574 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 21,339 21,339 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 20,316 20,316 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 34,209 34,209 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 10,439 10,439 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 70,064 70,064 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 17,654 17,654 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 31,546 31,546 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 93,340 93,340 

APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL ............................................................................................................. 885,924 10,000 895,924 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 56,056 56,056 

30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 62,032 62,032 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 81,080 81,080 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 63,919 63,919 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 97,043 97,043 

34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 5,866 5,866 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 7,800 7,800 36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 40,416 40,416 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 9,166 9,166 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 13,627 13,627 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ................................................................................................................................ 10,667 10,667 41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 15,054 15,054 42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 3,194 3,194 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 2,367 2,367 44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 25,348 25,348 45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 64,009 64,009 46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 11,083 11,083 47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 180,662 180,662 48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 22,806 22,806 49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,030 5,030 50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 36,407 36,407 51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 11,745 11,745 52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 23,717 23,717 53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 33,012 33,012 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................. 882,106 0 882,106 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 15,301 15,301 

55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 13,592 13,592 56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 10,625 10,625 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 30,612 30,612 59 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) ................................................................................. 49,989 49,989 60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 6,703 6,703 61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 6,894 6,894 

62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 9,066 9,066 63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 2,633 2,633 64 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK-TACTICAL—DEM/VAL .......................................................... 272,384 272,384 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 3,874 3,874 66 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 5,018 5,018 67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 11,556 11,556 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 15,603 15,603 70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 14,159 14,159 71 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE .................................................................................................. 79 79 72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 55,605 55,605 74 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 79,232 79,232 75 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4) ........................................................................ 4,476 4,476 76 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS ........................................................................................................................... 28,991 –28,991 0 

LEMV termination ........................................................................................................................ [–28,991 ] 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL .................................................... 636,392 –28,991 607,401 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

77 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 76,588 76,588 

78 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS ........................................................................................................... 73,309 73,309 79 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 154,621 154,621 80 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ..................................................................................................................... 31,826 31,826 81 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 23,341 23,341 82 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 4,839 4,839 83 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 23,841 23,841 84 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 79,855 79,855 85 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 2,140 2,140 86 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 5,002 5,002 87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 21,321 21,321 88 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 514 514 93 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 43,405 43,405 94 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 1,939 1,939 95 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 18,980 18,980 97 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 18,294 18,294 98 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 17,013 17,013 99 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate 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 –17,115 227 

Excess to requirement ................................................................................................................. [–17,115 ] 

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 40,700 121,313 

Transfer from WTCV 6 at Army Request .................................................................................... [40,700 ] 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
333 

131 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 10,806 10,806 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION TOTAL ........................................................................ 2,857,026 23,585 2,880,611 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 5,000 38,853 

Internet mapping ........................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

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 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL ........................................................................................... 1,159,610 5,000 1,164,610 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
334 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

160 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE ................................................................................................... 98,450 98,450 161 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM .............................................................................. 30,940 30,940 162 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 19,984 277,171 

Transfer from APA 11 at Army request ...................................................................................... [19,984 ] 

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 56,136 186 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,717 4,717 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................... 1,131,319 19,984 1,151,303 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ............................................................... 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
335 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 112,617 112,617 2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 18,230 18,230 

3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 484,459 484,459 

BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL ................................................................................................................. 615,306 0 615,306 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 104,513 104,513 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 145,307 145,307 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 47,334 47,334 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 34,163 34,163 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 49,689 49,689 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 97,701 97,701 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 45,685 45,685 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,060 6,060 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 103,050 103,050 13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 169,710 169,710 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 31,326 31,326 

APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL ............................................................................................................. 834,538 0 834,538 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 48,201 48,201 

16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 28,328 28,328 19 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 56,179 56,179 20 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 132,400 132,400 21 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 11,854 11,854 22 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 247,931 247,931 23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,760 4,760 25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 51,463 51,463 26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 2,000 2,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
336 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................. 583,116 0 583,116 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

27 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 42,246 42,246 28 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 5,591 5,591 29 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 3,262 3,262 

30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 74 74 31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,964 7,964 32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 5,257 5,257 33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 1,570 1,570 34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 168,040 168,040 35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 88,649 88,649 36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 83,902 83,902 37 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 108,713 108,713 38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 9,316 9,316 39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 77,108 77,108 40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 762 762 41 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 2,349 2,349 42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 852,977 852,977 43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 8,764 8,764 44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 20,501 20,501 45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 27,052 27,052 46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 428,933 428,933 47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 27,154 27,154 48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 519,140 519,140 49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 406,389 406,389 50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 36,570 36,570 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

51 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 8,404 8,404 52 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 136,967 136,967 53 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 1,489 1,489 54 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 38,422 38,422 55 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 69,312 69,312 56 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 9,196 9,196 57 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 18,850 18,850 58 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 45,618 45,618 59 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 3,019 3,019 60 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 144,951 144,951 61 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 5,797 5,797 62 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 308,131 308,131 63 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 195,189 195,189 64 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 56,358 56,358 65 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 55,378 55,378 66 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................... 48,842 48,842 67 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 7,509 7,509 68 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 5,075 5,075 69 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 51,178 51,178 70 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 205,615 205,615 72 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 37,227 37,227 73 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................. 169 169 74 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) ................................... 20,874 20,874 75 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 2,257 2,257 76 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 38,327 38,327 77 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 135,985 –100,000 35,985 

Adjust program to more realistic schedule ................................................................................ [–100,000 ] 

78 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 50,362 50,362 79 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 8,448 8,448 80 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 153 153 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL .................................................... 4,641,385 –100,000 4,541,385 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

81 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 40,558 40,558 82 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 35,825 35,825 83 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 99,891 99,891 84 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 17,565 17,565 

85 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 4,026 4,026 86 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,791 1,791 87 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 11,725 11,725 88 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 68,463 68,463 89 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 152,041 152,041 90 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 47,123 47,123 91 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 30,208 30,208 92 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 43,084 43,084 93 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 11,401 11,401 94 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 11,138 11,138 95 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 34,964 34,964 96 0604273N VH–71A EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 94,238 94,238 97 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 257,796 257,796 98 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 3,302 3,302 99 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 21,413 106 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM ....... 146,683 146,683 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

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 20,000 175,254 

Increased LHA–8 design efforts ................................................................................................. [20,000 ] 

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 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION TOTAL ........................................................................ 5,028,476 20,000 5,048,476 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate 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 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 886,137 0 886,137 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

159 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 699 699 

160 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT. 20,961 20,961 

162 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 35 35 163 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY (COD) FOLLOW ON .......................................................................... 2,460 2,460 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

164 0605555N STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 9,757 9,757 165 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 98,057 98,057 166 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 12,407175 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 –20,875 118,719 

Marine Personnel Carrier program deferred ............................................................................... [–20,875 ] 

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 2,613 194 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV) .................................................................................................. 986 986 199 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 66,231 66,231 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

200 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 24,476 24,476201 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 4,998 224 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,185,132 1,185,132 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................... 3,385,822 –20,875 3,364,947 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................ 15,974,780 –100,875 15,873,905 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 373,151 373,151 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 138,333 138,333 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 13,286 13,286 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL ................................................................................................................. 524,770 0 524,770 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 116,846 116,846 5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 119,672 119,672 

6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 89,483 89,483 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 197,546 197,546 8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 127,539 127,539 9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 104,063 104,063 

10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 81,521 81,521 11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 112,845 112,845 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 138,161 138,161 13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 40,217 40,217 

APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL ............................................................................................................. 1,127,893 0 1,127,893 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 39,572 39,572 

15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 12,800 12,800 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 30,579 30,579 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 77,347 77,347 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 149,321 149,321 19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 49,128 49,128 20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 68,071 68,071 21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 26,299 26,299 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 20,967 20,967 23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 33,996 33,996 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 19,000 19,000 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 41,353 41,353 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 49,093 49,093 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................. 617,526 0 617,526 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 3,983 3,983 29 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 3,874 3,874 32 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 27,024 27,024 33 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 15,899 15,899 34 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,568 4,568 35 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D .................................................................................... 379 379 36 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM (SPP) .............................................................................................. 28,764 28,764 38 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 86,737 86,737 40 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ................................................................................................ 953 953 42 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ....................................................................................................................... 379,437 379,437 44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 2,606 2,606 45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 103 103 47 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 16,018 16,018 49 0604458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER .............................................................................................................. 58,861 58,861 50 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ..................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 51 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 21,175 21,175 52 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 0 10,000 10,000 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

53 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 13,636 13,636 54 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 2,799 2,799 55 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 70,160 70,160 56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 137,233 137,233

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES TOTAL .................................................... 876,709 10,000 886,709 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

58 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 977 977 

61 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 3,601 3,601 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

62 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 1,971 1,971 64 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 51,456 –15,200 36,256 

Unjustified request ...................................................................................................................... [–15,200 ] 

65 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 50 50 66 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 115,000 115,000 67 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 23,930 23,930 68 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 400,258 400,258 69 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 4,575 4,575 70 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 352,532 352,532 71 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 16,284 16,284 72 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,564 2,564 73 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 17,036 17,036 74 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 7,273 7,273 75 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 33,200 33,200 78 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 816,335 816,335 79 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—EMD ............................................................................... 145,442 145,442 80 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 27,963 27,963 81 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 82 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 129,411 129,411 83 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 131,100 131,100 84 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 1,558,590 1,558,590 85 0605229F CSAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ..................................................................................................... 393,558 393,558 86 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 6,242 6,242 87 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 272,872 272,872 88 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 124,805 124,805 89 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 13,948 13,948 90 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 303,500 303,500 91 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 67,874 67,874 94 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 4,663 4,663 97 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 46,705 46,705 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION TOTAL ........................................................................ 5,078,715 –15,200 5,063,515 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

99 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 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 1,179,791 0 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 19,589 124 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 100,194 100,194 125 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................. 37,448 37,448 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
347 

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 –76,800 13,016 

Reduction fighter communications POD ..................................................................................... [–76,800 ] 

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 9,900 23,148 

Continue T–3 testing operations ................................................................................................ [9,900 ] 

163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 24,342 24,342 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 10,448 10,448 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
348 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate 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 10,000 100,231 

ASACoE program ......................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

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 35,674196 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
349 

209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 13,345 13,345 211 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 12,500 50,328 

Blue Devil Replacement WAMI/NVDF .......................................................................................... [15,000 ] Unjustified amount ..................................................................................................................... [–2,500 ] 

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 .............................................................................................................. 400 400 231 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

246 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 1,083 1,083 247 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 1,577 1,577 248 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 ................................................. 135,735 135,735 251 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 11,874,528 0 11,874,528 

Reduction to classified program ................................................................................................ [–70,000 ] Increase to classified program ................................................................................................... [70,000 ] 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................... 16,297,542 –44,400 16,253,142 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF .................................................................... 25,702,946 –49,600 25,653,346 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 45,837 45,837 

2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 315,033 315,033 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 11,171 11,171 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 49,500 49,500 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 84,271 84,271 6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 30,895 30,895 7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 51,426 51,426 

BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL ................................................................................................................. 588,133 0 588,133 APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 20,065 20,065 

9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 114,790 114,790 

11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 46,875 –5,000 41,875 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

MIT LL reduction ......................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

13 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 45,000 –15,000 30,000 

PSC S&T reduction ...................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

14 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 413,260 5,000 418,260 

Plan X increase ........................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

15 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 16,330 16,330 17 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 24,537 24,537 18 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 227,065 227,065 

20 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 18,908 0 18,908 

Assuring effective missions ........................................................................................................ [–2,000 ] Automated software analysis tools ............................................................................................ [2,000 ] 

21 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) APPLIED RESEARCH ...................... 0 5,000 5,000 

HSCB Apl Res extension ............................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

22 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 225,977 225,977 23 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 166,654 166,654 24 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 243,469 243,469 25 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 175,282 175,282 26 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 11,107 11,107 27 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 29,246 29,246 

APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL ............................................................................................................. 1,778,565 –10,000 1,768,565 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

28 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 26,646 26,646 29 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 19,420 19,420 30 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 77,792 –17,000 60,792 

Reduction due to redundancy ..................................................................................................... [–17,000 ] 

31 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ...................... 274,033 274,033 32 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 309,203 –30,000 279,203 

Directed energy—DPALS ............................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] Advanced Technology—unsustainable growth ........................................................................... [–25,000 ] 

34 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 19,305 19,305 

35 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ........................ 7,565 7,565 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

36 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 40,426 40,426 37 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 149,804 149,804 38 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 172,546 172,546 39 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 170,847 170,847 40 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 9,009 9,009 41 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 174,428 –10,000 164,428 

JCTD reduction ............................................................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

42 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 20,000 –15,000 5,000 

Net Comm reduction ................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

45 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 19,668 0 19,668 

Assuring effective missions ........................................................................................................ [–3,000 ] 

Automated software analysis tools ............................................................................................ [3,000 ] 

46 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) ADVANCED RESEARCH .................. 0 5,000 5,000 

HSCB Adv Dev extension ............................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 34,041 25,000 59,041 

IBIF .............................................................................................................................................. [25,000 ] 

48 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 61,971 61,971 50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 20,000 20,000 51 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 30,256 30,256 52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 72,324 72,324 53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 82,700 82,700 54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 8,431 8,431 55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 117,080 117,080 57 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 239,078 239,078 59 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 259,006 259,006 60 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 286,364 286,364 61 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 12,116 12,116


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 19,008 19,008 63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 78,532 –20,000 58,532 

Quick & Rapid Reaction Fund reduction .................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

65 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 12,667 12,667 66 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE ............................................................... 41,370 41,370 69 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 92,508 92,508 70 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 52,001 52,001 71 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 52,053 3,000 55,053 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [3,000 ] 

72 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 46,809 46,809 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ............................................................................. 3,109,007 –59,000 3,050,007 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

75 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 63,641 63,641 76 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 19,152 19,152 

77 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 70,763 70,763 79 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS APPLICATION PROGRAM ................................................................................ 17,230 2,000 19,230 

Sustain testing effort .................................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

80 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 71,453 71,453 

81 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 268,990 268,990 82 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 1,033,903 1,033,903 83 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 196,237 196,237 84 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 315,183 30,000 345,183 

Additional homeland missile defense radar .............................................................................. [30,000 ] 

86 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 377,605 377,605 87 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 286,613 286,613 88 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 937,056 937,056 89 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 44,947 44,947 90 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 6,515 6,515 91 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

418,355 418,355 

92 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 47,419 47,419 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

93 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 52,131 52,131 94 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 13,864 13,864 95 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 44,478 44,478 96 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 95,782 150,000 245,782 

Arrow Weapon System Improvements ......................................................................................... [30,000 ] Arrow–3 Interceptor ..................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

David’s Sling short-range BMD .................................................................................................. [100,000 ] 

97 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 375,866 375,866 98 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 495,257 495,257 99 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 11,704 11,704 

100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 9,842 9,842 101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,312 3,312 102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 130,000 –30,000 100,000 

Adv Innov Tech reduction ........................................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT 8,300 8,300 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................. 30,000 30,000 105 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING ..... 0 5,000 5,000 

HSCB Modeling R&E extension ................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 0 150,000 150,000 

RIP ............................................................................................................................................... [150,000 ] 

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 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES TOTAL ................................................ 5,902,517 307,000 6,209,517 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

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 6,788 129 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 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION TOTAL .................................................................... 734,636 0 734,636 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 –5,000 39,237 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SE transfer to DT&E .................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

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 –10,000 46,024 

DTIC reduction ............................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 6,908 6,908

162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 15,451 5,000 20,451 

DT&E transfer from SE ............................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 71,659 71,659 165 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 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 54,914 54,914 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 913,028 –10,000 903,028 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

182 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 7,552 7,552 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

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 13,144 205 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 ................................................................................. 181,567 181,567 210 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 1,000 4,210 

CRRC extension ........................................................................................................................... [1,000 ] 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

238 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,338 2,338 239 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 4,372 4,372247 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 12,000 13,314 

Capability Improvements ............................................................................................................ [12,000 ] 

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 1,156 19,481 

CCFLIR—Transfer at USSOCOM Request ................................................................................... [1,156 ] 

274 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 3,304 3,304 

275 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ........................................................................ 16,021 16,021 275 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,773,704 3,773,704 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ................................................................................. 4,641,222 14,156 4,655,378 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

276 UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................... –100,000 –100,000 

DARPA undistributed reduction ................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] 

UNDISTRIBUTED TOTAL .................................................................................................................... –100,000 –100,000 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ................................................................... 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 75,720 75,720 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 48,423 48,423 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 62,157 62,157 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 186,300 0 186,300 

TOTAL, OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ............................................................................... 186,300 0 186,300 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL .......................................................................... 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................. 7,000 7,000 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION TOTAL .......................................................................... 7,000 7,000 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................. 7,000 7,000 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

224 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 34,426 34,426 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ................................................................................. 34,426 34,426 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................................................................. 34,426 34,426 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

251 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ................................................................................. 9,000 9,000 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ...................................................................... 9,000 9,000 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

275 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 66,208 66,208 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TOTAL ................................................................................... 66,208 66,208 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ..................................................................... 66,208 66,208 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL ............................................................................. 116,634 116,634 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(361) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
362 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 888,114 195,900 1,084,014 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [195,900 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 72,624 72,624 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 617,402 617,402 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 602,262 602,262 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,032,484 1,032,484 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,287,462 15,800 1,303,262 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [15,800 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 3,559,656 209,900 3,769,556 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [209,900 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 454,477 454,477 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,481,156 200,000 1,681,156 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [200,000 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 7,278,154 7,278,154 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 2,754,712 2,754,712 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S .................................................................................................................................. 425,271 425,271 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 185,064 –5,000 180,064 

Unjustified growth .............................................................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 463,270 463,270 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
363 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,102,108 616,600 21,718,708 MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 360,240 360,240 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS .............................................................................................................................................. 192,105 192,105 

200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 7,101 7,101 

MOBILIZATION TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 559,446 0 559,446 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 115,992 115,992 

220 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 52,323 52,323 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 43,589 43,589 

240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 453,745 453,745 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 1,034,495 1,034,495 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,016,876 1,016,876 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 186,565 186,565 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 652,514 652,514 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 485,500 485,500 300 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 170,912 170,912 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 251,523 251,523 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 184,422 184,422 330 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 181,105 181,105 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 4,829,561 0 4,829,561 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 690,089 690,089 

360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 774,120 774,120 370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 651,765 651,765 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 453,051 453,051 390 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 487,737 487,737 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,563,115 1,563,115 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 326,853 326,853 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
364 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 234,364 234,364 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,212,091 1,212,091 440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 243,540 243,540 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 241,101 241,101 460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 226,291 226,291 470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 426,651 426,651 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 27,248 27,248 480 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,023,946 1,023,946 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL .................................................................................................................................... 8,581,962 0 8,581,962 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,621 1,621 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 24,429 24,429 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 657,099 657,099 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 122,485 122,485 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 584,058 584,058 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79,380 79,380 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 471,616 471,616 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 74,243 74,243 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 70,894 70,894 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 569,801 569,801 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 294,145 36,400 330,545 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [36,400 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S .................................................................................................................................. 51,853 51,853 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
365 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,001,624 36,400 3,038,024 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10,735 10,735 

140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24,197 24,197 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 10,304 10,304 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 10,319 10,319 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 37,857 37,857 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 93,412 0 93,412 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................................................................................................................... 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 800,880 800,880 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 178,650 178,650 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 771,503 771,503 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 98,699 98,699 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 38,779 38,779 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 922,503 922,503 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 761,056 761,056 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 62,971 62,971 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 233,105 233,105 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,019,059 1,019,059 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 712,139 74,200 786,339 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [74,200 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S .................................................................................................................................. 1,013,715 1,013,715 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,613,059 74,200 6,687,259 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10,812 10,812 

140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 1,551 1,551 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

150 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 78,284 78,284 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 46,995 46,995 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,390 6,390 180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 297,105 297,105 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 441,137 0 441,137 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................................................................................................................... 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4,952,522 32,500 4,985,022 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [32,500 ] 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,826,404 11,200 1,837,604 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [11,200 ] 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 38,639 38,639 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 90,030 90,030 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 362,700 362,700 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 915,881 915,881 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 35,838 608 36,446 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [608 ] 

080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 379,914 379,914 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3,884,836 99,500 3,984,336 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [99,500 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 734,852 61,400 796,252 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [61,400 ] 

110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,191,511 5,700 5,197,211 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [5,700 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
367 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 1,351,274 126,200 1,477,474 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [126,200 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 701,316 701,316 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ............................................................................................................................................................ 97,710 97,710 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 172,330 172,330 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 454,682 454,682 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 328,406 328,406 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 946,429 946,429 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 142,249 142,249 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 2,603 660 3,263 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [660 ] 

210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 102,970 102,970 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 199,128 –3,000 196,128 

Classified program decrease .............................................................................................................................................. [–3,000 ] 

230 CRUISE MISSILE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 92,671 92,671 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,193,188 1,193,188 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 105,985 105,985 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 532,627 532,627 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 304,160 304,160 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,011,528 1,011,528 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 1,996,821 100,000 2,096,821 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,460,918 4,460,918 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 32,610,122 434,768 33,044,890 MOBILIZATION 

310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 331,576 331,576 

320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 6,638 6,638 330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 222,752 222,752 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 73,310 73,310 350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,675 2,675 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 23,794 23,794 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MOBILIZATION TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 660,745 0 660,745 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

370 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 148,516 148,516 

380 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,384 9,384 390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 139,876 139,876 

400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 630,069 630,069 410 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9,294 9,294 420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 169,082 169,082 430 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 164,368 164,368 440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 241,733 241,733 450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 139,815 139,815 460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 94,632 94,632 470 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 51,373 51,373 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 1,798,142 0 1,798,142 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 886,088 886,088 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 13,131 13,131 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 115,742 115,742 

510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 382,150 382,150 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 268,403 268,403 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 317,293 317,293 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 207,128 207,128 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................................... 295,855 295,855 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 1,140,484 1,140,484 590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................... 52,873 52,873 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
369 

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 4,965 680 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 545,775 545,775 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 4,876,228 0 4,876,228 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................................................................................................... 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 837,012 837,012 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 894,555 894,555 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 223,337 56,000 279,337 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [56,000 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 97,878 97,878 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 774,619 774,619 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,166,661 2,166,661 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,994,062 56,000 5,050,062 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 17,693 17,693 

080 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 896 896 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 100,806 100,806 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 46,928 46,928 110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 356,426 356,426 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 179,747 179,747 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 52,255 52,255 140 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23,138 23,138 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 777,889 0 777,889 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 43,816 43,816 160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 305,107 305,107 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 87,500 87,500 180 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 46,276 46,276 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 482,699 0 482,699 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS .......................................................................................................... 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 586,620 1,900 588,520 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [1,900 ] 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 7,008 7,008 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 100,657 8,900 109,557 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [8,900 ] 

050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 305 305 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,927 3,927 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 75,933 75,933 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 601 601 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 44,364 44,364 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,477 15,477 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 115,608 115,608 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,967 1,967 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 43,726 43,726 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 69,011 69,011 150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 109,604 109,604 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,174,808 10,800 1,185,608 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
371 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,905 2,905 

170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 14,425 14,425 

180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,485 2,485 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3,129 3,129 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 22,944 0 22,944 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................................................................................................... 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 96,244 96,244 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 17,581 17,581 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 32,438 32,438 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 95,259 95,259 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 241,522 0 241,522 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 894 894 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11,743 11,743 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 9,158 9,158 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 21,795 0 21,795 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES ....................................................................................................................... 263,317 0 263,317 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,295,814 220,000 3,515,814 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [220,000 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,875,095 1,875,095 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,559,109 30,000 1,589,109 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Increase for ranges ............................................................................................................................................................. [30,000 ] 

040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 5,956,304 190,000 6,146,304 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [190,000 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 1,834,424 75,000 1,909,424 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [75,000 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,779,811 2,779,811 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 913,841 913,841 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 916,837 916,837 100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 720,349 720,349 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 305,275 305,275 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 433,658 433,658 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 1,146,016 –22,400 1,123,616 

Classified program decrease .............................................................................................................................................. [–22,400 ] 

140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 231,830 231,830 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,968,363 492,600 22,460,963 MOBILIZATION 

150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,015,902 2,015,902 

160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 147,216 147,216 170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,556,232 1,556,232 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 167,402 167,402 190 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 707,040 707,040 

MOBILIZATION TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 4,593,792 0 4,593,792 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

200 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 102,334 102,334 

210 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 17,733 17,733 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 94,600 94,600 230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 217,011 217,011 240 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 800,327 800,327 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 399,364 399,364 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 792,275 792,275 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 248,958 248,958 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 106,741 106,741 290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 319,331 20,000 339,331 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

300 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 122,736 122,736 310 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,679 3,679 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 137,255 137,255 330 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 176,153 176,153 340 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 67,018 67,018 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 3,605,515 20,000 3,625,515 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,103,684 1,103,684 

360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 919,923 919,923 370 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 56,601 56,601 380 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 281,061 281,061 390 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,203,305 1,203,305 400 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 593,865 593,865 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 574,609 574,609 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1,028,600 1,028,600 430 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 24,720 24,720 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 89,008 89,008 460 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,227,796 1,227,796 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 7,103,172 0 7,103,172 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .................................................................................................................. 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,857,951 1,857,951 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 224,462 224,462 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 521,182 521,182 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 89,704 8,700 98,404 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [8,700 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 360,836 360,836 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,054,135 8,700 3,062,835 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64,362 64,362 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 15,056 15,056 

080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 23,617 23,617 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 6,618 6,618 100 AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 819 819 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 110,472 0 110,472 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,371,871 3,371,871 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 720,305 720,305 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,514,870 1,514,870 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 296,953 28,200 325,153 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [28,200 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 597,303 597,303 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,501,302 28,200 6,529,502 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32,117 32,117 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 32,585 32,585 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL ...................................................................................................... 64,702 0 64,702 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG ............................................................................................................................. 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 472,239 472,239 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................ 5,261,463 –21,800 5,239,663 

USSOCOM RSCC .................................................................................................................................................................. [–14,700 ] 

USSOCOM NCR Contractor Support .................................................................................................................................... [–7,100 ] 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,733,702 –21,800 5,711,902 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 157,397 157,397 

050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................................. 84,899 84,899 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 242,296 0 242,296 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 144,443 21,699 166,142 

Starbase .............................................................................................................................................................................. [21,699 ] 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 612,207 612,207 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,378,606 1,378,606 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 763,091 763,091 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 1,326,243 1,326,243 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 29,933 29,933 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 462,545 462,545 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 222,979 222,979 170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 21,594 21,594 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 788,389 –19,000 769,389 

Regional centers for security centers—undistributed decrease ....................................................................................... [–12,000 ] Combating terrorism fellowship program ........................................................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 546,603 546,603 210 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 35,151 35,151 220 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 438,033 438,033 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,713,756 30,000 2,743,756 

Supplemental Impact Aid ................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] Disability Impact Aid .......................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

250 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 256,201 256,201 270 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 371,615 –273,300 98,315 

Program decrease ............................................................................................................................................................... [–273,300 ] 

280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 2,010,176 –7,000 2,003,176 

OUSD(P) program decrease ................................................................................................................................................ [–7,000 ] 

290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 616,572 616,572 290 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14,283,558 25,000 14,308,558 

Reduction to Operation Observant Compass ..................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] Increase to Operation Observant Compass ........................................................................................................................ [40,000 ] 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 27,021,695 –222,601 26,799,094 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ....................................................................................................... 32,997,693 –244,401 32,753,292 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 13,606 13,606 

010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 109,500 109,500 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT ......................................................................................................................... 528,455 528,455 010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ....................................................................................................................................................... 256,031 256,031 050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 298,815 298,815 070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 316,103 316,103 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 439,820 439,820 110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 10,757 10,757 130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 237,443 237,443 150 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND ....................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 2,215,530 2,215,530 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 217,571 217,571 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 8,266 8,266 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 56,626 56,626 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,209,942 4,209,942 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 950,567 –7,000 943,567 

NSHQ—Transfer at DoD Request ....................................................................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 474,288 474,288 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 1,349,152 136,300 1,485,452 

BuckEye terrain data increase ........................................................................................................................................... [56,300 ] Transfer from JIEDDO—Train the Force ............................................................................................................................. [80,000 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 655,000 655,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 301,563 301,563 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 706,214 706,214 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 11,519,498 11,519,498 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 60,000 60,000 160 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,240,358 2,240,358 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 22,749,045 129,300 22,878,345 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 4,601,356 4,601,356 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,418 17,418 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 110,000 110,000 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 94,820 94,820 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 54,000 54,000 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 250,000 250,000 480 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,402,994 1,402,994 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL .................................................................................................................................... 6,530,588 0 6,530,588 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 6,995 6,995 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 2,332 2,332 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 608 608 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 33,000 33,000 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 42,935 0 42,935 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................................................................................................................... 42,935 0 42,935 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 29,314 29,314 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 1,494 1,494 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 15,343 15,343 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,549 1,549 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 64,504 64,504 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 31,512 31,512 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 42,179 42,179 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S .................................................................................................................................. 11,996 11,996 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 240,826 0 240,826 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,480 1,480 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 1,480 0 1,480 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................................................................................................................... 199,371 0 199,371 AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,735,603 2,735,603 

020 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 278,650 278,650 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 2,180,382 2,180,382 

040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 626,550 626,550 

MINISTRY OF DEFENSE TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................ 5,821,185 0 5,821,185 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

060 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,214,995 1,214,995 

080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 54,696 54,696 

090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 626,119 626,119 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR TOTAL ............................................................................................................................................... 1,895,810 0 1,895,810 DETAINEE OPS 

110 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7,225 7,225 

140 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

DETAINEE OPS TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 9,725 0 9,725 

TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ..................................................................................................................... 7,726,720 0 7,726,720 

AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 

010 POWER ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 279,000 –29,000 250,000 

Unjustified expenditure ....................................................................................................................................................... [–29,000 ] 

AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL ....................................................................................................................... 279,000 0 250,000 TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL ........................................................................................................... 279,000 –29,000 250,000 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 845,169 845,169 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 600 600 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 17,489 17,489 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 78,491 78,491 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 162,420 162,420 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 2,700 2,700 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 50,130 50,130 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 949,539 949,539 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
381 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 20,226 20,226 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,679,660 1,679,660 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 37,760 37,760 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 25,351 25,351 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 20,045 20,045 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,212,296 1,212,296 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,203 10,203 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 127,972 127,972 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 221,427 221,427 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 13,386 13,386 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 110,940 110,940 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,585,804 0 5,585,804 MOBILIZATION 

340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 18,460 18,460 

360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 227,033 227,033 

MOBILIZATION TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 245,493 0 245,493 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 50,269 50,269 

430 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 5,400 5,400 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 55,669 0 55,669 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,418 2,418 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 516 516 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 5,107 5,107 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 1,411 1,411 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,545 2,545 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 153,427 153,427 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8,570 8,570 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,425 1,425 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

680 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5,608 5,608 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 181,027 0 181,027 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................................................................................................... 6,067,993 0 6,067,993 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 992,190 992,190 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 559,574 559,574 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 570,000 570,000 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 69,726 69,726 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,191,490 0 2,191,490 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 108,270 26,000 134,270 

Transfer from JIEDDO—Train the Force ............................................................................................................................. [26,000 ] 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 108,270 26,000 134,270 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 365,555 365,555 

160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,675 3,675 180 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 825 825 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 370,055 0 370,055 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS .......................................................................................................... 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 17,196 17,196 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 200 200 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 6,000 6,000 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 12,304 12,304 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,790 6,790 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,210 13,210 

TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES .................................................................................................................................................... 55,700 0 55,700 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................................................................................................... 55,700 0 55,700 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 11,124 11,124 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,410 1,410 

TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES .................................................................................................................................................... 12,534 0 12,534 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE .............................................................................................................. 12,534 0 12,534 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,712,393 1,712,393 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 836,104 836,104 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 14,118 14,118 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,373,480 1,373,480 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 122,712 122,712 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,520,333 1,520,333 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 31,582 31,582 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 147,524 147,524 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 857 857 120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 8,353 8,353 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 50,495 50,495 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,886,185 0 5,886,185 MOBILIZATION 

150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,091,133 3,091,133 

160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 47,897 47,897 

170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 387,179 387,179 180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 7,043 7,043 190 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 68,382 68,382 

MOBILIZATION TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 3,601,634 0 3,601,634 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

200 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 100 100 

210 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 478 478 240 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19,256 19,256 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 12,845 12,845 

260 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 731 731 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 607 607 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 720 720 320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 152 152 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 34,889 0 34,889 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 86,273 86,273 

360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 2,511 2,511 

390 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19,887 19,887 400 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,493 3,493 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 152,086 152,086 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 269,825 269,825 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 117 117 460 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 16,558 16,558 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 550,750 0 550,750 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................................. 10,005,224 0 10,005,224 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 26,599 26,599 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6,250 6,250 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 32,849 0 32,849 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 32,849 0 32,849 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 22,200 22,200 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 22,200 0 22,200 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG ............................................................................................................................. 22,200 0 22,200 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................ 2,222,868 7,000 2,229,868 

NSHQ—Transfer at DoD Request ....................................................................................................................................... [7,000 ] 

OPERATING FORCES TOTAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,277,917 7,000 2,284,917 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 27,781 27,781 

090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 45,746 45,746 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 76,348 76,348 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 99,538 99,538 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 9,620 9,620 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 1,950,000 1,950,000 240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 100,100 100,100 280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 38,227 38,227 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 2,784 2,784 290 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,862,066 1,862,066 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL ....................................................................................................... 4,212,210 0 4,212,210 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ....................................................................................................... 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(387) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 130,399,881 –270,000 130,129,881 

Permanent Change of Station Travel .......................................................................................................................... [–150,000 ] Undistributed reduction consistent with pace of drawdown ...................................................................................... [–120,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 130,399,881 –270,000 130,129,881 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 6,676,750 6,676,750 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 6,676,750 0 6,676,750 TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 137,076,631 –270,000 136,806,631 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
389 

MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 9,689,307 9,689,307 SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 9,689,307 0 9,689,307 

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 164,033 164,033 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 164,033 0 164,033 

TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 9,853,340 0 9,853,340 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(391) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS .......................................................................................................................... 25,158 25,158 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 25,158 0 25,158 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

030 FUEL COSTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61,731 61,731 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................. 61,731 0 61,731 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 46,428 46,428 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................................................................................... 46,428 0 46,428 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,412,510 1,412,510 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .......................................................................................................................... 1,412,510 0 1,412,510 TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS ............................................................................................................................ 1,545,827 0 1,545,827 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND 

020 MPF MLP ........................................................................................................................................................................... 134,917 –112,200 22,717 

Navy requested adjustment ......................................................................................................................................... [–112,200 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

030 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING ..................................................................................................................................... 43,404 43,404 050 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................. 116,784 116,784 060 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 60,703 60,703 070 TAH MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 19,809 19,809 080 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 56,058 56,058 090 READY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................................... 299,025 299,025 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ...................................................................................................................... 730,700 –112,200 618,500 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP O&M 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,880,738 8,880,738 

020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,842,732 15,842,732 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,505,640 2,505,640 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,450,619 1,450,619 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 368,248 368,248 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 733,097 733,097 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,872,660 1,872,660 

070A UNDISTRIBUTED, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................ 0 218,000 218,000 

Restore Tricare savings ............................................................................................................................................... [218,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M .............................................................................................................................................. 31,653,734 218,000 31,871,734 

DHP RDT&E 

080 R&D RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,162 9,162 

090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 47,977 47,977 100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 291,156 291,156 110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 132,430 132,430 120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 161,674 161,674 130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 72,568 72,568 140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 14,646 14,646 

SUBTOTAL, DHP RDT&E ........................................................................................................................................... 729,613 0 729,613 

DHP PROCUREMENT 

170 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................................................. 89,404 89,404 

180 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 377,577 377,577 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

190 PROC IEHR ........................................................................................................................................................................ 204,200 204,200 

SUBTOTAL, DHP PROCUREMENT .............................................................................................................................. 671,181 0 671,181 

TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION 

01 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 451,572 451,572 

02 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 604,183 604,183 03 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,368 1,368 

TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1,057,123 0 1,057,123 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................... 815,965 –5,840 810,125 

Joint Interagency Task Force—West (PC3309) ........................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] U.S. European Comman Counternarcotics Hedquaters Support (PC2346) ................................................................. [–1,640 ] U.S. Special Operations Forces Support to U.S. European Command (PC6505) ........................................................ [–1,200 ] 

030 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 122,580 122,580 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 938,545 –5,840 932,705 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 311,131 35,900 347,031 

Program increase ......................................................................................................................................................... [35,900 ] 

030 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 312,131 35,900 348,031 

TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS .......................................................................................................................... 44,732 44,732 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 44,732 0 44,732 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

030 FUEL COSTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 88,500 88,500 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................. 88,500 0 88,500 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 131,678 131,678 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................................................................................... 131,678 0 131,678 

TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS ............................................................................................................................ 264,910 0 264,910 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP O&M 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 375,958 375,958 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 382,560 382,560 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 132,749 132,749 

040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 2,238 2,238 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 460 460 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 10,236 10,236 

SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M .............................................................................................................................................. 904,201 0 904,201 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 904,201 0 904,201 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................... 376,305 376,305 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 376,305 0 376,305 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 10,766 10,766 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 10,766 0 10,766 TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,556,182 0 1,556,182 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(397) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ACTIVE SERVICIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Battalion Complex ......................................... 45,000 45,000 ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Storage Hangar .............................................. 58,000 58,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Fire Station .................................................................. 12,000 12,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Headquarters Building ................................................. 33,000 33,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 73,000 73,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 66,000 66,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Runway ......................................................................... 12,000 12,000 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Simulator Building ....................................................... 12,200 12,200 ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Central Energy Plant .................................................... 34,000 34,000 ARMY FLORIDA EGLIN AFB Automated Sniper Field Fire Range ............................. 4,700 4,700 ARMY GA FT GORDON Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph2 ............... 61,000 61,000 ARMY HAWAII FT SHAFTER Command and Control Facility—Admin ..................... 75,000 75,000 ARMY KANSAS FT LEAVENWORTH Simulations Center ...................................................... 17,000 17,000 ARMY KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Battlefield Weather Support Facility ............................ 4,800 4,800 ARMY MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Operations and Maintenance Facilities ....................... 21,000 21,000 ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Hazardous Material Storage Building .......................... 4,600 4,600 ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Entry Control Point ....................................................... 2,500 2,500 ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph1 ............... 86,000 86,000 ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Simulator Building ....................................................... 4,700 4,700 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

ARMY NEW YORK U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY Cadet Barracks, Incr 2 ................................................ 42,000 42,000 ARMY NC FT BRAGG Command and Control Facility .................................... 5,900 5,900 ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Control Tower ............................................................... 10,800 10,800 ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Complex .............................. 36,000 36,000 ARMY VIRGINIA JT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph3 ............... 50,000 50,000 ARMY WASHINGTON YAKIMA Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range ............ 9,100 9,100 ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Airfield Operations Complex ........................................ 37,000 37,000 ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 79,000 79,000 ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aviation Battalion Complex ......................................... 28,000 28,000 ARMY KWAJALEIN KWAJALEIN ATOLL Pier ............................................................................... 63,000 63,000ARMY WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION Company Operations Complex ..................................... 33,000 33,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Minor Construction FY14 ............................................. 25,000 25,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design FY14 .......................................... 41,575 41,575 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Host Nation Support FY14 ........................................... 33,000 33,000 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1,119,875 0 1,119,875 

NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVY CALIFORNIA BARSTOW Engine Dynamometer Facility ...................................... 14,998 14,998 NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CA Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade .............................. 13,124 13,124 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, CA Camp Wilson Infrastructure Upgrades ........................ 33,437 33,437 NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO H–60 Trainer Facility ................................................... 8,910 8,910 NAVY FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE P–8A Training & Parking Apron Expansion ................. 20,752 20,752 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 GA ALBANY Weapons Storage and Inspection Facility ................... 15,600 15,600 NAVY GA ALBANY CERS Dispatch Facility ................................................ 1,010 1,010 NAVY GA SAVANNAH Townsend Bombing Range Land Acq—Phase 1 ........ 61,717 61,717 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Armory Addition and Renovation ................................. 12,952 12,952 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY 3rd Radio Bn Maintenance/Operations Complex ......... 25,336 25,336 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance Hangar Upgrades ...................... 31,820 31,820 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance Expansion .................................. 16,968 16,968 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aviation Simulator Modernization/Addition .................. 17,724 17,724 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV–22 Parking Apron and Infrastructure ................... 74,665 74,665 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV–22 Hangar ............................................................. 57,517 57,517 NAVY HAWAII PEARL CITY Water Transmission Line ............................................. 30,100 30,100 NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Drydock Waterfront Facility .......................................... 22,721 22,721 NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Submarine Production 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 FT MEADE MARFORCYBERCOM HQ-OPS Building ......................... 83,988 83,988 NAVY NEVADA FALLON Wastewater Treatment Plant ....................................... 11,334 11,334 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Operations Training Complex ....................................... 22,515 22,515 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Landfill—Phase 4 ....................................................... 20,795 20,795 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization—Camp Johnson .................... 2,620 2,620 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization—Hadnot Point ....................... 13,390 13,390 NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization—BEQ Nodes .......................... 18,679 18,679 NAVY NC NEW RIVER Corrosion Control Hangar ............................................ 12,547 12,547 NAVY NC NEW RIVER CH–53K Maintenance Training Facility ....................... 13,218 13,218 NAVY NC 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO ATC Transmitter/Receiver Relocation ........................... 3,630 3,630 NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Fuller Road Improvements ........................................... 9,013 9,013 NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Academic Instruction Facility TECOM Schools ............ 25,731 25,731 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Small Arms Ranges ..................................................... 18,700 18,700 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 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 GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS BAMS Forward Operational & Maintenance Hangar ... 61,702 61,702 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar—North Ramp ............... 85,673 –85,673 0 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Modular Storage Magazines ........................................ 63,382 63,382 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS X-Ray Wharf Improvements ......................................... 53,420 53,420 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Emergent Repair Facility Expansion ............................ 35,860 35,860 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Dehumidified Supply Storage Facility .......................... 17,170 17,170 NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Sierra Wharf Improvements ......................................... 1,170 1,170 NAVY JAPAN YOKOSUKA Communication System Upgrade ................................. 7,568 7,568 NAVY JAPAN CAMP BUTLER Airfield Security Upgrades ........................................... 5,820 5,820 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Armory .......................................................................... 6,420 6,420 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Unaccompanied Housing ............................................. 22,580 22,580 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 19,740 19,740 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCON Design Funds .................................................... 89,830 89,830 

SUBTOTAL, NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1,700,269 –85,673 1,614,596 

AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF ARIZONA LUKE AFB F–35 Field Training Detachment ................................. 5,500 5,500 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 HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBORHICKAM C–17 Modernize Hgr 35, Docks 1&2 ........................... 4,800 4,800 AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A 1–Bay Maintenance Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). 32,000 32,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A 2–Bay Corrosion/Fuel Hangar (Air Force Requested Change). 82,000 82,000 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A 3–Bay General Purpose Maintenance Hangar 

(Air Force Requested Change).

80,000 80,000 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A ADAL Flight Simulator Buildings (Air Force 

Requested Change).

2,150 2,150 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A Alter Aircraft Parking Apron (Air Force Requested Change). 2,200 2,200 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A Alter Apron Fuels Distribution Systems (Air 

Force Requested Change).

12,800 12,800 

AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A Alter Miscellaneous Facilities (Air Force Requested Change). 970 970 AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC–46A Pipeline Student Dormitory (Air Force Requested Change). 7,000 7,000 

AF KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY 19th Air Support Operations Sqdrn Expansion ........... 8,000 8,000 AF MARYLAND FT MEADE CYBERCOM Joint Operations Center, Increment 1 ...... 85,000 85,000 AF MARYLAND JT 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 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 Parts Store .......................................................... 9,100 9,100 AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F–35 Fuel Cell Hangar ................................................ 9,400 9,400 AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB Add RPA Weapons School Facility ............................... 20,000 20,000 AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Airmen and Family Readiness Center ......................... 5,500 5,500 AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Satellite Dining Facility ............................................... 6,600 6,600 AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Dormitory (144 RM) ..................................................... 22,000 22,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

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 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 TINKER AFB KC–46A Land Acquisition ............................................ 8,600 8,600 AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC–46A FTU ADAL Fuel Systems Maintenance Dock 

For Hangar (Air Force Requested Change).

3,350 3,350 

AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC–46A FTU ADAL Squadron Operations/AMU (Air 

Force Requested Change).

7,400 7,400 

AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC–46A FTU FTC Simulator Facility (Air Force Requested Change). 12,600 12,600 

AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC–46A FTU Fuselage Trainer (Air Force Requested 

Change).

6,300 6,300 

AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC–46A Renovate Facility for 97 OG and 97 MXTS 

(Air Force Requested Change).

1,200 1,200 

AF TEXAS FT BLISS F–16 BAK 12/14 Aircraft Arresting System ................. 3,350 3,350 AF UTAH HILL AFB Fire Crash Rescue Station ........................................... 18,500 18,500 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Unit Hangar 45E Ops #1 ................ 13,500 13,500 AF VIRGINIA JT 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 GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR—Tanker GP Mx Hangar/AMU/Sqd Ops ................ 132,600 –132,600 0 AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR—Fuel Sys Hardened Bldgs .................................. 20,000 –20,000 0 AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR—Strike Tactical Missile Mxs Facility .................. 10,530 10,530 AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC RED HORSE Airfield Operations Facility ............ 8,500 8,500 AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC SF Fire Rescue & Emergency Mgt ..................... 4,600 4,600 AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR—Maintenance Facility ......................................... 2,800 2,800 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 UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Guardian Angel Operations Facility ............................. 22,047 –22,047 0 AF UNITED KINGDOM CROUGHTON RAF Main Gate Complex ...................................................... 12,000 –12,000 0 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC–46A MOB #1 Facility Projects ............................... 192,700 –192,700 0 

Air Force Requested Change ....................................... [–192,700] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC–46A FTU Facility Projects ...................................... 63,000 –63,000 0 

Air Force Requested Change ....................................... [–63,000] 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 20,448 20,448 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design ....................................................... 11,314 11,314 

SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1,156,573 –192,377 964,196 

DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Facility ......................................... 38,513 38,513 DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Fit-Out ......................................... 29,100 29,100 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Energy Conservation Investment PRGM ....................... 150,000 150,000 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Contingency Construction ............................................ 10,000 10,000 DISA HAWAII FORD ISLAND DISA Pacific Facility Upgrades .................................... 2,615 2,615 DLA CALIFORNIA DEFENSE DIST DEPOTTRACY General Purpose Warehouse ........................................ 37,554 37,554 DLA CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR Replace Fuel Pipeline .................................................. 6,000 6,000 DLA FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE Replace Fuel Pipeline .................................................. 7,500 7,500 DLA FLORIDA PANAMA CITY Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ..................... 2,600 2,600 DLA FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline .................................................. 9,500 9,500 DLA GA MOODY AFB Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ..................... 3,800 3,800 DLA GA HUNTER ARMY AIRFIELD Replace Fuel Island ..................................................... 13,500 13,500 DLA HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBORHICKAM Alter Warehouse Space ................................................ 2,800 2,800 DLA NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST Replace Fuel Distribution Components ....................... 10,000 10,000 DLA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ...................................... 21,400 21,400 DLA NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline .................................................. 6,400 6,400 DLA OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB Replace Refueler Parking ............................................ 2,100 2,100 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

DLA OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Replace Fuel Distribution Facilities ............................. 36,000 36,000 DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

Upgrade Public Safety Facility .................................... 5,900 5,900 

DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

Upgrade Hazardous Material Warehouse ..................... 3,100 3,100 

DLA TENNESSEE ARNOLD AF BASE Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ..................... 2,200 2,200 DLA VIRGINIA DEF DIST DEPOT RICHMOND Operations Center Phase 1 .......................................... 87,000 87,000 DLA WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND Replace Fuel Pier Breakwater ...................................... 10,000 10,000 DLA JAPAN ATSUGI Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ..................... 4,100 4,100 DLA JAPAN IWAKUNI Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................... 34,000 34,000 DLA JAPAN YOKOSUKA Upgrade Fuel Pumps ................................................... 10,600 10,600 DLA UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL Replace Fuel Storage ................................................... 17,732 –17,732 0 DODEA GA FT BENNING Faith Middle School Addition ....................................... 6,031 6,031 DODEA GA FT BENNING White Elemtary School Replacement ........................... 37,304 37,304 DODEA GA FT STEWART, GA Diamond Elementary School Replacement .................. 44,504 44,504 DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Marshall Elementary School Replacement .................. 38,591 38,591 DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Fort Campbell High School Replacement .................... 59,278 59,278 DODEA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Consolidate/Replace Van Voorhis-Mudge ES ............... 38,023 38,023 DODEA MASSACHUSETTS HANSCOM AFB Hanscom Primary School Replacement ....................... 36,213 36,213 DODEA NC FT BRAGG Consolidate/Replace Pope Holbrook Elementary .......... 37,032 37,032 DODEA SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFT Bolden Elementary/Middle School Replacement .......... 41,324 41,324 DODEA VIRGINIA QUANTICO Quantico Middle/High School Replacement ................. 40,586 40,586 DODEA GERMANY KAISERLAUTERN AB Kaiserslautern Elementary School Replacement ......... 49,907 –49,907 0 DODEA GERMANY RAMSTEIN AB Ramstein High School Replacement ........................... 98,762 –98,762 0 DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Hainerberg Elementary School Replacement ............... 58,899 –58,899 0 DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Wiesbaden Middle School Replacement ...................... 50,756 –50,756 0 DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Kadena Middle School Addition/Renovation ................ 38,792 38,792 DODEA KOREA CAMP WALKER Daegu Middle/High School Replacement ..................... 52,164 52,164 DODEA UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Lakenheath High School Replacement ........................ 69,638 –69,638 0 MDA ALASKA CLEAR AFS BMDS Upgrade Early Warning Radar .......................... 17,204 17,204 MDA ALASKA FT GREELY Mechanical-Electrical Bldg Missile Field #1 ............... 82,000 82,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MDA ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA Aegis Ashore Missile Def Sys Cmplx, Increm. 2 ......... 85,000 85,000 MDA WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION AN/TPY–2 Radar Site ................................................... 15,000 15,000 NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE NSAW Recapitalize Building #1/Site M Inc 2 .............. 58,000 58,000 NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE High Performance Computing Capacity Inc 3 ............. 431,000 –50,000 381,000 SOCOM CALIFORNIA BRAWLEY SOF Desert Warfare Training Center ........................... 23,095 23,095 SOCOM COLORADO FT CARSON, CO SOF Group Support Battalion ...................................... 22,282 22,282 SOCOM FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD SOF ADD/ALTER Operations Facility ............................. 7,900 7,900 SOCOM FLORIDA KEY WEST SOF Boat Docks ........................................................... 3,600 3,600 SOCOM KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY SOF Group Special Troops Battalion ........................... 26,342 26,342 SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Performance Resiliency Center ............................. 14,400 14,400 SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Sustainment Training Complex ............................ 28,977 28,977 SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Upgrade Training Facility ..................................... 14,719 14,719 SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Engineer Training Facility .................................... 10,419 10,419 SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Civil Affairs Battalion Annex ................................ 37,689 37,689 SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Language and Cultural Center ............................ 64,606 64,606 SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Combat Medic Skills Sustain. Course Bldg ......... 7,600 7,600 SOCOM VIRGINIA DAM NECK SOF Human Performance Center ................................. 11,147 11,147 SOCOM VIRGINIA JT EXP BASE LITTLE 

CREEK—STORY 

SOF LOGSU Two Operations Facility ............................ 30,404 30,404 

SOCOM JAPAN TORRI COMMO STATION SOF Facility Augmentation ........................................... 71,451 71,451 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Squadron Operations Facility ............................... 11,652 –11,652 0 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Hangar/AMU .......................................................... 24,371 –24,371 0 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Airfiled Pavements ............................................... 24,077 –24,077 0 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF MRSP and Parts Storage ...................................... 6,797 –6,797 0 TMA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Ambulatory Health Center ............................................ 265,000 –190,000 75,000 TMA MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Public Health Command Lab Replacement ................. 210,000 –135,000 75,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Mech & Electrical Improvements ................................. 46,800 46,800 TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Parking Garage ............................................................ 20,000 20,000 TMA MARYLAND FT DETRICK USAMRIID Replacement Stage 1, Incr 8 ..................... 13,000 13,000 TMA MARYLAND JT BASE ANDREWS Ambulatory Care Center Inc 2 ..................................... 76,200 –38,100 38,100 TMA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 60,000 60,000 TMA TEXAS FT BLISS Hospital Replacement Incr 5 ....................................... 252,100 –152,100 100,000 TMA TEXAS JT BASE SAN ANTONIO SAMMC Hyperbaric Facility Addition ............................ 12,600 12,600 TMA BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement ............................. 45,400 45,400 TMA GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS Medical Center Replacement, Incr 3 ........................... 151,545 –75,000 76,545 WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON PFPA Support Operations Center ................................. 14,800 14,800 WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Boundary Channel Access Control Point ..................... 6,700 6,700 WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Army Navy Drive Tour Bus Drop Off ............................ 1,850 –1,850 0 WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Exterior Cooling Tower ............................. 4,100 4,100 WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Administrative Facility Upgrade .............. 32,000 32,000 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 3,000 3,000 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 7,430 7,430 DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 5,409 5,409 MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 2,000 2,000 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 1,500 1,500 SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 5,170 5,170 TJS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Exercise Related Minor Construction ........................... 9,730 9,730 TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 9,578 9,578 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 50,192 50,192 DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 75,905 75,905 MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design ....................................................... 10,891 10,891 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 57,053 57,053 SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 36,866 36,866 WHS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 6,931 6,931 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3,985,300 –1,054,641 2,930,659 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, ACTIVE SERVICES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7,962,017 –1,332,691 6,629,326 

NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ALABAMA DECATUR National Guard Readiness Center Add/Alt .................. 4,000 4,000 ARMY ARKANSAS FT CHAFFEE Scout/RECCE Gunnery Complex ................................... 21,000 21,000 ARMY FLORIDA PINELLAS PARK Ready Building ............................................................. 5,700 5,700 ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Readiness Center ......................................................... 14,000 14,000 ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 28,000 28,000 ARMY MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training Add ................. 19,000 19,000 ARMY MICHIGAN CAMP GRAYLING Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ......................... 17,000 17,000 ARMY MINNESOTA STILLWATER Readiness Center ......................................................... 17,000 17,000 ARMY MISSISSIPPI CAMP SHELBY Water Supply/Treatment Building, Potable .................. 3,000 3,000 ARMY MISSISSIPPI PASCAGOULA Readiness Center ......................................................... 4,500 4,500 ARMY MISSOURI MACON Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................... 9,100 9,100 ARMY MISSOURI WHITEMAN AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 5,000 5,000 ARMY NEW YORK NEW YORK Readiness Center Add/Alt ............................................ 31,000 31,000 ARMY OHIO RAVENNA ARMY AMMU 

PLANT 

Sanitary Sewer ............................................................. 5,200 5,200 

ARMY PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Aircraft Maintenance Instructional Building ............... 40,000 40,000 ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................... 13,000 13,000 ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Readiness Center ......................................................... 13,000 13,000 ARMY TEXAS FT WORTH Armed Forces Reserve Center Add .............................. 14,270 14,270 ARMY WYOMING AFTON National Guard Readiness Center ............................... 10,200 10,200 ARMY PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO Maneuver Area Training & Equipment Site Addit ....... 5,600 5,600 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 12,240 12,240 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 29,005 29,005 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 320,815 0 320,815 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM IAP Add to and Alter Distributed Ground Station F .......... 8,500 8,500 AF INDIANA HULMAN REGIONAL AIRPORT Add/Alter Bldg 37 For Dist Common Ground Sta ....... 7,300 7,300 AF MARYLAND FT MEADE 175th Network Warfare Squadron Facility ................... 4,000 4,000 AF MARYLAND MARTIN STATE AIRPORT CYBER/ISR Facility ....................................................... 8,000 8,000 AF MONTANA GREAT FALLS IAP Intra-Theater Airlift Conversion ................................... 22,000 22,000 AF NEW YORK FT DRUM, NEW YORK MQ–9 Flight Training Unit Hangar .............................. 4,700 4,700 AF OHIO SPRINGFIELD BECKLEYMAP Alter Intelligence Operations Facility ........................... 7,200 7,200 AF PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Communications Operations and Training Facili ........ 7,700 7,700 AF RHODE ISLAND QUONSET STATE AIRPORT C–130J Flight Simulator Training Facility ................... 6,000 6,000 AF TENNESSEE MCGHEE-TYSON AIRPORT TEC Expansion- Dormitory & Classroom Facility ......... 18,000 18,000 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 13,000 13,000 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 13,400 13,400 

SUBTOTAL, AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................... 119,800 0 119,800 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 440,615 0 440,615 

RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY CALIFORNIA CAMP PARKS Army Reserve Center .................................................... 17,500 17,500 ARMY CALIFORNIA FT HUNTER LIGGETT TASS Training Center (TTC) ......................................... 16,500 16,500 ARMY MARYLAND BOWIE Army Reserve Center .................................................... 25,500 25,500 ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST Consolidated Dining Facility ........................................ 13,400 13,400 ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST Central Issue Facility ................................................... 7,900 7,900 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun (MPMG) .......... 9,500 9,500 ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 5,400 5,400 ARMY NEW YORK BULLVILLE Army Reserve Center .................................................... 14,500 14,500 ARMY NC FT BRAGG Army Reserve Center .................................................... 24,500 24,500 ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Access Control Point/Mail/Freight Center .................... 17,500 17,500 ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY NCO Academy Dining Facility ...................................... 5,900 5,900 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 1,748 1,748 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 14,212 14,212 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................ 174,060 0 174,060 

NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVY CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB NOSC Moreno Valley Reserve Training Center ............. 11,086 11,086 NAVY MISSOURI KANSAS CITY Reserve Training Center—Belton, Missouri ................ 15,020 15,020 NAVY TENNESSEE MEMPHIS Reserve Boat Maintenance and Storage Facility ........ 4,330 4,330 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE USMCR Planning and Design ...................................... 1,040 1,040 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCNR Planning & Design ............................................ 1,500 1,500 

SUBTOTAL, NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................. 32,976 0 32,976 

AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AF CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB Joint Regional Deployment Processing Center, ........... 19,900 19,900 AF FLORIDA HOMESTEAD AFS Entry Control Complex ................................................. 9,800 9,800 AF OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Air Control Group Squadron Operations ...................... 12,200 12,200 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 1,530 1,530 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 2,229 2,229 

SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 45,659 0 45,659 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
411 

SUBTOTAL, RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 252,695 0 252,695 

TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MAJOR ACCOUNTS .................................................................................................................. 8,655,327 –1,332,691 7,322,636 

CHEM-DEMIL ARMY KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Ph XIV .............. 122,536 122,536 

SUBTOTAL, CHEM-DEMIL ............................................................................................................................................................... 122,536 0 122,536 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PRGM Nato Security Investment PRGM .................................. 239,700 239,700 

SUBTOTAL, NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 239,700 0 239,700 

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING ARMY FAMILY HOUSING ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Family Housing New Construction (56 units) ............. 23,000 23,000 ARMY GERMANY SOUTH CAMP VILSECK Family Housing New Construction (29 units) ............. 16,600 –16,600 0 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing P & D ................................................. 4,408 4,408 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................... 44,008 –16,600 27,408 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities ......................................................................... 96,907 96,907 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account .................................................. 54,433 54,433 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services ........................................................................ 13,536 13,536 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings .................................................................. 33,125 33,125 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous ............................................................... 646 646 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leased Housing ............................................................ 180,924 180,924 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real Property Facilities ...................... 107,639 107,639 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Military Housing Privitization Initiative ....................... 25,661 25,661 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M .................................................................................................................................... 512,871 0 512,871 SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................. 556,879 –16,600 540,279 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NAVY FAMILY HOUSING NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements ............................................................... 68,969 68,969NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Design .......................................................................... 4,438 4,438 

SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................... 73,407 0 73,407 

NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account ........................................................... 94,313 94,313 

NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account .................................................... 21,073 21,073 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account .................................................. 60,782 60,782 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 362 362 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account .......................................................... 20,596 20,596 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing ......................................................................... 74,962 74,962 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 90,122 90,122 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Privatization Support Costs ......................................... 27,634 27,634 

SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M ..................................................................................................................................... 389,844 0 389,844 SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING .............................................................................................................................................. 463,251 0 463,251 

AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements ............................................................... 72,093 72,093 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design ................................................... 4,267 4,267 

SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................... 76,360 0 76,360 

AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account ........................................................... 70,532 70,532 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account .................................................. 53,044 53,044 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account .......................................................... 16,862 16,862 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account .................................................... 39,470 39,470 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 1,954 1,954 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing ......................................................................... 54,514 54,514 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance (RPMA RPMC) ......................................... 110,786 110,786 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Housing Privatization ................................................... 41,436 41,436 

SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M ............................................................................................................................ 388,598 0 388,598 SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING ..................................................................................................................................... 464,958 0 464,958 

DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account ........................................................... 288 288 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account ........................................................... 12 12 DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account .................................................... 3,196 3,196 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account .................................................... 20 20 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account .......................................................... 32 32 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account .................................................. 418 418 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account .................................................... 67 67 DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing ......................................................................... 40,433 40,433 

NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing ......................................................................... 10,994 10,994 DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 311 311 NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 74 74 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M ..................................................................................................................... 55,845 0 55,845 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING .............................................................................................................................. 55,845 0 55,845 

DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing Improvement Fund ............................. 1,780 1,780 

SUBTOTAL, DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND ............................................................................................................ 1,780 0 1,780 TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,542,713 –16,600 1,526,113 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, ARMY Base Realignment and Closure ................................... 180,401 180,401 

SUBTOTAL, ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 180,401 0 180,401 

NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, NAVY Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 108,300 108,300 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................... 5,766 5,766 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................... 993 993 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO .............................. 40 40 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP .......... 1,216 1,216 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–100: Planing, Design and Management ............. 7,277 7,277 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON–101: Various Locations ....................................... 20,988 20,988 

SUBTOTAL, NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 144,580 0 144,580 

AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DoD BRAC Activities—AF ............................................ 126,376 126,376 

SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ............................................................................................................ 126,376 0 126,376 

TOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................... 451,357 0 451,357 TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SECONDARY ACCOUNTS .......................................................................................................... 2,356,306 –16,600 2,339,706 

GRAND TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 11,011,633 –1,349,291 9,662,342 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(415) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY & ENERGY RESTORATION (HS) ........................................................................................... 16,000 –16,000 0 

Not a defense function ................................................................................................................................. [–16,000 ] 

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY ................................................................................................................... 16,000 0 0 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY ......................................................................................................................... 94,000 94,000 

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................................................................................................................................................... 94,000 0 94,000 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND MAJOR ALTERATIONS 

B61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. 537,044 537,044 W76 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. 235,382 235,382 W78/88–1 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 72,691 72,691 W88 ALT 370 ........................................................................................................................................................... 169,487 169,487 

TOTAL, STOCKPILE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 1,014,604 0 1,014,604 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

STOCKPILE SYSTEMS 

B61 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................................ 83,536 83,536 W76 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 47,187 47,187 W78 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 54,381 54,381 W80 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 50,330 50,330 B83 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................................ 54,948 54,948 W87 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 101,506 101,506 W88 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 62,600 62,600 

TOTAL, STOCKPILE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................ 454,488 0 454,488 WEAPONS DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................. 49,264 49,264 

STOCKPILE SERVICES 

PRODUCTION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 321,416 321,416 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT ............................................................................................................... 26,349 26,349 R&D CERTIFICATION AND SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 191,259 191,259 MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND PRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 214,187 214,187 PLUTONIUM SUSTAINMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 156,949 156,949 

TOTAL, STOCKPILE SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................... 910,160 0 910,160 

TOTAL, DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK ......................................................................................................................................... 2,428,516 0 2,428,516 CAMPAIGNS: 

SCIENCE CAMPAIGN 

ADVANCED CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................................... 54,730 54,730 PRIMARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................................... 109,231 109,231 DYNAMIC MATERIALS PROPERTIES .......................................................................................................................... 116,965 116,965 ADVANCED RADIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 30,509 30,509 SECONDARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................................. 86,467 86,467 

TOTAL, SCIENCE CAMPAIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 397,902 0 397,902 

ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ENHANCED SURETY .................................................................................................................................................. 51,771 51,771 WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 23,727 23,727 NUCLEAR SURVIVABILITY ......................................................................................................................................... 19,504 19,504 ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 54,909 54,909 

TOTAL, ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 149,911 0 149,911 

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IGNITION AND HIGH YIELD CAMPAIGN 

IGNITION ................................................................................................................................................................... 80,245 80,245 SUPPORT OF OTHER STOCKPILE PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................... 15,001 15,001 DIAGNOSTICS, CRYOGENICS AND EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT ................................................................................... 59,897 59,897 PULSED POWER INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION ................................................................................................... 5,024 5,024 JOINT PROGRAM IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY LABORATORY 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 0 1,710,965 

NUCLEAR PROGRAMS 

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS CAPABILITY .................................................................................................................................. 265,937 265,937 CAPABILITIES BASED INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 39,558 39,558 CONSTRUCTION: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

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 

OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 122,072 122,072 PROGRAM DIRECTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 97,118 97,118 

TOTAL, SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET ................................................................................................................................. 219,190 0 219,190 SITE STEWARDSHIP 

NUCLEAR MATERIALS INTEGRATION .................................................................................................................................. 17,679 17,679 CORPORATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13,017 13,017 MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 14,531 14,531 ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE 

SITE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,112,455 1,112,455 SITE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 109,561 109,561 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 433,764 433,764 FACILITIES DISPOSITION ........................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

SUBTOTAL, ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................... 1,660,780 0 1,660,780 

TOTAL, SITE STEWARDSHIP ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,706,007 0 1,706,007 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 664,981 664,981 CONSTRUCTION: 

14–D–710 DAF ARGUS, NNSS ................................................................................................................................. 14,000 14,000 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY ....................................................................................................................................... 678,981 0 678,981 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 148,441 148,441 LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 279,597 279,597 

SUBTOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 7,916,147 0 7,916,147 

ADJUSTMENTS 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ....................................................................................................................................... –47,738 –47,738 RESCISSION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ –47,738 0 –47,738 

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 7,868,409 0 7,868,409 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................................... 424,487 424,487 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION R&D 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................. 388,838 388,838 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ....................................................................................................... 141,675 141,675 INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION ........................................................................................... 369,625 369,625 FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION 

U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

U.S. PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION ............................................................................................................... 157,557 157,557 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

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 80,000 400,000 

Program increase ............................................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 320,000 80,000 400,000 

TOTAL, U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION ....................................................................................... 502,557 80,000 582,557 

TOTAL, FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION ........................................................................................................................ 502,557 80,000 582,557 LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 93,703 93,703 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS ................................................................................................... 1,920,885 80,000 2,000,885 NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 181,293 181,293 COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 74,666 74,666 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ................................................................................................................ 2,176,844 80,000 2,256,844 ADJUSTMENTS 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ....................................................................................................................................... –36,702 –36,702 

TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ –36,702 0 –36,702 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ............................................................................................................................... 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142 NAVAL REACTORS 

NAVAL REACTORS OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................ 455,740 –2,000 453,740 

Excess to need ....................................................................................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 419,400 419,400 OHIO REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 126,400 126,400 S8G PROTOTYPE REFUELING ...................................................................................................................................................... 144,400 144,400 PROGRAM DIRECTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 44,404 44,404 CONSTRUCTION: 

14–D–902 KL MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION LABORATORY EXPANSION, KAPL ............................................................ 1,000 1,000 14–D–901 SPENT FUEL HANDLING RECAPITALIZATION PROJECT, NRF ............................................................................ 45,400 45,400 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [2,000 ] 

NAVAL REACTOR FACILITY, ID ........................................................................................................................................... 1,700 1,700 

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 69,773 2,000 71,773 

SUBTOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,260,117 0 1,260,117 

ADJUSTMENTS: 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES (NAVAL REACTORS) ....................................................................................................... –13,983 –13,983 

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,246,134 0 1,246,134 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................................................................................................................ 397,784 397,784 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ........................................................................................................................................... 397,784 0 397,784 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

CLOSURE SITES: 

CLOSURE SITES ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................................................... 4,702 4,702 

HANFORD SITE: 

RIVER CORRIDOR AND OTHER CLEANUP OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 393,634 20,000 413,634 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

CENTRAL PLATEAU REMEDIATION ..................................................................................................................................... 513,450 513,450 RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 

TOTAL, HANFORD SITE ............................................................................................................................................................... 921,785 20,000 941,785 IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

IDAHO CLEANUP AND WASTE DISPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 362,100 30,000 392,100 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

IDAHO COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 2,910 2,910 

TOTAL, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY ..................................................................................................................................... 365,010 30,000 395,010 NNSA SITES 

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY .............................................................................................................. 1,476 1,476 NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D SEPARATIONS PROCESS RESEARCH UNIT .............................................................................. 23,700 23,700 NEVADA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 61,897 61,897 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES .................................................................................................................................... 2,814 2,814 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY .............................................................................................................................. 219,789 40,000 259,789 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

TOTAL, NNSA SITES AND NEVADA OFF-SITES ........................................................................................................................... 309,676 40,000 349,676 

OAK RIDGE RESERVATION: 

OR NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D .......................................................................................................................................... 73,716 73,716 OR CLEANUP AND DISPOSITION ........................................................................................................................................ 115,855 10,000 125,855 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

OR RESERVATION COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 4,365 4,365 

TOTAL, OAK RIDGE RESERVATION ............................................................................................................................................. 193,936 10,000 203,936 OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION: 

WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT 

01–D–416 A-E/ORP-0060 / MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 

TANK FARM ACTIVITIES 

RAD LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION ................................................................................... 520,216 50,000 570,216 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION .................................................................................................................................... 1,210,216 50,000 1,260,216 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITES: 

SAVANNAH RIVER RISK MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 432,491 432,491 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SR COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT .................................................................................................................. 11,210 11,210 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE: 

RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION ..................................................................... 552,560 150,000 702,560 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [150,000 ] 

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 ...................................................................................................................... 644,560 150,000 794,560 

TOTAL, SAVANNAH RIVER SITE .................................................................................................................................................. 1,088,261 150,000 1,238,261 WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT 

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT ........................................................................................................................................ 203,390 33,000 236,390 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [33,000 ] 

TOTAL, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT ................................................................................................................................... 203,390 33,000 236,390 PROGRAM DIRECTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 280,784 20,000 300,784 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

PROGRAM SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................................... 17,979 17,979 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY: 

OAK RIDGE RESERVATION ................................................................................................................................................. 18,800 18,800 PADUCAH ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9,435 9,435 PORTSMOUTH .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,578 8,578 RICHLAND/HANFORD SITE ................................................................................................................................................. 69,078 10,000 79,078 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE ...................................................................................................................................................... 121,196 10,000 131,196 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 4,977 4,977 WEST VALLEY .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,015 2,015 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 24,091 10,000 34,091 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .............................................................................................................................. 4,853,909 383,000 8,902,461 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND CONTRIBUTION (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL) ......................................................................... 463,000 –463,000 0 Program decrease ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–463,000 ] 

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ..................................................................................................................................... 5,316,909 –80,000 5,236,909 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY 

HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY ....................................................................................................................................... 143,616 143,616 PROGRAM DIRECTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 108,301 108,301 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENT 

TOTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY ................................................................................................................................... 251,917 0 251,917 SPECIALIZED SECURITY ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 196,322 196,322 OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 163,271 163,271 PROGRAM DIRECTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,712 13,712 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 176,983 0 176,983 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ................................................................................................................................................ 38,979 38,979 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ........................................................................................................................................... 79,857 79,857 

TOTAL, DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ............................................................................................................ 118,836 0 118,836 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS ......................................................................................................................................... 5,022 5,022 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 749,080 0 749,080 TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 749,080 0 749,080 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

Four separate legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 were submitted as executive 

communications to the President of the Senate by the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the Department of 

Defense and subsequently referred to the committee. Information 

on these executive communications appears below. All of these executive communications are available for review at the committee. 

Executive Communication No. Dated Received in the Committee on Armed Services 

EC–1470 ................................................. April 29, 2013 ....................................... May 15, 2013 

EC–1552 ................................................. May 7, 2013 .......................................... May 21, 2013 

EC–1592 ................................................. May 20, 2013 ........................................ May 23, 2013 

EC–1766 ................................................. May 22, 2013 ........................................ June 4, 2013 

On May 23, 2013, Senators Levin and Inhofe introduced by request the administration’s proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This bill—S. 1034—was introduced 

for the purpose of placing the administration’s proposals before 

Congress and the public without expressing the views of Senators 

Levin or Inhofe on the substance of those proposals. In accordance 

with past practice, the committee reported an original bill rather 

than acting on S. 1034. 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed by roll call vote, 23–3, as follows: 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Graham, and Blunt. Opposed: Senators Vitter, Lee, and 

Cruz. 

The 13 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to the 

bill which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 

1. MOTION: To include a provision that would require a review 

of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to trial 

by court-martial. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 17–9. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Graham, Blunt, and Lee. 

Opposed: Senators Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Vitter, and Cruz 

2. MOTION: To include multiple provisions addressing sexual assaults in the military. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26–0. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: None. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

3. MOTION: To conduct full Committee markups in closed session because classified information will be discussed. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 20–6. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt. 

Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Lee, and Cruz. 

4. MOTION: To include a provision exempting the Department of 

Defense from alternative fuel procurement requirement. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 13–13. 

In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and 

Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and 

King 

5. MOTION: To include a provision for limitations on allowable 

costs of salaries of contractor employees. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12–14. 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Shaheen, Kaine, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt, Lee, and 

Cruz. 

6. MOTION: To include an alternative provision providing for 

limitations on allowable costs of salaries of contractor employees. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 6–20. 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

and Graham. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Ayotte, Fischer, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

7. MOTION: To include a provision for cost comparison for procurement of alternative fuel. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12–14. 

In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

and Fischer. 

8. MOTION: To include a provision requiring certification for 

biofuel refinery construction. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 11–15. 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, and Fischer. 

9. MOTION: To include report language addressing the use of 

amounts authorized for base defense requirements to pay for 

warfighting costs of Overseas Contingency Operations. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12–14. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, and King. 

10. MOTION: To strike a provision that would restore the previous policy regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense 

medical facilities. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 15–11. 

In favor: Senators Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Inhofe, McCain, 

Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, 

Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, and King. 

11. MOTION: To include a provision to enhance the protection of 

rights of conscience of members of the armed forces and chaplains 

of such members. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 19–7. 

In favor: Senators Nelson, McCaskill, Hagan, Manchin, Donnelly, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Udall, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, and Hirono. 

12. MOTION: To strike the one-year extension and modification 

of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure 

projects in Afghanistan and require a report on transition of project 

management. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 7–19. 

In favor: Senators McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Donnelly, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt. 

13. MOTION: To restrict funding for the Task Force for Business 

and Stability Operations in Afghanistan. 

VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26–0. 

In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz. 

Opposed: None. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
430 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(431) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE 

One of the defining characteristics of the Senate Armed Services 

Committee is its Members’ ability to put partisan considerations 

aside and work together toward enhancing our national security, 

increasing the capabilities of our armed forces, and providing a better quality of life for our service members. This is not to mean the 

Members of the Committee do not have differences of opinion regarding important policy matters. However, the Members of the 

Committee and I are grateful for Chairman Levin’s leadership and 

his tireless commitment to ensure every Member’s concerns are 

heard and considered. 

In order to further the Committee’s goals of enhancing our national security and increasing the capabilities of our armed forces, 

as Ranking Member, I developed a list of policy areas on which I 

will place particular importance. I am pleased to report significant 

progress has been made in each of these policy areas during the 

Committee’s consideration of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization bill, but more needs to be done. 

Missile Defense and Nuclear Modernization 

In the area of Missile Defense, the Committee agreed to an 

amendment offered by Senator Ayotte and myself which added an 

additional $30 million for the deployment of an X-band radar, or 

other comparable sensor, to enhance the defense of the homeland 

against long-range ballistic missile threats. Deployed in a location 

optimized for the defense of the East Coast, this radar will be an 

important step toward providing a more effective defense against 

the growing nuclear and ballistic missile threat from Iran. But this 

is not sufficient. Congress should direct the Department of Defense 

to begin deployment of an additional homeland missile defense interceptor site to better defend the East Coast. Since an East Coast 

anti-ballistic missile interceptor site was included in the House’s 

version of the Defense Authorization bill, it is my hope that continued progress in this area will occur during the Conference Committee. Separately, I secured an ‘‘Item of Special Interest’’ in the 

bill encouraging the Missile Defense Agency to develop a next generation advanced kill vehicle for the ground-based interceptor. This 

will further enable our defenses to stay ahead of future threats. 

Regarding the modernization of our nuclear forces, the Committee agreed to fully fund the President’s budget request. However, the amount requested by the administration for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration was $285 million less than commitment for Fiscal Year 2014 made by the President during consideration of the New START Treaty. The bill also contains a legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00453 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 

tive provision reaffirming Congress’ commitment to modernize our 

triad of nuclear delivery systems, which consists of bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missile submarines. Most 

importantly, this legislation also includes support for the renewal 

of our nuclear weapons production capabilities. 

In addition, to prevent the President from contemplating unilateral nuclear force reductions below New START Treaty levels or 

entering into an executive agreement with the Russian President, 

I authored an amendment expressing the Sense of Congress that 

any future reductions in our nuclear forces must take place by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unfortunately, due to 

jurisdiction issues, this amendment was ruled out of order. However, I am committed to offering this amendment again on the Senate floor. 

Acquisition Reform 

Despite important reforms such as the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, defense acquisition programs continue to 

be behind schedule and over budget. During this period of budget 

austerity, it is critical every taxpayer dollar allocated to defense acquisition be spent prudently. Accordingly, I initiated a number of 

reforms which were included in the Defense Authorization bill. 

These include a section which authorizes the Comptroller General 

to review the Department of Defense’s processes for the acquisition 

of major weapons systems. The objective of the review is to identify 

those acquisition processes that provide no value, little value, or 

which value is outweighed by the creation of additional costs and 

schedule delays. The recommendations of the report can then be incorporated in next year’s Defense Authorization bill to create greater efficiencies and savings in the acquisition realm. 

In addition, I was able to place in the bill a second Comptroller 

General review based upon the acquisition reform recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review’s Independent 

Panel. Specifically, the review will evaluate the Panel’s recommendation to place greater emphasis on the role of the armed 

services, in particular the respective Secretaries and Chiefs of 

Staff, in the acquisition of weapons systems. As a result, it is my 

hope the review will identify new management models to increase 

the effectiveness of the acquisition system. 

Readiness and Capabilities 

I am very concerned about the rapid degradation of military capabilities of both our forces engaged in combat and those preparing 

for the next contingency operation. This deterioration is a result of 

the administration’s decision to cut Defense budgets by over $600 

billion over ten years and is in addition to those cuts required by 

sequestration. 

Accordingly, I crafted several provisions included in the bill 

which are designed to direct the attention of the Committee to the 

negative effects of sequestration, in particular the pending reality 

of a hollow force. In addition, I added language requiring each 

branch of the Armed Forces to establish a long-term plan and investment strategy for the reconstitution of military equipment 

being returned from Afghanistan. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
433 

I was also pleased to work with the Chairman to establish a new 

authority to allow the Department of Defense to transfer funds to 

a new Readiness Restoration Account. This account will permit the 

Department to transfer funds from lower priorities to more critical 

areas, such as military training and the maintenance of military 

equipment. 

Threat, Strategy and Resources 

In an era of fiscal austerity, our strategies and resources must 

be tightly matched to confront looming threats. Therefore, I strongly supported a report to assess the capabilities of stealth, fifth generation Chinese fighter aircraft and their potential impact to our 

Pacific strategy. This assessment will also review the capabilities 

of the Taiwanese Air Force. 

In the Middle East, $75 million under the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction program was allocated towards reducing the threat of 

Syrian chemical weapon proliferation. As part of this effort, $150 

million was also allotted to assist the Jordanian Armed Forces with 

their security operations on its border with Syria. 

As the events in Benghazi highlighted, U.S. Africa Command 

(‘‘AFRICOM’’) has not received sufficient resources to thoroughly 

counter the growing terrorist threat in North Africa. One of the lessons learned from this tragedy is in order to meet the threats of 

today and tomorrow we must adopt an interagency strategy which 

is designed to overcome the challenges which confront not just one 

nation but the region as a whole. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense is directed to review AFRICOM’s rapid reaction assets and 

develop a regional strategy which addresses the terrorist threat in 

North Africa. 

In addition, the bill extends through 2018 the Global Train and 

Equip Authority. Combat commanders routinely state this authority greatly assists our forces in achieving theater counterterrorism 

and stability operational objectives. 

Efficiencies 

During sequestration it is vital we make every dollar count. 

Therefore, I have worked to ensure, through report requirements 

and assessments from the General Accounting Office, that the Department of Defense’s science and technology efforts are focused on 

current warfighter requirements, quickly transiting technologies 

from the lab to the battlefield, and eliminating duplicative programs. Accordingly, the bill reallocates $200 million within the 

science and technology budget to more effectively meet the 

warfighter’s requirements. 

Combating Sequestration 

The bill which the Committee passed provides $526.5 billion to 

the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is 

a sufficient sum to adequately confront our nation’s current and future threats. However, what is even more disturbing is we are on 

the verge of cutting the defense budget even further as a new 

round of sequestration is set to take effect next year. These automatic and mindless cuts continue to plague our military. Specifically, sequestration undermines the ability of military commanders 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
434 

to plan, it wreaks havoc on our industrial base, and the resulting 

uncertainty can only embolden our adversaries around the world. 

Accordingly, during markup, I offered a proposal to cancel sequestration for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2014. 

This amendment was fully paid for with an offset. Unfortunately, 

the Committee’s Chairman ruled my amendment out of order due 

to a jurisdictional issue. However, I am not deterred and I am 

strongly considering offering this amendment again during the 

bill’s consideration on the Senate floor. 

Ending Sexual Assault in the Military 

Ending the scourge of sexual assault in our nation’s military is 

one of my highest priorities. The issue of sexual assault requires 

vigorous and continuous oversight to ensure its complete eradication from our military forces. However, I believe the most effective way to solve this problem is by better utilizing one of the military’s greatest strengths: the chain of command. Therefore, I was 

grateful to work with Chairman Levin to craft reforms which will 

better ensure justice is done while maintaining the chain of command. Specifically, the Levin/Inhofe amendment, which was adopted, requires a higher level of review when a commander decides not 

to prosecute a sexual assault allegation. This higher review will go 

all the way to the respective service Secretary when a commander 

disagrees with a military lawyer’s recommendation to prosecute a 

sexual offense. 

In addition, recently, there have been a small number of cases 

where a commander has overturned a sexual assault conviction. To 

address this issue, Senator Graham offered an amendment which 

restricts the ability of a commander to modify court-martial findings of guilty for a sexual offense. I look forward to the reconsideration of the Graham Amendment when the bill is brought to the 

Senate floor later this year. 

Guantanamo Bay Detainees 

This year’s Senate Defense Authorization bill’s provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees are a fundamental shift from policies enacted in previous years’ Defense Authorization Acts. Specifically, this bill creates large loopholes which, if enacted, will result 

in the transfer of detainees to the shores of our country and permit 

their easier conveyance to foreign countries. This contrasts sharply 

with previous years’ legislation which ensured detainees would not 

be brought to the United States and would not be transferred to 

other countries unless reasonable conditions were met. Adding to 

my agitation on this matter, is that previous years’ statutes were 

built upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public opinion, 

which was formed after years of congressional debate and were 

written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Removing these 

provisions will make our nation less secure. Accordingly, I will resolutely oppose the inclusion of these proposed sections in the final 

Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
435 

Putting the So-Called Green Agenda Before the Needs of the 

Warfighter 

Under current law, the Department of Defense is required to certify the alternative fuel it purchases does not exceed the level of 

greenhouse gas emissions of equivalent petroleum products. Clearly, this statue, Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was crafted to support a political agenda rather 

than to meet the operational requirements of the warfighter. Specifically, this prohibition denies the Department access to the full 

range of synthetic fuels which are comparable in price to fossil 

fuels. Therefore, I was very disappointed when an amendment designed to exempt the Department from the onerous provisions of 

Section 526 was not adopted by the Committee. I look forward to 

revisiting this issue when the bill is considered on the floor of the 

Senate. 

In addition, in an effort to create savings for the Department, I 

offered two amendments regarding the use of Defense funds for a 

national biofuels program. The first amendment codified the existing policy of the Department not to make bulk purchases of alternative drop-in replacement fuels, unless those fuels are cost-competitive with petroleum products. The second amendment provided 

the Secretary of Defense the discretion to assess, in light of sequestration, whether continued construction of a commercial biofuels refinery is in the best interest of the national defense. I strongly believe the military is better served by cancelling the construction of 

this refinery and using the resulting $170 million in savings for 

more urgent priorities. For example, the $170 million could be used 

to resume flight training for 10 of the 17 Air Force squadrons 

which are currently grounded due to sequestration. Another possibility is to procure for the Marines more efficient power generators 

for forward locations in Afghanistan. Pursing this option will save 

fuel, reduce the number fuel conveys, and save lives. 

Lack of Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations 

There exists no more important responsibility of a government 

then to fully support the men and women it places in harm’s way. 

Therefore, I am astonished neither the Administration nor the 

Committee has acted to rectify significant funding shortfalls in accounts which are used to pay for our operations in Afghanistan and 

maintain the capabilities of our armed forces. 

Congress routinely authorizes funding for our military through 

two separate and distinct funding mechanisms. The first is for 

‘‘base’’ accounts, which pays for normal military expenses in such 

areas as personnel compensation, training, and acquisition of weapons systems. The second, called Overseas Contingency Operations 

(‘‘OCO’’) accounts, are for ongoing combat operations and responding to humanitarian crisis. OCO funds are usually authorized 

through supplemental emergency funding requests submitted by 

the Executive Branch. One of the primary benefits of using these 

two account systems is to ensure core defense requirements are not 

sacrificed to pay for combat and humanitarian operations. Therefore, ensuring both the base and OCO accounts receive the appropriate level of funding is critical to maintaining the long-term 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
436 

health of our military and successfully prosecuting our operations 

overseas. 

In order to ensure our forces receive all the support and equipment they need, OCO funding has previously garnered strong bipartisan support. However, despite the vital importance of OCO 

funds, currently there is an $11.0 billion shortfall for Fiscal Year 

2013. According to the Administration this deficit is a result of an 

‘‘operating tempo exceed[ing] the level anticipated,’’ and ‘‘transportation costs are also higher because of unanticipated problems with 

the Ground Lines of Communication in Pakistan.’’ One would expect Congress, working with the Executive Branch, would seek an 

immediate remedy to this situation. Therefore, I was indignant and 

shocked when the Committee did not rectify this significant deficit 

nor the Administration offer more than a partial remedy. 

Normally, this situation would be resolved by the Executive 

Branch requesting additional supplemental appropriations. However, the Administration appears to have decided not to pursue this 

course and seeks only a partial remedy by transferring $7.3 billion 

to cover the shortfall in Fiscal Year 2013 OCO accounts. Specifically, the Department seeks to transfer $2.3 billion from base readiness accounts, $1.5 billion from cuts to other defense accounts, and 

$3.5 billion from other OCO priorities. However, even after these 

transfers a $3.7 billion deficit will remain. Adding to this consternation, the $3.7 billion deficit figure was only arrived at after 

many lower priority OCO initiatives were cut. In addition, the continued reductions in base defense accounts due to sequestration 

and from offsets to the OCO accounts continue to have a negative 

impact on multiple military personnel and procurement accounts. 

Also, the Administration’s proposed transfer of funds to offset the 

OCO deficit will consume over 95 percent of the amount permitted 

under the law to be reallocated, leaving the Department with a 

limited ability to respond to other priorities. 

Accordingly, to act as a catalyst to resolve this issue, I offered an 

amendment encouraging the Administration to immediately submit 

to Congress an additional emergency supplemental appropriations 

request for Fiscal Year 2013. The amendment called for the Administration to request sufficient funds to cover all emerging OCO requirements, including the $3.7 billion deficit. My amendment also 

encouraged the Department to restore the cuts to the base defense 

accounts from which funds had been transferred to OCO accounts. 

Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, my amendment was not 

adopted. As a result, the Committee has refused to encourage the 

Administration to demonstrate leadership and cooperation with 

Congress and address emerging and critical warfighter needs 

through a request for additional OCO funds. This is a critical issue 

which must be resolved before further damage is incurred not only 

to the Department, but to its most important resource: the 

warfighter. Accordingly, I will bring my amendment to the Senate 

floor for further consideration. 

In conclusion, I have been able to incorporate a number of important initiatives into the Defense Authorization bill. However, I view 

this as only the beginning of my efforts, as Ranking Member, to enhance our national security and increase the capabilities of our 

armed forces. I look forward to working with the members of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
437 

Committee and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure an even 

greater number of reforms are enacted into law. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(438) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN 

I voted, with most of my colleagues, in favor of passing the Fiscal 

Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act out of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee. Consideration of this bill should be 

taken up by the full Senate at the earliest opportunity to give the 

Department sufficient time to implement the policies contained 

within it and to help the Senate return to the regular order of authorizing and appropriating legislation. Congress’ failure to authorize and appropriate in a timely and regular way, including the recurring use of Continuing Appropriations Resolutions, has perpetuated defense planning uncertainty, wasted untold resources and 

harmed national defense. 

The President’s failure to provide constructive leadership to avert 

budget sequestration has likewise damaged our defense institutions; I remain deeply concerned about the impact sequester is having on the composition and operational readiness of our forces. For 

reasons of jurisdiction, we were unable to fully consider proposals 

to mitigate or nullify the automatic cuts to defense and I look forward to debating ways to solve this problem before the full Senate. 

The committee also chose to defer matters relating to the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Having completed 

my most recent visit to the detention facility this month, I continue 

to believe strongly that it is in our national interest to end detention at Guantanamo, with a safe and orderly transition of the detainees to other locations. Much of the work necessary to make 

that happen should take place in the public eye and by the hand 

of the full Senate. 

One issue we must continue to grapple with is how the Department of Defense can most effectively reduce instances of sexual assault and ensure that offenders are held accountable. This is a 

problem that threatens the very fabric of our military. I believe it 

is an issue of defending basic human rights and one that, if left 

unaddressed, will undermine the readiness of our forces—particularly, the Department’s ability to recruit and retain the fighting 

force it needs to ensure our Nation’s defense. 

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, we faced a similar problem 

in dealing with the scourge of racism in the military. We addressed 

that issue decisively and aggressively and put in place programs 

and policies that helped to bring an end to a culture of racism in 

our military. We must do the same thing in the case of the current 

sexual assault crisis. 

I support provisions offered by members of the committee that 

(1) provide assistance and ease reporting for victims of alleged sexual abuse; (2) strengthen penalties for perpetrators of these crimes; 

(3) maintain the fundamental role of the chain-of-command in convening courts martial; (4) hold commanders accountable for the 

leadership climate they establish; (5) prevent sexual offenders from 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
439 

entering the armed services or staying in uniform; and (6) encourage the cultural change necessary for the Department of Defense 

to reduce and ultimately eliminate these poisonous offenses from 

our ranks. I hope that as this legislation is debated on the Floor 

of the Senate, we can continue to build on that consensus to ensure 

that this problem is addressed effectively and responsibly. 

Also, I believe that Congress’ and the Department of Defense’s 

understanding of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual assault in the military is in need of refinement. To this end, policymakers and military leaders would benefit from a survey that follows up on the Department’s most recent gross estimate by, among 

other things, categorizing the types of reported offenses. 

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program continues to attract significant congressional oversight—as befits the Department of Defense’s largest weapons procurement program. After years of helping to oversee how the JSF program is being managed and legislate 

changes to it, I am pleased to see signs that the Department may 

be finally containing excessive cost growth in this top defense procurement priority. In a March 2013 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) described this program as ‘‘moving in the 

right direction’’. On May 23, the Department of Defense released 

its latest JSF Selected Acquisition Report, announcing a 1.1 percent reduction in the overall program cost of the JSF—a $4.5 billion savings from the previous estimate. While these reports suggest improvements, Congress must continue to scrutinize this critically important program to ensure that they endure. 

In support of its oversight role, the Subcommitee on Seapower investigated a number of Navy shipbuilding and weapons program 

this year. Late last year, GAO reported notable but limited improvement in how effectively the Department has been able to hold 

down excessive cost growth in its major defense acquisition programs since the enactment of the 2009 Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act. But, the Department of Defense and the Navy 

continue to structure excessive concurrency between development 

and production into its strategies to acquire its largest weapon systems, which exposes these programs to the risk of excessive cost increases and schedule slips late in production. In some Navy ship 

construction programs this has been manifested in dangerously 

high-risk development schedules and accelerated procurement 

plans while delivering uncertain capabilities amidst constantly 

shifting requirements. 

The current Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is a good example of the foregoing dynamics and represents a departure from the 

program that was first envisioned a decade ago by Admiral Vern 

Clark. After having originally doubled over its original estimate, 

the current cost per seaframe has stabilized for the moment. But, 

major challenges abound that threaten whether this program will 

indeed be able to deliver intended combat capability. The decision 

to use a commercial hull has not resulted in a shortened fielding 

period; the two-variant seaframe acquisition has resulted in decreased commonality; and capabilities for the seaframes and mission modules are still unknown and untested. Yet, the Navy continues with the retirement of the patrol craft, frigates, and minesweepers that LCS was intended to replace. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
440 

Despite the risks, the Navy plans for 52 LCS to comprise one 

third of the Navy’s total surface combatant fleet by 2028. In addition, according to schedules provided by the Navy, by the time integrated LCS capabilities are tested—in 2019—the Navy will have 

procured or put under contract more than half of the total number 

of seaframes planned for purchase. 

Four reports issued in the last year have raised significant questions as to whether LCS, as currently designed, has the capabilities 

to meet combatant requirements for the next thirty years. An internal Navy report issued in 2012 raised fundamental questions about 

LCS’ suitability, lethality, and survivability. A recent draft GAO 

report is equally critical of the program, stating that ‘‘[n]either 

Congress nor the Navy can be certain that the LCS is the right system to meet the warfighter needs . . . the apparent disconnect between the LCS acquisition strategy and the needs of the end users 

suggest that a pause is needed.’’ 

The Navy has spent some $12 billion on LCS to date and is planning to spend another $28 billion through 2034. At this point program we need an honest, objective look at the requirements, capabilities, and current acquisition strategy for LCS. I encourage my 

colleagues to consider a reporting requirement that would direct 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit to Congress specific certifications on LCS acquisition milestones and capabilities before being 

authorized to obligate funds for LCS 21 and beyond. 

The Ford Class Aircraft Carrier program is also at risk of significant and continued cost increases and major schedule slips. The 

committee approved the Navy’s request to increase the statutory 

cost cap on the lead ship, CVN–78 with the acknowledgment that 

first-in-class ships often experience cost growth as new systems are 

designed, integrated and tested. These challenges must be overcome and contained in the first ship—not allowed to continue with 

subsequent ship builds. I am concerned that the Navy is rushing 

to put the second ship, CVN–79, on contract before the costs of the 

first ship have stabilized. 

If allowed to continue on their current path, the Navy will put 

CVN–79 on a fixed-price construction contract early in the fall of 

2013—before the ship has a complete design and bill of materials; 

before having a firm set of stable requirements; before testing critical new technologies including aircraft launch and retrieval systems and a new radar; and before the ship has an optimal build 

plan. This fundamentally deviates from widely-recognized commercial shipbuilding practices and would expose the program to an unreasonable risk of excessive cost growth and schedule slips. 

The Navy reports that design work on CVN–78 is not yet finalized, construction is 60% complete and behind schedule, critical 

systems testing is behind schedule, and that no integration testing 

has occurred. Yet, despite a great deal of residual risk and uncertainty in the lead ship, the Navy continues to plan a September 

2013 multi-billion, sole source construction contract award for the 

second ship. This course of action would increase the likelihood of 

frequent change orders to the contract as technical difficulties, 

which should have been addressed in the first-in-class ship, have 

to be solved, at great expense, in the second ship. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
441 

I want to ensure the cost-saving efforts proposed by the Navy in 

its recent report to Congress will be achieved. This can be done 

without delaying the delivery of CVN–79 to the fleet. I strongly encourage my colleagues to consider measures that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to have a greater degree of certainty about 

the design and cost of CVN–78 before awarding a construction contract for CVN–79. 

JOHN MCCAIN. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(442) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE 

Building on its well-deserved reputation for bipartisanship in 

support of our men and women in uniform and American national 

security, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In today’s partisan climate in Washington, this act of bipartisanship is worth noting. 

While this bill is not perfect, there are several praiseworthy components in areas related to contingency contracting, military sexual 

assault, our attack submarine fleet, and acquisition reform. In addition to the concerns regarding the components of the bill related 

to Guantanamo that are highlighted in a separate additional views 

section, I also remain very concerned about the impact that defense 

sequestration is having on our men and women in uniform and our 

nation’s military readiness. 

Never Contract with the Enemy 

The federal government has a deep moral obligation to serve as 

a responsible steward of the people’s tax dollars. Congress must 

conduct rigorous oversight of federal spending to eliminate fraud, 

waste, and abuse. Especially at a time when our nation has incurred approximately $17 trillion in debt, we simply cannot afford 

to allow our tax dollars to be misspent. 

When the United States engages in contracting overseas we must 

ensure our tax dollars do not end up in the hands of our enemies. 

Our troops should never have to worry that American tax dollars 

are funding those with whom they are fighting on the battlefield. 

As we have conducted more rigorous oversight of U.S. contracting 

overseas, particularly where the U.S. has spent billions of dollars 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has become clear that acquisition laws 

and regulations—as well as existing oversight mechanisms within 

the Pentagon, the State Department, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—are dramatically insufficient to 

addressing the contracting challenges. 

From 2002 to 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting conservatively estimated that $31 billion to $60 billion in contracts 

were lost to waste and fraud. 

Even worse, the Commission found that the second largest source 

of income for insurgents in Afghanistan has been U.S. contracting 

dollars. Whether through negligence or the deliberate actions of 

malign actors, these contracts sometimes result in taxpayer funds 

being diverted to our enemies. 

One of the reasons for this unacceptable situation was that our 

acquisition officials in Iraq and Afghanistan were often operating 

under laws and regulations that were designed for contracting in 

the United States during peacetime, not in Baghdad or Bagram 

during wartime. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

As a result, once we discovered that a U.S. contract was allowing 

money to end up in the hands of our enemies, it would take far too 

long to terminate the contract and end the flow of contract funds 

to those who were opposing the United States. 

In February 2011, I teamed up with Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) 

to introduce S. 341, The No Contracting with the Enemy Act. We 

then worked with SASC to include key elements of our legislation 

in the FY 2012 NDAA. These Section 841 and 842 authorities gave 

Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition officials in Afghanistan 

the ability to more quickly sever ties with contractors who funnel 

taxpayer resources to those who oppose the United States. 

Since December 2011, these authorities have enabled the Central 

Command Commander to identify four Afghan vendors and 28 entities associated with these four vendors that have been engaged in 

hostile activities, resulting in the termination of 10 subcontracts 

with foreign vendors and withholding of funds from one foreign 

prime contractor. These termination actions have resulted in approximately $31 million in savings. 

While the Section 841 and 842 authorities were a major step in 

the right direction, more can and should be done. To expand and 

enhance the authorities that were established in 2011, on April 9, 

2013, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and I introduced the bipartisan S. 675, The Never Contract with the Enemy Act. I am 

pleased that key components of our bill are included in this Committee-approved NDAA. Among other improvements, the language 

in this year’s bill expands these authorities to all geographic combatant commands, extends the authorities which would have expired in December 2014 until December 2018, and lowers the contract threshold from $100,000 to $20,000. 

I look forward to ensuring this important language is in the final 

NDAA. I also look forward to working with other committees and 

the full Senate to ensure these authorities are available to acquisition officials outside of DoD. 

S. 675 seeks to expand these essential authorities to acquisition 

officials in the entire federal government. Yet, in the SASC-approved NDAA, while we were able to expand these authorities to 

all geographic combatant commands within the Department of Defense, due to jurisdictional constraints, we were not able to expand 

these authorities to acquisition officials outside of the Department 

of Defense. 

As General Joseph Dunford, the commander of all U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, testified on April 16, 2013, it is essential 

that acquisition officials outside the Department of Defense possess 

the same authorities to quickly terminate contracts. In addition to 

endorsing our legislation, he testified that it will be ‘‘critical’’ that 

the State Department and USAID have the same authorities to 

cancel contracts as DoD so that we ‘‘don’t contract with the enemy.’’ 

He said that, ‘‘Expanding that [authority] to include non-DoD organizations makes a lot of sense.’’ 

In addition, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) have endorsed our efforts to expand these authorities to all federal government acquisition officials operating 

overseas. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

I look forward to working with members of both parties to 

strengthen current laws and regulations to make sure the federal 

government serves as a responsible steward of our tax dollars and 

to ensure our resources do not end up in the hands of our enemies. 

Military Sexual Assault 

The prevalence of sexual assaults occurring in the military represents a serious threat to the honor and dignity of our men and 

women who serve in uniform and to the readiness and cohesion of 

our units. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and I am pleased 

that this committee has so openly and passionately discussed how 

to best stop sexual assaults from occurring in our military. A real 

solution to this growing problem is past due. 

I believe we have developed a strong and appropriate legislative 

response to aggressively combat this issue, including reforms to the 

legal framework under which these crimes are prosecuted and providing additional protections and resources to victims of these terrible crimes. 

I am pleased that the bill incorporates several key provisions of 

S. 871, The Combating Military Sexual Assault Act, which I coauthored with Senator Patty Murray (D–WA) and which has more 

than 37 cosponsors. Our provisions, which were included in the 

SASC-approved bill, will provide sexual assault victims in all military branches with Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC)—a trained military lawyer to guide a victim through the legal process. Air Force 

Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh testified before this committee 

that responses of victims in the Air Force’s SVC pilot program have 

been ‘‘overwhelmingly positive.’’ Furthermore, Chairman Martin 

Dempsey supports ‘‘providing victims of sexual assault this important resource.’’ The defense bill includes our provisions that enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and Reserve. 

In addition, I was a cosponsor of Chairman Carl Levin’s (D–MI) 

amendment, which modifies the disposition authority in cases of 

certain sex-related crimes. The Chairman’s amendment provides 

for the review of a convening authority’s (CA’s) decision not to take 

charges of certain sexual offenses to trial by court-martial in all instances—both when a staff Judge Advocate General (JAG) recommends that such charges be taken to trial by court-martial and 

when a staff JAG recommends that such charges not be taken to 

trial by court-martial. In other words, a decision not to take 

charges of sexual offenses to trial by court-martial will always be 

reviewed by a higher authority, in some instances by the civilian 

Secretary of the military department concerned. Such involvement 

and oversight by higher authorities is appropriate given the severity of the sexual assault crisis in our military. 

Further, Chairman Levin’s amendment prohibits retaliation 

against a member of the Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense, which is particularly important given that 62 percent of victims who have made reports of sexual offenses also report experiencing some form of retaliation for doing so. The amendment also 

expresses the Sense of the Senate that commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command climate in which a victim 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

should feel safe reporting a crime, and that failure to establish 

such an environment is an appropriate basis for relief from command positions. Senior officers should evaluate commanding officers based on their performance in establishing such a command 

climate. 

We must tackle this problem from multiple fronts and change the 

culture of our military with respect to sexual assault. We must 

deter such behavior in the first place while simultaneously ensuring victim support in the event such a crime is committed. Our 

military leaders must translate zero tolerance rhetoric into zero tolerance policy and practice. I am hopeful that the significant 

changes to current law contained in this bill will empower victims 

to come forward to report crimes so that they can receive the care 

and justice they need and deserve. In addition to preventing such 

crimes and appropriately punishing those who commit them, we 

must focus on the victims and empower them with the care, resources, and confidence they need to overcome the mental and 

physical consequences of such a crime—crimes of power and control. We must help them to restore their own sense of power and 

control. 

To be clear, Congress will not pass this year’s defense bill, hope 

for the best, and then lose interest. Members of this committee are 

united in our determination to address the scourge of sexual assault in the military. We will continue to demand the best from our 

military leaders. We will continue to exercise the oversight that the 

American people demand. As the service chiefs testified before this 

committee, the chain of command is crucial to fixing this problem. 

Rest assured that we will hold them accountable, and we will continue to exercise aggressive oversight to ensure our men and 

women can serve in an environment free of sexual assault that allows them to focus on accomplishing their missions. 

Attack Submarine Fleet 

As anti-access/area denial threats to our forces grow, the Virginia 

Class submarine provides the U.S. military an essential capability. 

Yet, as Admiral Mark Ferguson testified on April 18, 2013, the 

Navy is only able to meet ‘‘about half’’ of combatant commander requests for attack submarines. 

Ensuring our combatant commanders have a sufficient number of 

attack submarines will become even more important as U.S. strategic interests demand an increased focus on the maritime-dominated Asia Pacific region, as well as the Persian Gulf. As Los Angeles Class submarines reach the end of their service life, if we don’t 

build enough Virginia Class submarines, the Navy’s ability to meet 

combatant commander requirements for attack submarines will decline even further. 

For these reasons, building on our work from last year, I am 

pleased that this bill authorizes and supports the administration’s 

request to build two Virginia Class submarines in FY 2014. The 

construction of a second Virginia Class submarine next fiscal year, 

as well as moving forward on the Virginia Payload Module, will 

help ensure that U.S. naval supremacy—which serves as an essential guarantor of U.S. economic and national security interests— 

will continue well into the future. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

MEADS: Ending the Missile to Nowhere 

I am encouraged that the Committee adopted my provision to 

prohibit any spending in FY 2014 on the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). Between FY 2004 and FY 2011, the U.S. spent almost $3 billion on MEADS. With $17 trillion in national debt, we cannot afford to 

spend another cent on a weapons system that DoD has no intention 

of procuring. 

On March 23, 2013, during consideration of the budget resolution 

(S. Con. Res. 8), the Senate overwhelmingly approved (94 to 5) my 

amendment (S. AMDT. 136) aimed at scrapping money for MEADS 

in FY 2014. Echoing the clear position of the overwhelming majority of the Senate, in a letter to me on June 12, 2013, The Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

Frank Kendall reiterated that the ‘‘Department views the FY 2013 

funds for the MEADS program as the final obligation’’ and that additional U.S. funding for MEADS is ‘‘not required and was not included in the President’s FY 2014 Budget Submission.’’ Secretary 

Kendall also confirmed that the ‘‘Department has no plan for or intention of requesting additional MEADS funding.’’ 

The prohibition in the SASC-approved NDAA makes clear that 

this Committee is opposed to any additional funding in FY 2014 for 

MEADS. At a time when Congress is struggling to provide the resources needed to maintain the readiness of our forces, as Secretary Kendall wrote in his letter to me, we must avoid ‘‘spending 

that is not needed.’’ 

Reducing Costly Pentagon Redundancy 

I am pleased that the report language accompanying the SASCapproved NDAA includes my provisions related to duplication in 

ground radar programs and air-to-ground rocket and missile programs. Our nation’s fiscal crisis and increasingly constrained defense budgets require that the Pentagon look for every opportunity 

to develop joint programs and reduce costs, while meeting valid 

service requirements. I look forward to reviewing closely the findings of the Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office in order to determine whether the Pentagon could consolidate 

requirements, reduce redundancy, develop joint programs, and save 

money in its ground radar and air-to-ground rocket and missile 

programs. 

Sequestration: A Threat to Our Military Readiness 

While the NDAA passed by the Committee seeks to maintain the 

readiness of our forces, I remain seriously concerned about the impact of sequestration and budget uncertainty on our military readiness. 

I worry that some members of Congress think sequestration is 

acceptable or even desirable. We should be clear: at a time of enormous national security challenges in places such as North Korea, 

Iran, and Syria, sequestration represents an avoidable, irresponsible, and dangerous policy. 

Friends and potential enemies alike are watching. We must do 

everything possible to retain the most powerful military in the 

world so that there will be no doubt that the United States is capaVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00468 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

ble of protecting our interests and those of our allies. If we allow 

defense sequestration to continue, the deterrence of our potential 

enemies and assurance of our allies provided by our military readiness will deteriorate over time. The impacts of defense sequestration will eat away at our strategic depth and military capability— 

inviting aggressors to take greater risk, increasing the likelihood of 

conflict, and making Americans less safe. 

For these reasons, as I have for over a year and a half, I stand 

ready to work with members of both parties to identify alternative 

spending reductions to end defense sequestration once and for all. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(448) 

1http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/cabinet-under-gag-order-on-sequester–87231.html 

2http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118712 

3http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/08/fact-sheet-examples-how-sequesterwould-impact-middle-class-families-job 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. VITTER 

The Committee’s mark-up reflects the first major step in the 

FY14 National Defense Authorization Act process for the Department of Defense. The NDAA will next be considered by the full 

Senate and then conference with the House of Representatives. 

However, this bill as written, while it includes vital funding priorities, unfortunately ignores sequestration and the Budget Control 

Act, which means that many of these programs will face further 

unstructured cuts. 

While it has been argued that there is hope of an agreement before the NDAA is considered by the full Senate or conference with 

the House of Representatives, I believe it is imperative to set appropriate authorization and serious levels that do not place significant funding priorities in limbo. The FY 2014 budget request for 

the Department of Defense comes at a very challenging time with 

a unique set of global threats; however, that does not substitute the 

need to comply with the current law or include real guidance for 

priority decisions. 

Drafting measures that do not adhere to the Budget Control Act 

(BCA) and its sequester levels is tantamount to failure. The failure 

does not rest with the Senate or with the House; that failure is due 

to the Department of Defense and the Administration’s inability to 

adequately prioritize and communicate those priorities. Previously, 

the Administration forced the Military Services to hold off on providing any clarity or reports on the impacts of sequester. Reports 

have surfaced1 that the White House Office of Management and 

Budget had instructed three separate cabinet agencies that they 

were not allowed to talk about pending budget cuts unless they 

cleared their remarks first with the White House budget office. 

This led Senator Barbara Mikulski to state that the White House 

had placed its own cabinet agencies under a ‘‘gag order’’ and, ultimately, to the December 5, 2012 OMB decision to direct2 the Pentagon to start sequestration planning. After eighteen months of requests by members of this committee and two separate legislative 

requirements, the White House finally released a report3 in January 2013 on the harmful impacts of sequester, providing the detail 

requested only two to three weeks before sequester was set to hit. 

Given that the DOD is preparing to drastically reduce its personnel size and restructure its forces over the next years, it is critical that it budget or identify where the Department is able to cut 

while maintaining its primary purpose: maintaining a ready and 

capable force prepared for defense of the nation. Allowing arguments that the budget must go beyond the BCA and sequester levVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:14 Jun 24, 2013 Jkt 081479 PO 00000 Frm 00470 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR044.XXX SR044

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
449 

4http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections 

els due to mismanagement, overruns, and DOD shortfalls, would 

only continue the uncertainty and does nothing to solve the problem at hand. 

Analysts largely agree that the DOD budget request was irrelevant because it did not factor in the BCA levels, did not contain 

an OCO Budget (numbers which we now know included huge 

shortfalls and continue to expand), and ignored the sequester even 

while it was delayed for a month to ‘‘account for sequester’’. Our 

military desperately needs leadership to put forth a defense budget 

that addresses the unprecedented challenges before us and the 

budget crisis here at home. Despite its stated need, the Defense 

Department is currently facing a hugely disproportionate amount 

of the cuts, and the President continues to submit a budget plan 

that will perpetuate increases in federal debt due to non-defense 

spending over the next ten years instead of trying to cut through 

non-defense. Our military men and women must not be the sole 

bearer of balancing our budget. 

In fact, during the FY14 NDAA committee markup when Senator 

Inhofe tried to address the budget problem through an amendment 

that would have partially offset the sequester in a way previously 

accepted by the President during negotiations4, Senator Levin did 

not allow him to bring up his proposal for debate during the markup process. 

In my view, this signifies Administration and Senate majority 

leadership refusing to address the truth about our budget crisis. 

Unless President Obama, our Commander in Chief, provides the 

necessary leadership to protect the Defense Department from disproportionate cuts, there is a present and clear danger (from sequester, the law of the land) that the funding for this mark will 

be reduced. The current mode of operation in Washington appears 

to be to backload on defense plans and place the costs and shortfalls on future generations. That mentality is not something I can 

support. 

DAVID VITTER. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(450) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE, SESSIONS, 

CHAMBLISS, WICKER, MS. AYOTTE, MRS. FISCHER, 

AND MESSRS. VITTER, BLUNT, AND CRUZ 

Guantanamo Bay Detainees 

The U.S. detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

provides a secure location to detain and interrogate enemy combatants as well as prevent these detainees from returning to the battlefield. Holding these detainees at Guantanamo Bay has enabled 

the U.S. to gather intelligence which has prevented additional attacks on our country and assisted in tracking down other members 

of al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations. 

Unfortunately, this year’s Senate Defense Authorization bill creates large loopholes which, if enacted, will result in the transfer of 

detainees to the shores of our country and permits the easier conveyance of detainees to foreign countries. Let there be no mistake, 

the bill’s provisions are a fundamental shift from previous years’ 

Defense Authorization Acts which ensured detainees would not be 

brought to the United States and would not be transferred to other 

countries unless reasonable conditions could be met. Accordingly, 

we will resolutely oppose the inclusion of these sections in the final 

Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Previously, Congress had addressed this issue through legislative 

compromises which: prevented the transfer of detainees to the 

United States; blocked the construction or modification of facilities 

to house detainees in the United States; and required stringent certifications to be made before transferring detainees to foreign nations. These statutes were built upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public opinion, which was formed after years of congressional debate and were written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. 

The previous legislation contrasts greatly from the provisions included in this year’s Senate Defense Authorization bill. Specifically, 

the bill permits the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for trial and 

detention and to receive medical care, despite Guantanamo Bay’s 

first rate medical care and facilities. In addition, due to the Administration’s objections that the current certifications were too difficult to meet, the bill greatly reduces the thresholds required before a detainee can be transferred to a foreign country. 

The proposal to transfer detainees to the U.S. for trial and detention does not take into account one of the primary reasons why the 

bipartisan consensus arose in the first place. Specifically, Congress 

and many Americans disagreed with the Administration’s decision 

to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, and others in a federal courthouse located in 

New York City. This was reflected by the Senate’s 54–41 vote in 

November 2012, which supported a permanent prohibition on the 

transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. Why 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
451 

then should the Senate so quickly reverse itself and enact legislation which permits the very thing so many of our citizens considered the wrong thing to do? 

In addition, why should we reduce the thresholds for transferring 

detainees to foreign countries as called for in this year’s Defense 

Authorization bill? According to a March 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence, 28 percent of those detainees who 

have been released continue, or are suspected to have continued, 

to engage in terrorist activity against the U.S. or our allies. For example, after Said al Shihri was released from Guantanamo Bay, he 

became one of the senior leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Why then should we lower the standards? This is especially 

true since current law, specifically, Section 1028 of the Fiscal Year 

2013 National Defense Authorization Act, requires strict but reasonable certifications before transferring detainees to foreign countries. 

Adding to the perplexing nature of the bill’s provisions is the fact 

that housing detainees in the U.S. will cost millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, more during this period of budget austerity and 

sequestration. As FBI Director Robert Mueller warned, these detainees cannot be placed in normal federal prisons since there is 

the very real possibility these individuals will recruit more terrorists from among the federal inmate population and attempt to continue al Qaeda operations. One must remember this is precisely 

how the individuals convicted in the 2009 plot to bomb a New York 

synagogue were radicalized. 

The risk of bringing detainees to the United States contrasts 

sharply with the advantages of continuing the use of the detainee 

complexes at Guantanamo Bay. The facilities at Guantanamo Bay 

are in a secure location away from population centers. They provide 

the maximum security required to prevent escape and are composed of multiple levels of confinement based upon the detainee’s 

compliance. In addition, the Expeditionary Legal Complex has recently been completed. This facility is a secure location to try detainees while enabling their access to defense counsel and also assists in preventing the compromise of classified material. The Complex will also permit greater coverage by the press of the legal proceedings. 

The logic of continuing to utilize the established facilities at 

Guantanamo Bay also contrasts with the apparent lack of an indepth, comprehensive plan by the Administration to address the 

enormous security, logistical, and legal issues which must be resolved before any detainee’s transfer to the United States is even 

contemplated. In addition, the Administration’s unwillingness to 

place new detainees in Guantanamo Bay has forced our armed 

forces to use makeshift detention facilities. For example, due to the 

Administration’s reluctance to use Guantanamo Bay, Ahmed 

Abdulkadir Warsame was detained and interrogated on a U.S. 

Navy ship for two months. Clearly, what is required is a plan for 

the long-term, law of war detention outside of the United States for 

foreign members of al Qaeda and associated forces, as called for by 

Senator Ayotte, Senator Chambliss, and others. 

Those of us who voted for the National Defense Authorization 

Act in Committee did so based on the agreement that we will have 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
452 

an opportunity to address these major shortcomings in the bill 

when the full Senate considers the legislation. We look forward to 

doing so. 

In conclusion, we are opposed to the provisions included in the 

Senate’s version of the Defense Authorization bill which, if enacted, 

will permit the transfer of detainees to our country. Most disappointingly, this represents a fundamental departure from previous years’ Defense Authorization Acts. Accordingly, we will seek 

legislative remedies to restore the statutes which will maintain the 

current law with respect to the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 

ROGER F. WICKER. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 

DEB FISCHER. 

DAVID VITTER. ROY BLUNT. 

TED CRUZ. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(453) 

5DoD Fact Sheet, ‘‘Strengthening Homeland Missile Defense,’’ March 15, 2013. 

6SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE AND 

SESSIONS, MS. AYOTTE, MRS. FISCHER, AND MR. VITTER 

Missile Defense 

The Committee’s direction to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable sensor, for the defense of the homeland against long-range 

ballistic missile threats is a good first step toward addressing the 

growing ICBM threat from Iran and, potentially, other countries. 

But it does not go far enough: we also need to proceed as soon as 

possible with the deployment of an additional interceptor site on 

the east coast to compensate for the loss of the planned third interceptor site in Poland. 

The decision by the President not to proceed with development 

and deployment of the SM–3 block IIB missile in Poland means 

that the defense of the homeland against Iranian long-range ballistic missiles will not be as effective as originally intended. Missile 

defense planners in the Pentagon have long understood the advantages provided by an additional missile defense site (beyond those 

in Alaska and California) for a more effective defense against long 

range ballistic missile threats from the Middle East. The approach 

taken by the Bush Administration was to deploy 10 Ground-Based 

Interceptors (GBIs) in Poland. The Obama Administration opted, 

instead, for the development and deployment of some 24 SM–3 

block IIB missiles in Poland. Both of these options would serve the 

similar purpose of defending Europe and the United States against 

intermediate to long-range Iranian ballistic missiles. 

The Administration’s rationale for the 15 March announcement 

to deploy an additional 14 GBIs in Alaska, beyond the current 30, 

is ‘‘to stay ahead of the long-range ballistic missile threat posed by 

North Korea and Iran.’’ 5 According to DoD, the North Korean 

threat is growing faster than anticipated: North Korea conducted 

its third nuclear test in February, has displayed road-mobile 

ICBMs, and has demonstrated long-range missile technology 

through its launch of the Taepo Dong-2 rocket, which put a satellite in orbit. 

A DoD Fact Sheet notes similar developments in Iran: ‘‘Iran also 

continues to advance its space-launch and longer-range ballistic 

missile capabilities. Iran has used a space-launch vehicle, the Safir2, to place a satellite in orbit, demonstrating some of the key technologies required for ICBM development.’’ Likewise, General 

Jacoby, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, recently told 

Congress that ‘‘we should consider that Iran has a capability within the next few years of flight testing ICBM capable technologies 6;’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
454 

7 HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013 

8SASC Hearing, April 18, 2013 

9SASC Hearing, March 12, 2013 

10SASC Hearing , March 19, 2013 11 National Research Council, ‘‘Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense,’’ Washington, D.C., 

2012, p.85. 12SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013 

and that ‘‘the Iranians are intent on developing an ICBM.7’’ Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified before this 

committee on April 18th, that ‘‘The Iranians are pursuing development of two systems that potentially could have intercontinental 

capability . . . The belief is about the first time they’d be ready to 

do that would be as early as 2015.’’ 8

If the rationale for beefing up our defenses against North Korea 

is based on that nation’s nuclear ambitions coupled with advances 

in long-range missile technology (derived from the ability to launch 

satellites), then this similarly argues for strengthening our defenses against Iran—a country that also has demonstrated a space 

launch capability and appears to be nearing a nuclear weapons capability. 

Increasing the numbers of Ground Based Interceptors in Alaska, 

as the administration proposes, while sound, is not sufficient. 

There are inherent limitations of the Alaska and California sites. 

U.S. Strategic Command head, General Robert Kehler, told Congress that ‘‘I am confident that we can defend against a limited attack from Iran, although we are not in the most optimum posture 

to do that today doesn’t provide total defense today.’’ 9 General 

Jacoby affirmed this when he told Congress: We have the capability of limited defense right now. And I think that it’s not optimum and I think that we’ve made some important steps forward 

in what was rolled out. And I think we need to continue to assess 

the threat and make sure we stay ahead of it.’’ 10

An additional homeland missile defense site on the East Coast 

would raise the probability of successfully engaging Iranian threats 

and preserve GBI inventory in Alaska for North Korean threats. A 

study conducted by the National Research Council of the National 

Academies explains: 

‘‘While it is kinematically possible to defend the eastern 

part of the continental United States (CONUS) against 

threat ICBMs from the Middle East using GBI sites at 

Fort Greely and Vandenberg, AFB, an additional GBI site 

located in northeastern CONUS would be much more effective and reliable and would allow considerably more battle 

space and firing doctrine options.’’ 11

General Jacoby explained this to Congress in similar terms: 

‘‘What a third site gives me, whether it’s on the East 

Coast or an alternate location, would be increased battle 

space; that means increased opportunity for me to engage 

threats from either Iran or North Korea.’’ 12

‘‘I would agree that a third site, wherever the decision 

is to build a third site, would give me better weapons access, increased GBI inventory and allow us the battle 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
455 

13 HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013 14Words of General Jacoby, HASC hearing, March 20, 2013) 15DoD Spokesman said on March 26, 2013: ‘‘The decision to place additional ground-based 

interceptors in Alaska is really in large measure to growing North Korean threats and the development of their own missile programs. It’s very clear.’’ U.S. Takes N. Korea Threats very seriously,’’ AFP, March 26, 2013. 

space to more optimize our defense against future threats 

from Iran and North Korea.’’ 13

Though acknowledging the potential advantages provided by an 

East Coast site, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Dr. James 

Miller, told Congressional staff in March that the additional 14 

GBIs in Alaska could compensate for the termination of the SM– 

3 Block IIB missile (‘‘which was designed to provide a first shot at 

any Iranian missile that could be coming towards the United 

States.’’ 14). However, as noted by Generals Jacoby and Kehler (and 

by the National Research Council), this approach is not optimal. 

Rather than defend the United States only from Alaska, an east 

coast missile defense site would increase the probability of successfully engaging an Iranian threat by providing increased battle 

space, multiple shot opportunities, and different angles of attack, 

supported by different sensors. Moreover, if those additional 14 

missiles are needed to defend against a growing threat from North 

Korea, which is the Administration’s rationale for deploying 

them,15 those weapons may not be available in a scenario where 

the U.S. is threatened simultaneously by Iran and North Korea. 

Regarding the cost of an east coast missile defense site, it is hard 

for the administration to argue it can’t afford an east coast site 

when the budget of the Missile Defense Agency has seen drastic 

cuts over the past few years. The President’s 5-year spending plan 

for MDA for FY2012–2016 amounted to $43.5 billion; for the five 

year plan from FY 2014–2018, that amount declined by $5.9 billion 

to $37.6 billion. Moreover, the cancelation of the SM–3 block IIB 

missile and the Precision Tracking Space System by the President 

means that MDA avoids some $3.5 billion in spending over the 

next five years. Had those savings been returned to the Missile Defense Agency, there would have been ample funding for an East 

Coast site. 

The administration is conducting environmental impact studies 

for three potential locations, as directed by the FY 2013 NDAA 

(due by December 31, 2013). The provision (Sec. 227) also requires 

the MDA to develop a contingency plan in case the president determines to proceed with such an additional deployment. 

While these studies will determine the optimal location for an 

additional homeland missile defense site, we need not await this 

analysis before determining whether such a deployment is in the 

interests of the United States. 

There remains a presidentially directed requirement for a missile 

defense site—beyond the sites in Alaska and California—explicitly 

for the defense of the homeland. With the cancelation of the SM– 

3 block IIB missile (intended for Poland), that requirement remains 

unmet. An east coast missile defense site can meet that need and 

should proceed as expeditiously as possible. 

An east coast missile defense site would provide important additional protection against an Iranian ICBM inbound for the east 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
456 

coast of the United States that the U.S. currently does not have 

and that 14 additional ground based interceptors in Alaska will not 

provide. 

If we start today, there will be a 3–4 year gap between the potential emergence of this Iranian capability and our ability to have 

this needed additional protection. 

We do not need more delay. The intercontinental ballistic missile 

threat from Iran is emerging quickly, and the protection of the east 

coast of the United States against this threat must be improved. 

If we fail to move ahead with an east coast missile defense site expeditiously, we are placing the nation at more risk than can be justified. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 

DEB FISCHER. 

DAVID VITTER. 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING