" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

113–??? 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 4435 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY ??, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 
HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

??–??? 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–??? 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 4435 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY ??, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

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

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

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

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Legislation ...................................................................................... 00 

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 00 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 00 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 00 

Explanation of the Committee Amendments ........................................................ 00 

Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations .................................................. 00 

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill .......................................... 00 

Budget Authority Implication ................................................................................. 00 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 00 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Armed aerial scout strategy ..................................................................... 00 

Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft ............. 00 

Army Signals Intelligence modernization ............................................... 00 

Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative .......................................................................................................... 00 

Improved MQ–1C Gray Eagle modifications ........................................... 00 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Combat vehicle industrial base management ......................................... 00 

Abrams tank upgrades .......................................................................... 00 

Hercules recovery vehicle ...................................................................... 00 

Stryker combat vehicle modifications .................................................. 00 

M9 upgrades .............................................................................................. 00 

Transmission industrial base ................................................................... 00 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Munitions industrial base management .................................................. 00 

M982 Excalibur program .......................................................................... 00 

Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support initiative ...................................................................................................... 00 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs ................................... 00 

Body armor industrial base risk mitigation ............................................ 00 

Tactical generator recapitalization .......................................................... 00 

Family of heavy tactical vehicles ............................................................. 00 

Family of medium tactical vehicles ......................................................... 00 

Military combat eye protection program ................................................. 00 

Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles .............................................. 00 

Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological Radiological 

Nuclear and Explosive environments .................................................. 00 

Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting system ............ 00 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 
Page

IV 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

EA–18G Stretch ......................................................................................... 00 

H–1 engine program upgrade ................................................................... 00 

MQ–8 Fire Scout ....................................................................................... 00 

MV–22 carrier onboard delivery .............................................................. 00 

UH–1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits .................................. 00 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Integrated communication systems ......................................................... 00 

Joint High Speed Vessel ........................................................................... 00 

Littoral Combat Ship ................................................................................ 00 

Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base ........................ 00 

Moored Training Ship ............................................................................... 00 

National Defense Sealift Fund ................................................................. 00 

Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees ................................................ 00 

Surface ship test platform ........................................................................ 00 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System ................................................ 00 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Air National Guard MQ–1/MQ–9 ground-based sense and avoid systems ........................................................................................................ 00 

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program ............................ 00 

C–130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion system upgrades ..................................................................................................... 00 

F–16 block 40/50 mission training centers .............................................. 00 

F–16 modernization .................................................................................. 00 

High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ................ 00 

KC–10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure .................................. 00 

KC–46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program .............................................. 00 

Spare engine requirements and inventory for F–15E and F–16 aircraft ......................................................................................................... 00 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems repairs 

and upgrades .......................................................................................... 00 

Aircraft tug vehicles .................................................................................. 00 

Beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems ...................................................... 00 

Emergency Airfield Lighting System ....................................................... 00 

Joint threat emitter procurement ............................................................ 00 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-based coproduction ............................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 00 

Section 101—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 00 

Section 111—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne Reconnaissance Low Aircraft ............................................................................. 00 
Page

V 

Section 112—Plan on Modernization of UH–60A Aircraft of Army National Guard ............................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 00 

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk Block 

IV Missiles ................................................................................................. 00 

Section 122—Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship ......... 00 

Section 123—Additional Oversight Requirements for the Undersea Mobility Acquisition Program of the United States Special Operations 

Command ................................................................................................... 00 

Section 124—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored Training 

Ship Program ............................................................................................. 00 

Section 125—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Mission Modules 

for Littoral Combat Ship .......................................................................... 00 

Section 126—Extension of Limitation on Availability of Funds for Littoral Combat Ship ..................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 00 

Section 131—Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics 

Modernization Program for C–130 Aircraft ............................................ 00 

Section 132—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of 

A–10 Aircraft ............................................................................................. 00 

Section 133—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of 

U–2 Aircraft ............................................................................................... 00 

Section 134—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or 

Transfer of KC–10 Aircraft ....................................................................... 00 

Section 135—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment of 

E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System Aircraft ............................. 00 

Subtitle E—Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ......................... 00 

Section 141—Comptroller General Report on F–35 Aircraft Acquisition 

Program ...................................................................................................... 00 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army ................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Active protective system ........................................................................... 00 

Applied Communication Information Network ....................................... 00 

Combat feeding research and development ............................................. 00 

Combat identification for dismounted users ........................................... 00 

Dual mode tactical missiles ...................................................................... 00 

Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology ............................................... 00 

Expeditionary communications ................................................................ 00 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment ...................................... 00 

High explosive guided mortar program ................................................... 00 

High Performance Computing Modernization program ......................... 00 

Improved Turbine Engine Program ......................................................... 00 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program ...................................................... 00 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle ..................................................................... 00 

Lightweight segmented tactical ladders .................................................. 00 

Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools ..................................................... 00 

Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator ......... 00 

Rotorcraft hostile fire protection .............................................................. 00 

Small Airborne Networking Radio program ........................................... 00 

Soldier protection system and weight reduction for personnel protection equipment ....................................................................................... 00 

Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades .................................................. 00 

Transparent armor technology development .......................................... 00 

UH–72 Helicopter health monitoring system ......................................... 00 

Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems .............................. 00 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy .................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program ............................. 00 

Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System .......................................... 00 

Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and Modifications ........ 00 

MQ–4C Triton program ............................................................................ 00 

Navy deployment of the laser weapon system ........................................ 00 

Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies ............................. 00 
Page

VI 

Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare 

weapon development ............................................................................. 00 

Oceanographic research ............................................................................ 00 

Precision extended range munition program .......................................... 00 

Submarine detection research .................................................................. 00 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships .............. 00 

Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration ................... 00 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program .......... 00 

Virginia Payload Module program ........................................................... 00 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force ............................. 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Additive manufacturing ............................................................................ 00 

Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities talon hate program ........................................................................................................ 00 

Air Force weapons simulation framework ............................................... 00 

B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement program .......................................... 00 

Common airborne sense and avoid .......................................................... 00 

Cyber operations program elements ........................................................ 00 

E–8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System replacement 

program .................................................................................................. 00 

EC–130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program ............................ 00 

Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program .................... 00 

F–35 25mm cannon ammunition ............................................................. 00 

F–35 aircraft program ............................................................................... 00 

F–35 block 4 program ............................................................................... 00 

Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead ......................................... 00 

Metals Affordability Initiative .................................................................. 00 

Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft ................. 00 

Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program ...................................... 00 

Wide area surveillance .............................................................................. 00 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ..................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of Special Operations Forces ........................................................................... 00 

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment ......................................... 00 

Bioforensic threat detection ...................................................................... 00 

Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities ...................... 00 

Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant High Reynolds Numbers ....................................................................................... 00 

Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities ......................... 00 

Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols ......................................... 00 

Combatant commands and science and technology Communities of 

Interest ................................................................................................... 00 

Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office ........................... 00 

Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers .............................. 00 

Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of medical countermeasures ............................................................................................ 00 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum Challenge ...... 00 

Development of antibiotics against biothreats ........................................ 00 

Development of innovative detection and threat identification technologies ................................................................................................... 00 

Electronic warfare roadmap ..................................................................... 00 

Expeditionary airfield technology ............................................................ 00 

Field-programmable gate arrays for defense .......................................... 00 

Future vertical lift ..................................................................................... 00 

Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes .............................. 00 

Health of the research and development enterprise .............................. 00 

High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion .................................... 00 

Hypersonics research ................................................................................ 00 

Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll .......................................................... 00 

Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy ......................... 00 

Military service coordination and transition efforts for the chemical 

biological defense program .................................................................... 00 

Minority science and technology programs ............................................. 00 

Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles ................................ 00 
Page

VII 

Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for unmanned aerial 

systems ................................................................................................... 00 

National Defense Education Program ..................................................... 00 

Neuroplasticity research partnerships .................................................... 00 

Optics and photonics for defense applications ........................................ 00 

Prosthesis research ................................................................................... 00 

Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense ......................... 00 

Space weather events research ................................................................ 00 

Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical Assault Light 

Operator Suit ......................................................................................... 00 

Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and Equipment Systems Program Management Office ....................................................... 00 

Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency .......................................... 00 

Three-dimensional integrated circuits ..................................................... 00 

U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation ................................................... 00 

Vaccine research for equine encephalitis ................................................ 00 

Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability .......................... 00 

Vapor compression cooling systems technology ...................................... 00 

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 00 

Information Assurance and Interoperability Program ........................... 00 

Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing ......................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 00 

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 00 

Section 211—Preliminary Design Review of Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization Program .............................................................................. 00 

Section 212—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Armored MultiPurpose Vehicle Program ......................................................................... 00 

Section 213—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System ...................... 00 

Section 214—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Weather Satellite 

Follow-On System ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 216—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-Based Infrared Systems Space Data Exploitation ..................................................... 00 

Section 217—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted Payload 

and Wide Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based Infrared Systems ............................................................................................................ 00 

Section 218—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Protected Tactical 

Demonstration and Protected Military Satellite Communications 

Testbed of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program ............ 00 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 221—Revision to the Service Requirement under the Science, 

Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education 

Program ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 222—Revision of Requirement for Acquisition Programs to 

Maintain Defense Research Facility Records .......................................... 00 

Section 223—Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features during Research 

and Development of Certain Defense Systems ....................................... 00 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Budget Request Adjustments .......................................................................... 00 

Base Realignment and Closure 2018 .......................................................... 00 

Corrosion Prevention .................................................................................... 00 

Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces .............. 00 

Support for International Sporting Competitions ...................................... 00 

Energy Issues .................................................................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy Security Mandate ............................................................................................................. 00 

Marine Hydrokinetic Technology ................................................................. 00 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies ......................................... 00 
Page

VIII 

Logistics and Sustainment Issues ................................................................... 00 

Army Workload and Performance System .................................................. 00 

Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance Workload 

Distribution ................................................................................................ 00 

Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces and 

Associated Sustainment Issues ................................................................ 00 

Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of Fair and 

Reasonable Cost of Spare Parts ............................................................... 00 

Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport Hazardous Materials for the Department of Defense ..................................................... 00 

F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy ............................................................ 00 

Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment ................................................. 00 

Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence ....................................................................................................... 00 

Report on the Department of Defense’s Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials .................................................................................................... 00 

Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport 

Security-Sensitive Materials for the Department of Defense ................ 00 

Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul ................................................ 00 

Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense ............. 00 

Readiness Issues ............................................................................................... 00 

Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the Western Pacific .... 00 

Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment ............................ 00 

Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements .............................................. 00 

Army Aviation Training ............................................................................... 00 

Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training .............................. 00 

Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System ................................ 00 

Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics .................................... 00 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 00 

Arctic Center of Excellence .......................................................................... 00 

Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy ........................................................ 00 

Briefing on Invasive Species Management ................................................. 00 

Cold-Weather Protective Clothing ............................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense’s Arctic Capabilities ......................................................................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition of Excess 

Defense Articles ......................................................................................... 00 

Office of Net Assessment .............................................................................. 00 

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers ....................... 00 

Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant Uniforms ............ 00 

Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions ........................................... 00 

U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region Office ......... 00 

United States Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force 

and Families Program ............................................................................... 00 

United States Special Operations Command Proposed Sponsorship of 

U.S. Naval Ship Sumner .......................................................................... 00 

Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations ......................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 00 

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 00 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environmental Provisions ...................................... 00 

Section 311—Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on Prohibition of 

Payment of Fines and Penalties from the Environmental Restoration 

Account, Defense ....................................................................................... 00 

Section 312—Biannual Certification by Commanders of the Combatant 

Commands Relating to the Prohibition on the Disposal of Waste 

in Open-Air Burn Pits ............................................................................... 00 

Section 313—Exclusions from Definition of ‘‘Chemical Substance’’ 

Under Toxic Substances Control Act and Report on Lead Ammunition .............................................................................................................. 00 

Section 314—Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative 

Fuel Procurement Requirement ............................................................... 00 

Section 315—Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of Alternative 

Fuels for Operational Use ........................................................................ 00 

Section 316—Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels ................................ 00 

Section 317—Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction 

of Biofuels Refineries ................................................................................ 00 
Page

IX 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 00 

Section 321—Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment ......................................................... 00 

Section 322—Comptroller General Reports on Department of Defense 

Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for Prepositioned Stocks ...... 00 

Section 323—Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support for the 

Conveyance of Excess Defense Articles to Allied Forces ........................ 00 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 00 

Section 331—Repeal of Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation and Financial Support for Military Museums ............................... 00 

Section 332—Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities Currently Funded Through Amounts Authorized to Be Appropriated for 

Overseas Contingency Operations ........................................................... 00 

Section 333—Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned Force ............. 00 

Section 334—Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on Military 

Readiness ................................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority ................................... 00 

Section 341—Limitation on Authority to Enter into a Contract for 

the Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or Overhaul of the F117 Engine ............................................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 00 

Section 351—Clarification of Authority Relating to Provision of Installation-Support Services through Intergovernmental Support Agreements .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 352—Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges within 

United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility ........................ 00 

Section 353—Management of Conventional Ammunition Inventory ........ 00 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 00 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 00 

Section 402—Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 00 

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 00 

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

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 00 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 00 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians .......................................................................................... 00 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To 

Be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................ 00 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 00 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 00 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing ................................ 00 

Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee ................................... 00 

Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response ............................... 00 

Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard Recruiting Practices ............................................................................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard Non-Availability for Mobilization ................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense and 

Military Departments Professionalism and Ethics Programs ............... 00 

Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses ................ 00 

Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards ............................ 00 

Diversity of the Armed Forces ..................................................................... 00 

Medal of Honor Process ................................................................................ 00 

Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission ................. 00 

Recognizing Military Chaplains ................................................................... 00 

Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice Punitive Article ... 00 

Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain Guidance 

in Response to the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood ............. 00 

Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations ....................................... 00 
Page

X 

Transition Assistance Program .................................................................... 00 

U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions ............................................................ 00 

U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives ......................... 00 

Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel .................................... 00 

Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to Increase Cyber 

Security Expertise ..................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy Generally ............................................. 00 

Section 501—Authority to Limit Consideration for Early Retirement 

by Selective Retirement Boards to Particular Warrant Officer Year 

Groups and Specialties ............................................................................. 00 

Section 502—Relief from Limits on the Percentage of Officers Who 

May Be Recommended for Discharge during a Fiscal Year Using 

Enhanced Authority for Selective Early Discharges .............................. 00 

Section 503—Repeal of Requirement for Submission to Congress of 

Annual Reports on Joint Officer Management and Promotion Policy 

Objectives for Joint Officers ..................................................................... 00 

Section 504—Options for Phase II of Joint Professional Military Education .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 505—Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides Authorized for 

Officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps .................... 00 

Section 506—Required Consideration of Certain Elements of Command 

Climate in Performance Appraisals of Commanding Officers ............... 00 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Management ............................ 00 

Section 511—Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List Following 

Nonselection for Promotion of Certain Health Professions Officers 

and First Lieutenants and Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate Degrees .................................................................................... 00 

Section 512—Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in Assignment 

of Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National 

Guards ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 513—National Guard Civil and Defense Support Activities and 

Related Matters ......................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 00 

Section 521—Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records ................................. 00 

Section 522—Additional Required Elements of Transition Assistance 

Program ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 523—Extension of Authority to Conduct Career Flexibility Programs .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 524—Provision of Information to Members of the Armed Forces 

on Privacy Rights Relating to Receipt of Mental Health Services ........ 00 

Section 525—Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains 

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

Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing 

Faith Group ............................................................................................... 00 

Section 526—Department of Defense Senior Advisor on Professionalism .................................................................................................... 00 

Section 527—Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of Women 

in the Armed Forces .................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle D—Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention and Response ................................................................ 00 

Section 531—Improved Department of Defense Information Reporting 

and Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents Involving Members 

of the Armed Forces .................................................................................. 00 

Section 532—Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel Regarding 

Use of Mental Health Records by Defense during Preliminary Hearing and Court-Martial Proceedings .......................................................... 00 

Section 533—Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

and Related Military Justice Enhancements to Military Service Academies ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 534—Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault Regarding 

Victims’ Preference for Prosecution of Offense by Court-Martial or 

Civilian Court ............................................................................................ 00 

Section 535—Enforcement of Crime Victims’ Rights Related to Protections Afforded by Certain Military Rules of Evidence ........................... 00 
Page

XI 

Section 536—Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction 

of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the 

Armed Forces ............................................................................................. 00 

Section 537—Modification of Military Rules of Evidence Relating to 

Admissibility of General Military Character Toward Probability of 

Innocence ................................................................................................... 00 

Section 538—Confidential Review of Characterization of Terms of Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Victims of Sexual 

Offenses ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 539—Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege Afforded 

Under the Military Rules of Evidence ..................................................... 00 

Subtitle E—Military Family Readiness .......................................................... 00 

Section 545—Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with Respect 

to Transitional Compensation for Dependents of Members Separated 

for Dependent Abuse ................................................................................. 00 

Section 546—Improved Consistency in Data Collection and Reporting 

in Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts ........................................... 00 

Section 547—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents 

Who Are Members of the Armed Forces .................................................. 00 

Subtitle F—Education and Training Opportunities ...................................... 00 

Section 551—Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural Exchange 

Activities at Military Service Academies ................................................ 00 

Section 552—Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed Forces 

in Obtaining Post-Service Employment ................................................... 00 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education ................................................. 00 

Section 561—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 

Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense Civilian Employees .................................... 00 

Section 562—Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens as 

Teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents’ School 

System ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 563—Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education to Include Domestic Dependent Elementary and 

Secondary Schools ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 564—Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement 

and Transition of Military Dependent Students ..................................... 00 

Section 565—Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012 00 

Subtitle H—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 00 

Section 571—Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian 

Employees of the Department of Defense Who Were Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired or Motivated by a Foreign Terrorist Organization .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 572—Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge ............. 00 

Section 573—Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining 

to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael 

Peralta ........................................................................................................ 00 

Subtitle I—Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements ...................................... 00 

Section 581—Secretary of Defense Review and Report on Prevention 

of Suicide Among Members of United States Special Operations 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 582—Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review 

of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces Who Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault ........................................................... 00 

Section 583—Comptroller General Report Regarding Management of 

Personnel Records of Members of the National Guard .......................... 00 

Section 584—Study on Gender Integration in Defense Operation Planning and Execution ................................................................................... 00 

Section 585—Deadline for Submission of Report Containing Results 

of Review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 

Role in Sexual Harassment Cases ........................................................... 00 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ............................................................................... 00 

Section 591—Inspection of Outpatient Residential Facilities Occupied 

by Recovering Service Members ............................................................... 00 

Section 592—Working Group on Integrated Disability Evaluation System .............................................................................................................. 00 

Section 593—Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise to Leave 

No Member of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in Afghanistan ............ 00 
Page

XII 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 00 

Section 601—Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase 

in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances ................................................................................................. 00 

Section 602—No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for General 

and Flag Officers ....................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 00 

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

Authorities for Reserve Forces ................................................................. 00 

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

Authorities for Health Care Professionals .............................................. 00 

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

for Nuclear Officers ................................................................................... 00 

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

Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities ........ 00 

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

of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays ........................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation .......................................................... 00 

Section 621—Authority to Enter into Contracts for the Provision of 

Relocation Services .................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle D—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ........................................................................... 00 

Section 631—Authority of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities to 

Enter into Contracts with Other Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities to Provide and Obtain Certain Goods and Services ....................... 00 

Section 632—Review of Management, Food, and Pricing Options for 

Defense Commissary System ................................................................... 00 

Section 633—Restriction on Implementing Any Department of Defense 

Policy to Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of Certain Items on Military 

Installations ............................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 641—Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed Forces Regarding Their Preferences for Military Pay and Benefits ...................... 00 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Air Force Critical Care Training ................................................................. 00 

Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic 

Brain Injury ............................................................................................... 00 

Collaboration on Trauma Research ............................................................. 00 

Deployment Health for Women ................................................................... 00 

Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families ................................ 00 

Healthy Base Initiative ................................................................................ 00 

Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing ...................................................... 00 

Integrated Scheduling System ..................................................................... 00 

Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 

Healthcare in Colorado Springs ............................................................... 00 

Joint Medical Kits ......................................................................................... 00 

Military and Academic Research Partnership ............................................ 00 

Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research .................................... 00 

Military Health Care Team Model .............................................................. 00 

Military Innovations in Suicide Research ................................................... 00 

Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health Agency ............ 00 

Review of Defense Health Agency Progress ............................................... 00 

Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community Hospitals ........................................................................................................... 00 

Sleep Health .................................................................................................. 00 

Surgical Critical Care Institute ................................................................... 00 

US Family Health Plans .............................................................................. 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits .............................. 00 

Section 701—Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 00 
Page

XIII 

Section 702—Clarification of Provision of Food to Former Members 

and Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical 

Treatment Facilities .................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 00 

Section 711—Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities ................... 00 

Section 712—Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE Standard 

and TRICARE Extra ................................................................................. 00 

Section 713—Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of Graduate Medical Education Billets ................................................................................ 00 

Section 714—Review of Military Health System Modernization Study ... 00 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 00 

Section 721—Extension of Authority for Joint Department of DefenseDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 

Fund ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 722—Designation and Responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor for Armed Forces Retirement Home .................................................. 00 

Section 723—Research Regarding Alzheimer’s Disease ............................ 00 

Section 724—Acquisition Strategy for Health Care Professional Staffing 

Services ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 725—Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management 

Under TRICARE Program ........................................................................ 00 

Section 726—Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas ....................... 00 

Section 727—Comptroller General Report on Transition of Care for 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury ................. 00 

Section 728—Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments to Department of Defense ......................................................................................... 00 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions .................................................... 00 

Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial 

Sales on Industrial Base Sustainment .................................................... 00 

Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High Risk Sectors 

of the Defense Industrial Base ................................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Processes 

for the Acquisition of Services .................................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations on Contract Services Spending ............................................................................ 00 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted Foundry and Supply Chain Risk Management Programs ................................ 00 

Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the Department of Defense ......................................................................................... 00 

Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base .............................. 00 

Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud Computing 

Acquisition and Brokerage Policies .......................................................... 00 

Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards of Production .............................................................................................................. 00 

Operational Contract Support ..................................................................... 00 

Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review .............................................. 00 

Regional Commercialization Activities ........................................................ 00 

Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause ................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ......................................................................................... 00 

Section 801—Extension to United States Transportation Command of 

Authorities Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy ... 00 

Section 802—Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced Component 

Development or Prototype Units .............................................................. 00 

Section 803—Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 804—Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount 

Available for Contract Services ................................................................ 00 

Subtitle B—Industrial Base Matters .............................................................. 00 
Page

XIV 

Section 811—Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans ............................................................................................ 00 

Section 812—Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled VeteranOwned Small Businesses .......................................................................... 00 

Section 813—Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and Consolidated 

Contracts .................................................................................................... 00 

Section 814—Authority to Provide Education to Small Businesses on 

Certain Requirements of Arms Export Control Act ............................... 00 

Section 815—Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered Contracts ..... 00 

Section 816—SBA Surety Bond Guarantee ................................................ 00 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 821—Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force Information 

Technology Contracting ............................................................................ 00 

Section 822—Airlift Service ......................................................................... 00 

Section 823—Compliance with Requirements for Senior Department 

of Defense Officials Seeking Employment with Defense Contractors ... 00 

Section 824—Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment ................. 00 

Section 825—Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating Executive 

Order No. 11246 ........................................................................................ 00 

Section 826—Requirement for Policies and Standard Checklist in Procurement of Services ................................................................................. 00 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Headquarters 

Reductions .................................................................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and Evaluation Processes and Activities ................................................................................... 00 

Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office ................................... 00 

Global Response Force .................................................................................. 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 00 

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

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps ........................................... 00 

Section 902—Additional Responsibility for Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 00 

Section 903—Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 904—Requirement for Congressional Briefing before Divesting 

of Defense Finance and Accounting Service Functions .......................... 00 

Section 905—Combatant Command Efficiency Plan ................................. 00 

Section 906—Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic Combatant 

Commands to Four by Fiscal Year 2020 ................................................. 00 

Section 907—Office of Net Assessment ....................................................... 00 

Section 908—Amendments Relating to Organization and Management 

of the Office of the Secretary of Defense ................................................. 00 

Section 909—Periodic Review of Department of Defense Management 

Headquarters ............................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle B—Total Force Management ............................................................ 00 

Section 911—Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce Plan Relating to Senior Management, Functional, and Technical Workforce of 

the Department of Defense ....................................................................... 00 

Section 912—Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General Report on 

Inventory .................................................................................................... 00 

Section 913—Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based on Determinations of Cost-Efficiency ................................................................ 00 

Section 914—Prohibition on Conversion of Functions Performed by Civilian or Contractor Personnel to Performance by Military Personnel . 00 

Section 915—Notification of Compliance with Section Relating to Procurement of Services ................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 921—Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement of Costs 

of Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies ........................................... 00 
Page

XV 

Section 923—Authority to Require Employees of the Department of 

Defense and Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 

Corps to Occupy Quarters on a Rental Basis while Performing Official Travel .................................................................................................. 00 

Section 924—Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for Privately Owned Automobiles of Government Employees and Members 

of the Uniformed Services ........................................................................ 00 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 00 

Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014 .................................... 00 

National Guard Counterdrug Programs ..................................................... 00 

U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing ................................................ 00 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 00 

Army Force Structure ................................................................................... 00 

Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts .............................................. 00 

Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems ............................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Antiterrorism 

and Force Protection Efforts ..................................................................... 00 

Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction ..................................................................................................... 00 

Cross-Service Wargaming Capability .......................................................... 00 

Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and Conventional 

Munitions Assistance Program ................................................................ 00 

Department of Defense Installation Security ............................................. 00 

Economic Warfare Policy .............................................................................. 00 

Force Structure Assessment ........................................................................ 00 

Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account ....................................................... 00 

Information Management Systems for Response Forces ........................... 00 

Inspector General’s Report on Over-Classification of National Security 

Information ................................................................................................ 00 

Internet Governance ..................................................................................... 00 

Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and Capabilities ........... 00 

Military Auxiliary Radio System ................................................................. 00 

Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies .................................... 00 

Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification Material .............. 00 

Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships ............................................ 00 

Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military Education Concerning Nuclear Deterrence Operations and Policy ............................... 00 

Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas ................................. 00 

Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 

Recommendations ...................................................................................... 00 

Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against Electromagnetic Pulse .................................................................................................. 00 

Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United States ....... 00 

Spectrum Operations Centers ...................................................................... 00 

Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination ................................. 00 

Transfer of Coast Guard HC–130H Aircraft to the Air Force for U.S. 

Forest Service Equipment Modifications ................................................. 00 

U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and Tactical 

Control of All Department of Defense Executive Airlift Aircraft .......... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 00 

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority ................................................ 00 

Section 1002—Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General Audits of 

Certain Financial Statements .................................................................. 00 

Section 1003—Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization 

and Naval Reactors ................................................................................... 00 

Section 1004—Management of Defense Information Technology Systems ............................................................................................................ 00 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 00 

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

and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia ........................................ 00 

Section 1012—Three-Year Extension of Authority of Department of 

Defense to Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities 

of Other Governmental Agencies ............................................................. 00 
Page

XVI 

Section 1013—Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds in the 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide Account 

on the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate ........................ 00 

Section 1014—National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities ......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1015—Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central America .......... 00 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 00 

Section 1021—Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel for Purposes of the Annual Plan and Certification Relating to Budgeting 

for Construction of Naval Vessels ............................................................ 00 

Section 1022—National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund ................................ 00 

Section 1023—Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified Aviator 

or Naval Flight Officer Be in Command of an Inactivated NuclearPowered Aircraft Carrier Before Decommissioning ................................ 00 

Section 1024—Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until Commencement of Planning of Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. 

George Washington ................................................................................... 00 

Section 1025—Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary of the 

Sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher ................................................................ 00 

Section 1026—Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of 

Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships .............................. 00 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 00 

Section 1031—Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for Combating 

Terrorism ................................................................................................... 00 

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

Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .......................... 00 

Section 1033—Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or 

Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ............................................................................ 00 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 00 

Section 1041—Modification of Department of Defense Authority for 

Humanitarian Demining Assistance and Stockpiled Conventional 

Munitions Assistance Programs ............................................................... 00 

Section 1042—Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law Students 

and Persons Studying to be Paralegals ................................................... 00 

Section 1043—Expansion of Authority for Secretary of Defense to Use 

the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate for Transportation 

Services Provided to Certain Non-Department of Defense Entities ..... 00 

Section 1044—Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of Military Installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet Contractors .......................................... 00 

Section 1045—Certification and Limitation on Availability of Funds 

for Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program ..................................... 00 

Section 1046—Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating to Sensitive Military Operations ......................................................................... 00 

Section 1047—Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift Aircraft 

to Support the Airlift Movement Requirements of the United States 

Transportation Command ......................................................................... 00 

Section 1048—Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes 

Air Force Base until Completion of Assessments by Secretary of 

Defense and General Accounting Office .................................................. 00 

Section 1049—Limitation on Removal of C–130 Aircraft .......................... 00 

Section 1050—Conditions on Army National Guard and Active Army 

Force Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General Report ........... 00 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 00 

Section 1061—Protection of Defense Mission-Critical Infrastructure 

from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems ... 00 

Section 1062—Response of the Department of Defense to Compromises 

of Classified Information .......................................................................... 00 

Section 1063—Report and Briefing to Congress on Procurement and 

Inspection of Armored Commercial Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to 

Transport Civilian Employees of Department of Defense ...................... 00 

Section 1064—Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the Department 

of Defense ................................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 1071—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 00 
Page

XVII 

Section 1072—Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property for Border 

Security Activities ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 1073—Revision to Statute of Limitations for Aviation Insurance 

Claims ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 1074—Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System .................. 00 

Section 1075—Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National Airspace ........ 00 

Section 1076—Sense of Congress on the Life and Achievements of 

Dr. James R. Schlesinger .......................................................................... 00 

Section 1077—Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review ............................ 00 

Section 1078—Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review ........ 00 

Section 1079—Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices ................................................................................................ 00 

Section 1080—Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and Readiness 

Posture of United States Military in Europe .......................................... 00 

Section 1081—Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs 

Incurred by the Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside 

the United States ...................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital Funds . 00 

Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees Performing 

Maintenance on the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in 

Japan .......................................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

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

Civilian Employees Working Overseas .................................................... 00 

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

Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty 

in a Combat Zone ...................................................................................... 00 

Section 1103—Revision to List of Science and Technology Reinvention 

Laboratories ............................................................................................... 00 

Section 1104—Permanent Authority for Experimental Personnel Program for Scientific and Technical Personnel ........................................... 00 

Section 1105—Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions at Department of Defense Research and Engineering Facilities ........................... 00 

Section 1106—Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection Board Decisions Relating to Whistleblowers ............................................................. 00 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................... 00 

Aggression by the Russian Federation ........................................................ 00 

Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential Inconsistencies ..... 00 

Conflict in Syria ............................................................................................ 00 

Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with International Partners ............................................................................................................. 00 

Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense Systems and 

Interoperability with Friendly and Allied States ................................... 00 

Global Security Contingency Fund .............................................................. 00 

Missile Defense Cooperation with Japan .................................................... 00 

Missile Defense Cooperation with the Republic of Korea .......................... 00 

Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in Afghanistan ................ 00 

National Guard State Partnership Program .............................................. 00 

National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking .............................. 00 

Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations ..................................... 00 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit .................................... 00 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on Deterrence ........................................................................................................... 00 

Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile Defense Cooperation Discussions ................................................................................ 00 

Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 

Forces Treaty ............................................................................................. 00 

Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior .................................................................. 00 
Page

XVIII 

Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs ............................. 00 

Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa Command ......... 00 

Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the Support 

of the Chinese Government ...................................................................... 00 

Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa ..................... 00 

Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to Strengthen 

Its Strategic Partnership with Djibouti ................................................... 00 

Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European Phased 

Adaptive Approach .................................................................................... 00 

Republic of China Radar Interoperability ................................................... 00 

Transfers of Excess Defense Articles .......................................................... 00 

United States Security Assistance to the Government of Egypt .............. 00 

United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle East and 

North Africa ............................................................................................... 00 

Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Developments ... 00 

Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace .......................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 00 

Section 1201—One-Year Extension of Global Security Contingency 

Fund ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1202—Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance Under Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction 00 

Section 1203—Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support to Foreign 

Military Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries While Assigned to 

the Department of Defense ....................................................................... 00 

Section 1204—Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and 

Verification Procedures of the Department of Defense .......................... 00 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan ........................ 00 

Section 1211—Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan ................................................................................. 00 

Section 1212—Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain 

Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military 

Operations .................................................................................................. 00 

Section 1213—Extension of Certain Authorities for Support of Foreign 

Forces Supporting or Participating with the United States Armed 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1214—Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in 

Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support .................................... 00 

Section 1215—Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150 Percent of All 

Taxes Assessed by Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by Afghanistan .............................................................................. 00 

Section 1216—United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces Through the End of Fiscal Year 2018 ................ 00 

Section 1217—Sense of Congress on United States Military Commitment to Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan ............................. 00 

Section 1218—Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program ............ 00 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation ............................. 00 

Section 1221—Limitation on Military Contact and Cooperation between 

the United States and the Russian Federation ...................................... 00 

Section 1222—Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to Certification of Certain Flights by the Russian Federation Under the Treaty 

on Open Skies ............................................................................................ 00 

Section 1223—Limitations on Providing Certain Missile Defense Information to the Russian Federation ........................................................... 00 

Section 1224—Limitation on Availability of Funds to Transfer Missile 

Defense Information to the Russian Federation ..................................... 00 

Section 1225—Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation 

of Its Obligations under the INF Treaty ................................................. 00 

Section 1226—Sense of Congress Regarding Russian Aggression Toward Ukraine ............................................................................................. 00 

Section 1227—Annual Report on Military and Security Developments 

Involving the Russian Federation ............................................................ 00 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region ............................. 00 
Page

XIX 

Section 1231—Strategy to Prioritize United States Interests in the 

United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility and Implementation Plan .......................................................................................... 00 

Section 1232—Modifications to Annual Report on Military and Security 

Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China ....................... 00 

Section 1233—Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding Military Engagement with Burma .............................................................................. 00 

Section 1234—Report on Department of Defense Munitions Strategy 

for United States Pacific Command ......................................................... 00 

Section 1235—Missile Defense Cooperation ............................................... 00 

Section 1236—Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its Contribution 

to Regional Peace and Stability ............................................................... 00 

Section 1237—Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-access and 

Area-denial Strategies and Capabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region ..... 00 

Section 1238—Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security Commitment 

to Japan ..................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1239—Sense of Congress on Opportunities to Strengthen Relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea ........... 00 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 1241—Extension of Authority for Support of Special Operations 

to Combat Terrorism ................................................................................. 00 

Section 1242—One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities ...................................................... 00 

Section 1243—Extension and Modification of Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq ... 00 

Section 1244—Modification of National Security Planning Guidance to 

Deny Safe Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent Extremist Affiliates ... 00 

Section 1245—Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and Services of 

Djibouti in Support of Department of Defense Activities in United 

States Africa Command Area of Responsibility ...................................... 00 

Section 1246—Strategic Framework for United States Security Force 

Assistance and Cooperation in the European and Eurasian Regions ... 00 

Section 1247—Requirement of Department of Defense to Continue Implementation of United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to 

Gender-based Violence Globally and Participation in Interagency 

Working Group .......................................................................................... 00 

Section 1248—Department of Defense Situational Awareness of Economic and Financial Activity ................................................................... 00 

Section 1249—Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the 

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act ............................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1250—Prohibition on the Integration of Certain Missile Defense 

Systems ...................................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle F—Reports and Sense of Congress Provisions ................................ 00 

Section 1261—Report on ‘‘New Normal’’ and General Mission Requirements of United States Africa Command ................................................ 00 

Section 1262—Report on Contractors with the Department of Defense 

That Have Conducted Significant Transactions with Iranian Persons 

or the Government of Iran ........................................................................ 00 

Section 1263—Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran .................................. 00 

Section 1264—Sense of Congress on United States Presence and Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran .............................. 00 

Section 1265—Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense Capabilities of Poland ............................................................................................. 00 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Cooperative Biological Engagement Program ............................................ 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 00 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 00 

Section 1303—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Activities with Russian Federation ........................... 00 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 
Page

XX 

Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund Cash Balances ........................................................................................................... 00 

Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security ........................ 00 

Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile ................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 00 

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 00 

Section 1402—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense .... 00 

Section 1403—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 00 

Section 1404—Defense Inspector General .................................................. 00 

Section 1405—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 00 

Section 1411—Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals from the 

National Defense Stockpile ....................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 1421—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department 

of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, 

Illinois ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 1422—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home ........................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment ............................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 00 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 00 

Section 1502—Procurement ......................................................................... 00 

Section 1503—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 00 

Section 1504—Military Personnel ............................................................... 00 

Section 1505—Other Appropriations ........................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 00 

Section 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations ........................... 00 

Section 1512—Special Transfer Authority .................................................. 00 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters .................................. 00 

Section 1521—Continuation of Existing Limitations on the Use of 

Funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund .................................... 00 

Section 1522—Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................................................. 00 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ......................................................................................................... 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site ............................. 00 

Air Force Cyber ............................................................................................. 00 

Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System ........................... 00 

Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs .................................. 00 

Biometrics for Identity and Access Management ....................................... 00 

Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary of Defense’s Plans for Cruise Missile Defense of the United States .............. 00 

Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent ................. 00 

Briefing on Number of B61–12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be Produced . 00 

Briefing on Plutonium Strategy ................................................................... 00 

Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command ...................... 00 

Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance .................................................................................. 00 

Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense Efforts to 

Protect Information and Systems from Insider Threats ........................ 00 

Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council ....................... 00 

Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research, Development, and 

Acquisition ................................................................................................. 00 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile Defense 

Agency Tests and Targets Efficiencies .................................................... 00 

Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for Cybersecurity ............. 00 
Page

XXI 

Defense Intelligence Priorities ..................................................................... 00 

Directed Energy for Missile Defense ........................................................... 00 

E4–B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control ...................... 00 

Encrypted Key Delivery ............................................................................... 00 

Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code ................................ 00 

Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5 Missiles ..... 00 

Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users ...................................... 00 

Global Positioning System Denied Environments ...................................... 00 

Global Positioning System Replenishment ................................................. 00 

High Capacity Satellite Communications ................................................... 00 

Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence ......................... 00 

Information Assurance Training and Certification .................................... 00 

Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the Joint Information Environment ................................................................................. 00 

Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities ...................... 00 

Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration .......................... 00 

Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile Defense .......... 00 

Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity ................................................................ 00 

Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the National Intelligence Program ......................................................................................... 00 

Missile Defense Applications for Electro Magnetic Rail Gun Technology ......................................................................................................... 00 

Mobile User Objective System ..................................................................... 00 

Nuclear Detonation Detection System ........................................................ 00 

Operationally Responsive Space .................................................................. 00 

Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness ..................................... 00 

Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination .............................................. 00 

Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL NETWORK ........................................................................................................ 00 

Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs ..................................... 00 

Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment ..................................... 00 

Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex ............................ 00 

Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program ...................................... 00 

Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space Activities 00 

Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense Segment .......................................................... 00 

Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations Near U.S. 

Overseas Military Installations ................................................................ 00 

Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the People’s 

Republic of China ...................................................................................... 00 

Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life Testing and 

Highly Accelerated Stress Screening ....................................................... 00 

Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats .................................. 00 

Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs ................................................ 00 

Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan ............................................. 00 

Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel ............................... 00 

Space-Based Reconnaissance ....................................................................... 00 

Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program ............ 00 

Standard Missile 3 Block IB ........................................................................ 00 

Targeting Enterprise .................................................................................... 00 

U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and Operations Center ............................................................................................................... 00 

University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile Defense Agency . 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 00 

Section 1601—Department of Defense Space Security and Defense Program ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1602—Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Notification ............. 00 

Section 1603—Satellite Communications Responsibilities of Executive 

Agent for Space .......................................................................................... 00 

Section 1604—Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program ................... 00 

Section 1605—Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial Satellite 

Communication Services ........................................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities ......... 00 

Section 1611—Assessment and Limitation on Availability of Funds for 

Intelligence Activities and Programs of United States Special Operations Command and Special Operations Forces ................................... 00 
Page

XXII 

Section 1612—Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands ............... 00 

Section 1613—One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery Intelligence 

and Geospatial Information Support Provided to Regional Organizations and Security Alliances ..................................................................... 00 

Section 1614—Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Executive 

Agent .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1615—Air Force Intelligence Organization ................................... 00 

Section 1616—Prohibition on National Intelligence Program Consolidation .............................................................................................................. 00 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace-related Matters ........................................................ 00 

Section 1621—Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training Ranges ... 00 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 00 

Section 1631—Preparation of Annual Budget Request Regarding Nuclear Weapons ............................................................................................ 00 

Section 1632—Independent Review of the Personnel Reliability Program of the Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program of the Department of Energy .......................................................... 00 

Section 1633—Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary Requirement . 00 

Section 1634—Retention of Missile Silos .................................................... 00 

Section 1635—Certification on Nuclear Force Structure ........................... 00 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 00 

Section 1641—Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of the United 

States .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 1642—Sense of Congress on Procurement and Deployment of 

Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle ..................... 00 

TITLE XVII—DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE AUDITABILITY ...................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 1701—Findings and Purposes ........................................................ 00 

Section 1702—Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Audit Readiness ............................................................................... 00 

Section 1703—Duties of the Advisory Panel .............................................. 00 

Section 1704—Powers of the Advisory Panel ............................................. 00 

Section 1705—Advisory Panel Personnel Matters ..................................... 00 

Section 1706—Termination of the Advisory Panel ..................................... 00 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 00 

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 00 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ......... 00 

Section 2001—Short Title ............................................................................ 00 

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To 

Be Specified by Law .................................................................................. 00 

Section 2003—Effective Date ....................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 00 

Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 00 

Section 2104—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 Project ...................................................................................... 00 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2013 Projects ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 2106—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Project ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 2107—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Explanation of Funding Adjustment ........................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 
Page

XXIII 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 00 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 00 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 00 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2012 Projects ..................................................................................... 00 

Section 2206—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2014 Project ...................................................................................... 00 

Section 2207—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2208—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Air Force Strategic Basing Process ............................................................. 00 

Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities ......................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2302—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 00 

Section 2303—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2008 Project ...................................................................................... 00 

Section 2304—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Project ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 2305—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 00 

Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility .............................................. 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 00 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 00 

Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects ......................... 00 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 00 

Section 2404—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2405—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2406—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission of Required Reports ............................................................................................................ 00 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 00 

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide .............................................................. 00 

Section 2412—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2000 Project ...................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 00 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 00 

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects ......................................................................... 00 

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ............................................................................................ 00 
Page

XXIV 

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ........................................... 00 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 00 

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 00 

Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and 

Reserve ....................................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 2611—Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out 

Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects ........................................................... 00 

Section 2612—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2013 Project ...................................................................................... 00 

Section 2613—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 

Project ........................................................................................................ 00 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 00 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment ............................... 00 

Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations .......................... 00 

Property Disposal Methods .......................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 00 

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment 

and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base 

Closure Account ......................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Prohibition on Additional BRAC Round .................................... 00 

Section 2711—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) Round ...................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 2721—Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure Inventory and 

Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary to Support the Force Structure ............................................................................................................. 00 

Section 2722—Modification of Property Disposal Procedures Under 

Base Realignment and Closure Process .................................................. 00 

Section 2723—Final Settlement of Claims Regarding Caretaker Agreement for Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah ........................................ 00 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment .............. 00 

Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges .................................... 00 

Deployment of Secure Work Enviroments .................................................. 00 

Facilities Modernization Model .................................................................... 00 

Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea ............................................ 00 

High Performance Facades for Department of Defense Installations ...... 00 

Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques ............................. 00 

Joint Land Use Study ................................................................................... 00 

Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization ........................................................... 00 

Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components ............ 00 

Public-Private Family Housing on Guam ................................................... 00 

Real Property Management ......................................................................... 00 

Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws ......................... 00 

Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads ..................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2801—Prevention of Circumvention of Military Construction 

Laws ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2802—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified 

Minor Military Construction .................................................................... 00 

Section 2803—Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection Procedures for Additional Facility Projects ...................................................... 00 

Section 2804—Extension of Limitation on Construction Projects in European Command Area of Responsibility ................................................ 00 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 00 

Section 2811—Consultation Requirement in Connection with Department of Defense Major Land Acquisitions .............................................. 00 
Page

XXV 

Section 2812—Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases for Financial Institutions Operating on Military Installations ............................. 00 

Section 2813—Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority ..................... 00 

Section 2814—Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover Administrative 

Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions ................... 00 

Section 2815—Special Easement Acquisition Authority, Pacific Missile 

Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii ...................................... 00 

Section 2816—National Security Considerations for Inclusion of Federal 

Property on National Register of Historic Places or Designation as 

National Historic Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment ......... 00 

Section 2831—Repeal or Modification of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region ..................... 00 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 00 

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, La 

Jolla, California ......................................................................................... 00 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army Hospital, 

District of Columbia .................................................................................. 00 

Section 2843—Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank 

D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia ....................................................... 00 

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii ............................................................................................................. 00 

Section 2845—Modification of Conditions on Land Conveyance, Joliet 

Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois ............................................................ 00 

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve Center, Kingston, New York ........................................................................... 00 

Section 2847—Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma ........................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2848—Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington ................... 00 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 2861—Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting Attack at the 

Washington Navy Yard ............................................................................. 00 

Section 2862—Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies ........................................................................................................ 00 

Section 2863—Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii 

as the Pohakuloa Training Center ........................................................... 00 

Section 2864—Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in Riverside, California ................................................................. 00 

Section 2865—Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National 

Historical Park, Ohio ................................................................................ 00 

Section 2866—Manhattan Project National Historical Park .................... 00 

TITLE XXIX—MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO 

SUPPORT READINESS AND SECURITY .................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada .............................................. 00 

Section 2901—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada ................................................................................... 00 

Section 2902—Water Rights ........................................................................ 00 

Section 2903—Withdrawal ........................................................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, 

California ................................................................................................... 00 

Section 2911—Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation Area, California ...................................................................... 00 

Subtitle C—Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands 

Efficiency and Savings .............................................................................. 00 

Section 2921—Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land Withdrawals and Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 

1999 ............................................................................................................ 00 

Subtitle D—Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California ................ 00 

Section 2931—Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for Naval 

Air Weapons Station China Lake, California ......................................... 00 

Subtitle E—White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico .................................. 00 

Section 2941—Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land 

to Support White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico ............................ 00 
Page

XXVI 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 00 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................................ 00 

B61–12 and W76–1 Life Extension Programs ........................................ 00 

Deferral of the W78/88–1 Life Extension Program ................................ 00 

Deferred maintenance ............................................................................... 00 

Implementation of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing ............................................................................... 00 

Plan for Public-Private Partnerships ....................................................... 00 

Weapons Activities and budget prioritization ......................................... 00 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................... 00 

Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements ...................... 00 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................................................ 00 

Nuclear Security Summit 2014 ................................................................ 00 

Naval Reactors .............................................................................................. 00 

Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the capability to 

study the use of Low-Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors ............ 00 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 00 

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project ........................................ 00 

Office of the Administrator .......................................................................... 00 

Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration budget 

structure ................................................................................................. 00 

Reorganization and reform ....................................................................... 00 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 00 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 00 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................. 00 

Environmental Management technology development program ........... 00 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ....................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Subtitle A—National Security Program Authorizations ............................... 00 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 00 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 00 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 00 

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance .......................................... 00 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 00 

Section 3111—Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear Weapons for 

Intelligence Purposes ................................................................................ 00 

Section 3112—Authorized Personnel Levels of National Nuclear Security Administration ................................................................................... 00 

Section 3113—Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project ............................................................................................... 00 

Section 3114—Plutonium Pit Production Capacity .................................... 00 

Section 3115—Definition of Baseline and Threshold for Stockpile Life 

Extension Project ....................................................................................... 00 

Section 3116—Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range Standoff 

Weapon ....................................................................................................... 00 

Section 3117—Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium ........................ 00 

Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security ......................................................... 00 

Section 3119—Additional Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office 

of the Administrator for Nuclear Security .............................................. 00 

Section 3120—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-Proliferation 

Activities Between the United States and the Russian Federation ...... 00 

Section 3121—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in Russian Federation ................... 00 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports ........................................................................ 00 

Section 3131—Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by National 

Nuclear Security Administration ............................................................. 00 

Section 3132—Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program High 

Explosives Options .................................................................................... 00 
Page

XXVII 

Section 3133—Analysis of Existing Facilities ............................................. 00 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 00 

Section 3141—Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy Defense Act ....... 00 

Section 3142—Technical Corrections to National Nuclear Security Administration Act ........................................................................................ 00 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 00 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 00 

Section 3202—Inspector General of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board .......................................................................................................... 00 

Section 3203—Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ...................................................................................................... 00 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 00 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 00 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 00 

Obsolete Vessel ‘‘Best Value’’ Contracts ...................................................... 00 

Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force Fleet ........... 00 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 00 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National Security 

Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2015 ........................... 00 

Section 3502—Special Rule for DD–17 ....................................................... 00 

Section 3503—Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic Maritime 

Industry in National Security .................................................................. 00 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 00 

Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables ................... 00 

Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year 2015 ........ 00 

National Defense Budget Authority Implication ........................................ 00 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 00 

Section 4101—Procurement ......................................................................... 00 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 00 

Section 4201—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................. 00 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 00 

Section 4301—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 00 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 00 

Section 4401—Military Personnel ............................................................... 00 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 00 

Section 4501—Other Authorizations ........................................................... 00 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 00 

Section 4601—Military Construction .......................................................... 00 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 00 

Section 4701—Department of Energy National Security Programs ......... 00 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ..................................................... 00 

Communications from Other Committees ............................................................. 00 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 00 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 00 

Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act ........................................ 00 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 00 

Advisory of Earmarks .............................................................................................. 00 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 00 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 00 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 00 

Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................................ 00 

Applicability to the Legislative Branch ................................................................. 00 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 00 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 00 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 00 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 00 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 00 
113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113– 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

MAY --, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCKEON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4435] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 

construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 


May 12, 2014 (5:41 p.m.)

F:\R\113\RPT\H4435_RPT.XML

f:\VHLC\051214\051214.139.xml 

1
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION 

The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 

procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) 

Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for operation and maintenance (O&M) 

and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2015: (a) the personnel 

strength for each Active Duty component of the military departments; (b) the 

personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the 

Armed Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 

and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the 

defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military 

construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas 

Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the 

Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions related to 

the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 

2015 for the Maritime Administration.

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, is 

a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary responsibilities 

as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which 

grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a 

Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 

forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives provides the House Committee on 

Armed Services with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally and 

over the military application of nuclear energy. The committee bill includes the 

large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight 

activities in the current year, as informed by the experience gained over the 

previous decades of the committee’s existence. 

The bill reflects the committee’s steadfast support of the courageous, 

professional, and dedicated men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and the 

committee’s appreciation for the sacrifices they make to accomplish their required 

missions. Events of the last year, ranging from on-going operations in the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan, robust counter-terrorism efforts around the globe, to timesensitive disaster and humanitarian responses, serve to highlight the U.S. 

military’s flexibility and responsiveness in defending the Nation’s interests and 

addressing security challenges. The committee understands that the capabilities of 

the Armed Forces are underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security 

Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of these elements is 

required to enable the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic 

security that it has been for generations. The committee is committed to providing 

full authorization for the funding required to restore the readiness of the military; 

2
enhance the quality of life of military service members and their families; sustain 

and improve the Armed Forces; and properly safeguard the national security of the 

United States. 

In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, the committee bill 

would balance the force with constrained resources; support and protect the 

Nation's warfighters and their families; support a continued military commitment 

and U.S. presence in Afghanistan; begin the process of reforming Department of 

Defense institutions and processes; and assure that America’s Armed Forces 

maintain the vital global presence that allows them to face current threats and 

prepare for new ones.

Resources for Warfighters and Families

The committee remains committed to providing America’s warfighters, 

veterans, and their families with the care and support they need, deserve, and have 

earned. This bill would authorize an extension of a wide array of bonuses, special 

and incentive pays for the Nation’s men and women in uniform. 

The committee continues to maintain a focus on sexual assault prevention 

and prosecution. This bill would continue to refine the Department of Defense 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program, while at the same time requiring 

continued monitoring of the Department’s implementation of the significant reforms 

enacted by Congress over the past 2 years. 

While the committee recognizes the need for compensation reform, it 

believes such reforms must be examined holistically before proceeding with wideimpacting changes, and it looks forward to reviewing the recommendations provided 

by the congressionally-directed Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission. Thus, the committee rejects the Department’s proposed 

piecemeal cuts to TRICARE, housing allowances, and commissary benefits 

contained in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

The committee is troubled by the growing suicide rate among members of 

the Armed Forces, to include the Nation's special operations forces. This bill would 

require standardization of the collection, reporting and assessment of suicide data 

involving members of the Armed Forces and their family members, including 

Reserve Components, and provide enhanced tracking of suicide data within the 

Department. Additionally, this bill would require a review of Department of 

Defense efforts regarding suicide prevention among members of the special 

operations forces and their family members. 

This bill would also express the sense of Congress that the United States 

has a responsibility to continue to search for missing or captured members of the 

Armed Forces while transitioning from combat operations in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan. 

Lastly, the committee maintains serious reservations about the end 

strength and force structure reduction plans for the military. America remains at 

war today and will continue at some level of persistent global conflict with a 

3
committed enemy for the foreseeable future. Further end strength reductions could 

put at risk the military's ability to meet its global commitments.

Continuing Commitment to Afghanistan

The committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan security, governance, 

and society have come as a result of the immense sacrifices made by U.S. and 

coalition forces and the Afghan people. The committee continues to believe that the 

United States has a vital national security interest in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda and its affiliates must be denied safe havens in 

Afghanistan and elsewhere to launch attacks against the United States and its 

allies. The committee, therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) mission known as Operation Resolute Support, and it urges 

the President to announce a residual U.S. presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate 

U.S. commitment, reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and 

coalition partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and presence in Afghanistan. 

The committee remains optimistic that a new Afghan president will sign the 

Bilateral Security Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which 

would serve as a framework should also pave the way for a post-2014 NATOAfghanistan status of forces agreement. 

As the United States transitions from Operation Enduring Freedom to 

Operation Resolute Support, the committee expects the Administration to have a 

clear understanding of the missions, authorities, plans, and resources necessary to 

support Operation Resolute Support. The committee has carefully reviewed the 

authorities for which it recommends extension, such as the Commanders’ 

Emergency Response Program and reimbursement of coalition nations for support 

provided to U.S. military operations. The committee would require a revised 

“Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan Under Operation 

Resolute Support” to inform its understanding of the post-2014 security and 

economic environment in Afghanistan, and a plan for sustaining the Afghan 

National Security Forces (ANSF) through fiscal year 2018. Additionally, the 

committee continues to leverage important oversight tools, such as the Department 

of Defense Inspector General, to ensure Department of Defense funds for 

Afghanistan are properly managed to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. In 

this vein, the committee would require the Department of Defense to reduce the 

amount of assistance provided to the Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year 

2015, as a result of improper taxation of Department of Defense assistance by the 

Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year 2014. The committee also recognizes 

the service performed by many Afghans in support of U.S. military and diplomatic 

efforts, and it would authorize additional special immigrant visas for Afghans who 

were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government in Afghanistan. 

Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity

4
In April 2011, the President announced his intention to seek over $400.0 

billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next decade. 

Subsequently, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) 

in August 2011. Public Law 112-25 significantly reduced discretionary spending 

across the Federal Government and for the military in particular. The Department 

of Defense noted that cuts relating to Public Law 112-25 amounted to $489.0 billion. 

In addition, sequestration went into effect across the Federal Government on March 

1, 2013, immediately reducing funds for the Department by $37.3 billion for fiscal 

year 2013. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–67) provided 

National Defense some relief from sequestration-level funding for fiscal years 2014 

and 2015, but funding for those fiscal years remained relatively flat when compared 

to fiscal year 2013 levels. If sequestration-level budget caps remain in effect for 

fiscal year 2016 and beyond, the decrease to National Defense spending will total 

over $1.0 trillion, a decrease of 19 percent when compared to projections for defense 

spending less than 4 years ago. 

The committee recognizes that its goal of providing for the common defense 

is becoming increasingly difficult in an era of fiscal austerity. This bill aims to 

balance the force with constrained resources. The committee sought to find savings 

in less critical areas that do not pose the threat of irrevocable damage to the force or 

the potential to harm recruiting or retention. Still, at current resource levels tough 

choices had to be made. 

The committee remains concerned about readiness levels and their 

continued impact to the force in the out years unless sequestration is addressed. 

The committee is mindful that when readiness is low and the military is illequipped and unprepared to fight, it is the troops who pay the ultimate price with 

their lives. 

This bill would prohibit the Department from pursuing an additional Base 

Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round, or any other effort, aimed at locking in 

force structure reductions during a time of accelerated transition and the 

withdrawal of troops from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It would address 

deficiencies in the Air Force’s nuclear enterprise by resourcing several unfunded 

requirements for the Nuclear Force Improvement Program, while also addressing 

nuclear security forces equipment shortfalls which have exacerbated the challenges. 

Additionally, it would address the Marine Corps' requirement to establish two new 

special Marine Air-Ground Task Forces in U.S. Southern Command and U.S. 

Central Command which are needed to support U.S. diplomatic and military 

installations around the world, requirements made exceptionally clear after the 

2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. This bill would also take steps to 

enhance the hard-won readiness of the Army by funding unmet requirements for 

training, flying hours, and depot maintenance necessary to support ongoing and 

future operations. 

The committee has also sought to preserve key naval capabilities to ensure 

a ready and robust Navy that is prepared to support global combatant commander 

requirements. This bill would support the refueling of the USS George Washington, 

5
a carrier with 25 years of useful life left; prevent the early retirement of 11 cruisers 

and 3 dock landing ships; and mitigate shortfalls in the Navy’s aviation depot 

maintenance accounts. 

The decrease in defense resources has resulted in tough choices between 

important programs. While this bill is able to fund many important programs with 

savings from across the defense enterprise, there simply was not enough to save 

every program. 

This bill would make prudent investments designed to preserve the 

integrity of the industrial base while delivering needed equipment to all elements of 

U.S. forces. These include Abrams tank upgrades, the Hercules and Stryker 

vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles and the Grey Eagle program. 

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America’s citizen soldiers have made 

repeated, heroic sacrifices in service to their country. Their service has made the 

Guard more than an operational reserve, but also a strategic resource. As funding 

cuts force difficult choices, the committee is working to preserve the appropriate 

balance between the active force and the National Guard and Reserve. 

The committee is concerned that foreign-controlled entities may be 

acquiring property near critical military assets, installations, and training facilities 

with the intent to monitor defense activities. Therefore, this bill would require a 

Department of Defense study that looks at gaps and vulnerabilities in the 

interagency process for public property estate transactions, and task the 

Government Accountability Office to review the study. 

Lastly, the committee would fund the Overseas Contingency Operations at 

$79.4 billion, consistent with the House-passed fiscal year 2015 budget resolution, 

H.Con.Res. 96. 

Reforming the Department Of Defense

In an era of fiscal austerity, the committee recognizes the need to increase 

the effectiveness and efficiency of the defense enterprise to get more defense for the 

dollar. Therefore, the committee recently initiated a comprehensive reform effort to 

improve the management culture, structure, and practices of the Department of 

Defense. The committee believes that any lasting reform will only be successful if it 

is crafted by a solid partnership between both the House of Representatives and 

Senate committees of jurisdiction, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, each of the 

military departments, and the defense industrial base. The committee looks forward 

to working with all stakeholders on this long-term effort. Many of the defense 

reform efforts included in this bill are informed by the beginning stages of this 

bipartisan effort, to include acquisition, institutional, security, and strategy 

reforms.

In the area of acquisition reform, the committee aims to identify and drive 

out disincentives that increase cost and schedule of major programs and delay 

delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. The reform effort also identifies services 

contracting as an area where major improvements can be made. This bill would 

6
encourage the Secretary of Defense to improve data collection for services 

contracting and conduct better analysis of the data to identify waste. It would also 

task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on opportunities to 

improve services contract processes. Additionally, this bill would direct the Director 

of Operational Test and Evaluation to consider the potential for increase in program 

cost estimates or delays in schedule estimates in the implementation of policies, 

procedures, and activities related to operational test and evaluation.

Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the processes that often 

keep the Department of Defense from operating efficiently, and unintentionally 

create barriers to meaningful small business participation in the defense industrial 

base, the committee has worked closely with the House Committee on Small 

Business and the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this 

bipartisan cooperation, the bill includes provisions that would remove duplicative 

processes, erase meaningless distinctions between competing programs, leverage 

procurement best practices, and better use the programs already in place. 

In the area of institutional reform, the committee seeks to ensure that any 

organizational changes and personnel reductions implemented to achieve cost 

savings and management efficiencies are being applied in the right places and are 

informed by a comprehensive assessment of mission and functional requirements, 

critical capability and skillset requirements, and cost drivers. This bill would direct 

the Secretary of Defense to report on combining combatant command back office 

functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings, and task GAO to assess 

the Department's headquarters reduction efforts, building off its previous work 

conducted for the committee on examining growth in Department of Defense 

headquarters. This bill would also restore the Office of Net Assessment to its 

independent status, with the Office reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense. 

Additionally, the committee continues to build on its prior work to improve 

the Department’s fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability, and as part 

of the broader reform effort, it recommends the establishment of an advisory panel 

on Department of Defense audit readiness. The purpose of the panel would be to 

actively monitor the Department's audit readiness and audit work and to report on 

problems that need to be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best, most 

efficient path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines relating to auditability. 

The advisory panel would be granted authority to hold hearings and receive 

information directly from the Department of Defense and would terminate in April 

2019.

In the area of security reform, the committee is deeply concerned about the 

grave impact to U.S. national security caused by the unauthorized disclosure of 

classified information. Such disclosures not only jeopardize U.S. military operations, 

capabilities, and technology, they ultimately lead to the loss of lives. This bill, 

therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with frequent 

reports on its damage assessment resulting from these unauthorized disclosures 

and steps the Department is taking to mitigate the damage. 

7
Lastly, in the area of strategy reform, the committee notes that the 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has grown less compliant with the law over 

time and strayed further from the intent of Congress. The committee believes the 

QDR should provide a mechanism for setting the priorities of the Department of 

Defense, shaping the force, guiding capabilities and resources, and adjusting the 

organization to respond to changes in the strategic environment. In addition, it 

should assist Congress in better understanding the relationships and tradeoffs 

between missions, risks, and resources, particularly in light of geopolitical changes 

and domestic developments in the last few years. Therefore, this bill would require 

the Secretary to resubmit the 2014 QDR and it would propose sweeping changes to 

the Department's defense strategy review process and reporting elements. 

Addressing Current Threats and Preparing for New Challenges

The committee recognizes that it must focus not only on addressing current 

threats, but also on preparing for emerging and evolving challenges in an 

increasingly uncertain global security environment, and it must ensure that defense 

resources are balanced between the two objectives. 

The committee remains concerned about U.S. posture and presence in the 

Asia-Pacific region to deter aggression and reassure allies and partners. The 

committee conducted an Asia-Pacific oversight series, focusing largely on these 

developments and the implications of the Administration’s rebalance to Asia on 

Department of Defense capabilities and investments. Many of the Asia-Pacificrelated provisions contained in this bill reflect the findings and recommendations 

that emerged from the oversight series. 

 As the mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan transitions and the 

military rebalances towards Asia, the committee remains concerned about the 

persistent Al Qaeda threat. This bill would require a report on the national security 

planning guidance to address Al Qaeda safe havens, and maintain prohibitions 

associated with the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, including the bi-partisan 

prohibitions on the transfer of detainees to the United States and on the 

construction of terrorist detention facilities in the United States. 

The committee believes that an enduring presence in the Middle East is 

vital, to include maintaining a robust forward presence and posture to support U.S. 

allies and partners in the region and to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran. This bill 

would express congressional concern that many key bases are funded through 

Overseas Contingency Operations funding and not supported by status of forces 

agreements (SOFA). The committee urges the President to shift to an enduring 

posture in the Middle East and seek SOFA agreements with Gulf Cooperation 

Council states. This bill would also recognize the President’s determination that the 

Arab Republic of Egypt is progressing in its democratic transition and supports the 

President's decision to deliver 10 Apache helicopters to Egypt for counterterrorism 

operations. This bill further reflects congressional concern regarding the influx of 

foreign fighters in the Syrian Arab Republic and the committee’s belief that 

8
“prudent planning” to support regional allies impacted by the Syria conflict is 

warranted. The bill would also reflect the committee’s belief that an American 

presence in the Arabian Gulf is vital to deter Iran as well as its belief that any 

comprehensive deal on Iran’s nuclear program should address past and present 

issues of concern with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and should 

require Iran to cease enrichment of uranium, address ballistic missile and 

conventional military systems, and stop support for international terrorism.

Shifting to Africa, the committee believes that U.S. Africa Command 

(AFRICOM) is on the front lines of the next phase of the terrorist threat, and this 

bill would seek to reinforce AFRICOM’s capabilities while also demanding 

accountability. It recognizes the contributions the Republic of Djibouti has made as 

a key strategic partner and establishes a number of programs to ensure the 

relationship is enduring. It further requires a report on the “New Normal” and 

general mission requirements for AFRICOM, as well as a report on the readiness 

implications of the Army’s Regionally Aligned Brigade concept in Africa. 

The committee condemns the recent aggressive actions undertaken by the 

Government of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, which include Russia's illegal 

occupation of Crimea, deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the 

Ukrainian border, and its infiltration and destabilization of eastern Ukraine. The 

committee therefore would limit U.S.-Russia military contact and cooperation and 

limit the use of funds for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security 

Administration activities with Russia. The NATO alliance remains a cornerstone of 

international security, and the committee would seek to further strengthen the 

alliance and reassure U.S. allies and partners in Europe through measures such as 

requiring a comprehensive strategic framework for security force assistance to 

European and Eurasian forces and providing additional funds for the Warsaw 

Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace program. 

Lastly, in the area of missile defense, the bill would fully funding the 

redesigned kill vehicle for the Ground-based Missile Defense system and the new 

long-range discriminating sensor, as well as support steps to ensure greater 

reliability and maintenance of the system. This bill would support the Israeli 

Cooperative and Iron Dome programs, recognizing the importance of missile defense 

capabilities for U.S. allies and partners, and provide increased investment for 

directed energy and other next-generation technologies for missile defense. 

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 results from hearings that began on March 5, 2014, and that were 

completed on April 10, 2014. The full committee conducted seven sessions. In 

addition, a total of 16 sessions were conducted by 6 different subcommittees. 

COMMITTEE POSITION

9
On May 7, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum being 

present, approved H.R. 4435, as amended, by a vote of 61-0.

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during 

the consideration of H.R. 4435. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the 

amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 

amended.

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This bill authorizes 

appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts will provide budget authority. 

However, the committee strives to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the 

Committee on the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.

The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of Defense 

budget: procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; operation and 

maintenance; military personnel; working capital funds; and military construction 

and family housing. The bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, 

Department of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 

and the Maritime Administration.

Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill and 

legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine the remaining 

appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does 

not provide authorization of specific dollar amounts for military personnel.

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL

The President requested discretionary budget authority of $592.9 billion for 

programs within the jurisdiction of the committee for fiscal year 2015. Of this 

amount, $495.6 billion was requested for “base” Department of Defense programs, 

$79.4 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency Operations requirements 

covering the entire fiscal year, and $17.9 billion was requested for Department of 

Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board.

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of 

$592.9 billion in fiscal year 2015, including $79.4 billion for Overseas Contingency 

Operations. The base committee authorization of $513.4 billion is a $31.0 billion 

decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this 

report summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary authorizations by 

10
appropriation account for fiscal year 2015 and compares these amounts to the 

President’s request. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

The President’s total request for the national defense budget function (050) 

in fiscal year 2015 is $609.1 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget 

Office. In addition to funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 

request includes discretionary funding for national defense programs not in the 

committee’s jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not require 

additional authorization in fiscal year 2015, and mandatory programs.

The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this 

report details changes to all aspects of the national defense budget function. 

11
DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

OVERVIEW

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $90.6 billion for 

procurement. This represents a $3.0 billion decrease over the amount authorized 

for fiscal year 2014. 

The committee recommends authorization of $91.0 billion, an increase of 

$1.5 billion from the fiscal year 2015 request.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 procurement 

program are identified in division D of this Act.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $5.1 billion for Aircraft 

Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $5.3 billion, an 

increase of $147.4 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Armed aerial scout strategy

The committee notes that because of sequestration and limited resources, 

the Army has announced the Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) which retires 

older platforms and defers the armed reconnaissance requirement for a replacement 

to the current OH-58 Kiowa series helicopter. The committee understands that as a 

result of the ARI, the Army will utilize AH-64 Apache helicopters, teamed with the 

Shadow Unmanned Aerial Systems, as an interim solution to meet the armed 

reconnaissance mission. However, the committee is concerned that the Army’s plan 

does not address how the Army intends to eventually meet the enduring 

requirement for a manned armed scout helicopter. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 15, 

2015, that includes a description of the interim Apache scout implementation plan, 

as well as the concept for what a follow-on plan and necessary resources would be 

required to replace the interim solution with a platform that fully meets the 

validated requirement.

12
Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft

The committee is aware of the Department of the Army’s Aerial 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 2020 vision. The committee 

recognizes that there are a variety of platforms and capabilities, both Government 

and contractor owned, that are being transitioned from a wartime environment to a 

more stable strategic posture, but the committee is concerned that the Army has not 

clearly identified the current and future capacity and capability requirements for 

Aerial ISR. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on the 

Army’s Aerial ISR requirements and how those requirements will be addressed in 

the future. 

Army Signals Intelligence modernization

The committee understands that there are at least six Army Signal 

Intelligence (SIGINT) programs in use or planned for near-term fielding, including: 

Guard Rail Common Sensor; Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and 

Surveillance System; Tactical SIGINT Program; Quick Reaction Capability C-12s; 

Airborne Reconnaissance Low; and the Prophet ground SIGINT collection platform. 

The committee is concerned that maintaining six different SIGINT collection 

systems for these platforms is costly and inefficient, as well as potentially 

unsustainable given the current fiscal environment.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence

committees by February 16, 2015, that would present a SIGINT modernization 

plan, including a detailed plan of action and milestones with anticipated costs and 

schedules. The report should also consider the advisability and feasibility of 

potentially converging all six Army SIGINT programs to a common hardware 

baseline that is contractor independent, with open architecture that could allow for 

the use of software reprogrammable radios, as well as provide the capability for 

insertion of emerging technologies and collection capabilities.

Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative

The committee is aware of the Army’s plan to divest certain rotorcraft, such 

as the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, OH-58 A/C, and TH-67 primary training helicopters, 

as part of its Aviation Restructure Initiative. While the committee understands the 

fiscal pressures facing the Army and supports its efforts to restructure the 

rotorcraft force, the committee is concerned that the planned divestiture of more 

than 750 aircraft between fiscal years 2015-19 could have a negative impact on the 

rotorcraft industrial base which has already been impacted by declining defense 

spending.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2014, on the 

13
criteria for transferring these helicopters as excess defense articles into the 

domestic and international markets. As part of this briefing, the Army should 

include an assessment of how its criteria for divestiture meet all Federal laws and 

regulations governing such equipment, including:

(1) A statement outlining the purposes for which the article is being 

provided to any foreign country, including whether such article has been previously 

provided to that country;

(2) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the military readiness of 

the United States;

(3) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the national technology 

and industrial base and, particularly, the impact on opportunities of entities in the 

national technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment to foreign 

countries to which such articles might be transferred; and

(4) A statement describing the current value of such articles and the value 

of such articles at acquisition.

Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications

The budget request contained $190.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army 

for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial System.

The committee notes that the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft 

System provides critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

capabilities to combatant commanders. The committee understands that 

development efforts have already been completed to modify the current Gray Eagle 

platform in order to provide extended range capabilities. This capability, known as 

the Improved Gray Eagle, includes significant expansion of the fuselage to 

accommodate larger fuel capacity and additional payloads as well as integration of 

an improved heavy fuel engine to support takeoff at heavier weights. However, 

funding for these modifications was not included in the budget request. The 

committee believes the increased endurance of a modified Gray Eagle would provide 

combatant commanders greater employment options at increased ranges, expanded 

payload options, and improved basing flexibility in support of the Global ISR 

mission.

The committee recommends $239.5 million, an increase of $49.0 million, for 

improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0 billion for Missile 

Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.0 billion, full 

funding of the request, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act.

14
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.5 billion for 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee 

recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, an increase of $230.2 million, for fiscal 

year 2015. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in division D 

of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Combat vehicle industrial base management

The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(Public Law 112-25), the Army is in the process of reducing its Active Duty end 

strength to 420,000, unless sequestration is resolved. In addition, the Army has 

also announced plans to reduce Active Component Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) 

from 45 to 32. The active Army has 17 Armor BCTs (ABCT), 20 Infantry BCTs, and 

8 Stryker BCTs. The committee notes that the ABCT, which is comprised of Abrams 

tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, is the only full-spectrum force in the Army’s 

force structure. With regard to the future utility of armored forces, the committee 

notes that a RAND Corporation report from 2010 concluded that, “Heavy forcesbased on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles-are key elements of any force that will 

fight hybrid enemies that have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced 

weapons. Light and medium forces can complement heavy forces, particularly in 

urban and other complex terrain; they do not provide the survivability, lethality, or 

mobility inherent in heavy forces. Quite simply, heavy forces reduce operational 

risks and minimize friendly casualties.”

The committee remains concerned that the Army may eliminate too many 

ABCTs based on resource constraints rather than meeting the needs of combatant 

commanders. Although the committee has been informed that the Army will add a 

third maneuver battalion back into the Active Component Armor and Infantry 

BCTs, the committee has not been briefed on final force structure and BCT mix 

decisions. The committee is supportive of all BCTs having a third maneuver 

battalion and notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the 

committee opposed the Army’s original decision of having two maneuver battalions 

per BCT. 

In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee needs to better understand 

the ramifications to the future combat vehicle industrial base capabilities with 

regard to the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules 

recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the Stryker combat vehicle. 

15
Specifically, the committee is concerned about the Army’s position that Foreign 

Military Sales (FMS) alone is sufficient to sustain the viability of the combat vehicle 

industrial base. The committee believes that the associated impact this position has 

on the industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level poses an 

unacceptable level of risk. The committee acknowledges that the Army has made 

positive strides in regards to FMS cases. However, FMS cases often take years 

longer than originally planned to materialize. In addition, many FMS cases procure 

less capable variants which do not always equate to positive workload at the prime 

and vendor levels. The committee continues to believe that insufficient information 

is available to Congress to make an informed decision regarding current and 

potential future risks to the combat vehicle industrial base at the prime and vendor 

levels. The committee commends the Army for beginning the process to finally 

collect the necessary analytical information required to make informed decisions 

about the long-term sustainment of the combat vehicle industrial base. 

Finally, the committee applauds the Army for its efforts to accelerate the 

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) programs for the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley 

fighting vehicle and Stryker combat vehicle. The out-year funding reflected in the 

budget request for fiscal year 2015 indicates a commitment by the Army to move 

forward with the next major technology upgrades for the existing fleet of weapons 

systems that would ensure fielding of the highest quality combat vehicles to a 

smaller force and also sustain the fragile industrial base. However, the committee 

remains concerned about the stability of Army modernization funding in fiscal year 

2016 and beyond given the implications of sequestration. The committee believes 

multiyear procurement contracts may reduce overall cost and help stabilize the 

industrial base and notes that there is precedent for successful Army combat vehicle 

multiyear procurements. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 

Army, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, to request 

multiyear procurement authority in future budget requests for the Abrams ECP 1, 

Bradley ECP 2, and Stryker ECP 1 programs.

Abrams tank upgrades

The budget request contained no funding for the M1A2 Abrams tank 

upgrade program.

The committee continues to believe that the Army must maintain the 

capability of Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) formations to over match any 

possible threat. The committee notes that in a hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Tactical Air and Land Forces, senior Army officials testified that the Army does not 

plan to close down the industrial facilities used to upgrade M1 Abrams tanks. In 

addition, the same senior Army officials testified that these critical industrial base 

facilities would have been at serious risk had it not been for additional funding 

authorized and appropriated by Congress. The committee understands the next 

scheduled upgrade for the Abrams tank has been moved up to 2017 from 2019. The 

committee commends the Army’s decision to accelerate this upgrade, and notes that 

16
in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee encouraged the Army take 

this action. The committee continues to believe this course of action will mitigate 

risk within the combat vehicle industrial base. 

While the committee understands that the Army believes that Foreign 

Military Sales (FMS) alone are enough to keep the Abrams tank line "warm" until 

the 2017 time frame, based on current world events, the committee continues to 

believe that reliance upon FMS alone poses an unacceptable level of risk to our 

combat vehicle industrial base and thus to our national security. As a result, the 

committee believes that the best course of action would be a combination of 

continued tank upgrades for the Abrams tank program and ongoing FMS; the 

combination of which should maintain production lines and suppliers until the next 

Abrams tank upgrade program begins. The committee acknowledges that if all FMS 

cases materialize as planned, the Army may not need additional funding in fiscal 

year 2015 in order to mitigate risk through the 2017 time frame. However, 

according to the information provided to the committee by the Army, the committee 

will not know if these FMS cases have been funded until the December 2014 time 

frame.

With regard to the military need for more M1A2 Abrams tank upgrades, 

the committee notes that six National Guard ABCTs are currently equipped with a 

less capable version of the Abrams tank. Therefore, the committee believes that as 

long as the National Guard has a less capable version of the Abrams tank, there 

will be a requirement for additional modernized M1A2 Abrams tanks. 

The committee recommends $120.0 million in Procurement of Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for the Abrams tank upgrade program.

Hercules recovery vehicle

The budget request contained $50.5 million for the M88A2 improved 

recovery vehicle program.

The committee is aware that in order to provide greater protection for 

soldiers, the Army’s current and future fleet of combat vehicles has grown 

significantly in weight. As a result, the current fleet of M88A1 recovery vehicles is 

approaching its maximum capability, and its capability will be greatly exceeded by 

the future fleet of combat vehicles. The committee notes that the M88A2 is the only 

vehicle that can single-handedly recover a main battle tank, and that it was the 

only vehicle in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that could recover larger mineresistant ambush-protected vehicles. The committee understands that the Army has 

recently increased the M88A2 acquisition objective to 933 systems, of which only 

749 have been funded for procurement through fiscal year 2015. The committee 

supports the Army’s decision to include funding in the budget request for 

procurement of M88A2 vehicles, but believes additional funding is necessary to 

maintain production. The committee encourages the Army to pursue a "pure fleet" 

strategy in future budget requests.

17
The committee recommends $121.2 million, an increase of $70.7 million, for 

the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program.

Stryker combat vehicle modifications

The budget request contained $385.1 million in Weapons and Tracked 

Compact Vehicles, Army for continued procurement of upgraded Stryker combat 

vehicles and $90.2 million in PE 23735A to continue the Stryker Engineering 

Change Proposal (ECP) program.

The committee continues to support the Army’s Stryker program and in 

particular the Double-V Hull (DVH) program that makes Stryker one of the most 

survivable and mobile vehicles in the Army’s inventory. The budget request 

included funding for the second year of a 3-year procurement of DVH Strykers for a 

third brigade set. The committee is aware the Army has a documented requirement 

to equip all nine of its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams with the DVH Stryker. The 

committee understands the Army wants to begin procurement of a fourth brigade 

set of DVH Strykers starting in fiscal year 2016. The Army also has an unfunded 

requirement to accelerate the Stryker ECP program. The Stryker ECP effort 

includes increased horsepower, network integration, and other improvements. The 

committee notes that the Army wants to accelerate Stryker ECP development in 

order to produce DVH Strykers for the fourth brigade set that incorporate the ECP 

upgrade.

The committee supports this initiative and recommends $435.1 million, an 

increase of $50.0 million, for Stryker procurement and $115.2 million, an increase of 

$25.0 million, in PE 23735A to accelerate Stryker ECP development.

M9 upgrades

The committee understands the Army is preparing to competitively pursue 

a non-developmental item, commercial-off-the-shelf replacement handgun for the 

current M9 pistol. The committee notes that the Army’s modular handgun system 

(MHS) is intended to provide soldiers with improved lethality, accuracy, 

ergonomics, reliability, durability, and maintainability over current systems. While 

the committee supports the MHS program, the committee is aware that there may 

be an upgrade configuration for the M9 that could provide increased operational 

effectiveness while reducing life-cycle costs as well as enhancing training 

capabilities. The committee notes that because there are approximately 240,000 

M9 pistols in the current inventory and that the current procurement objective for 

the MHS is still being determined, the committee encourages the Army to consider 

an M9 upgrade program as a potential complementary program to the MHS. 

Transmission industrial base

The committee notes that the Army commissioned a comprehensive 

assessment of the combat vehicle industrial base to better understand the issues 

18
and challenges facing the vendor industrial base. The first phase of the assessment, 

which was completed last year, identified combat vehicle transmissions as a 

significant area of concern. The assessment concluded that combat vehicle 

transmissions are unique in that they not only provide power to combat vehicles but 

also control braking and steering. In other words, combat vehicle transmissions are 

entirely different than commercial transmissions, such as those that power the 

military’s tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Although it has not been provided the 

Army’s final report, the committee understands the assessment and recommends 

mitigation measures for the tracked combat vehicle transmission industrial base.

The committee notes that although the Army has terminated the Ground 

Combat Vehicle program, the Army has several tracked vehicle programs in 

development or production. These include the Armored Multi-purpose Vehicle 

(AMPV) program, the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, M88 

recovery vehicle program and major upgrades called "Engineering Change 

Proposals" (ECP) for both the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle. All of 

these vehicles are eligible for upgraded or improved transmissions. The committee 

understands there are only a few companies that produce transmissions for tracked 

combat vehicles within the United States. Based on the results of the Army’s 

assessment, the committee is concerned about the future viability of transmissions 

for tracked combat vehicles based on low production rates and projected levels of 

funding in the out years that may not support minimum sustaining rates of 

production. The committee believes it may be necessary to consider consolidation of 

production capabilities through a partnership with existing suppliers.

The committee notes the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy continues to direct a sector-by-sector, 

tier-by-tier review of the defense industrial base and includes findings from that 

review in the annual Industrial Base Capabilities Report to Congress, which is 

required by section 2504 of title 10, United States Code. However, the last annual 

report, delivered to Congress in October 2013, did not specifically address the 

committee’s concerns related to combat vehicle transmissions. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 15, 2015, on 

the combat vehicle transmission industrial base. The report should not continue to 

summarize the challenges confronting the U.S. tracked vehicle transmission 

industrial base, but should instead detail specific mitigation measures and their 

implementation. Specifically, the report should include the Army’s plans and 

potential funding profile that would be necessary to procure new or improved 

combat vehicle transmissions for the AMPV, PIM, M88 and Abrams and Bradley 

ECP programs, to include the opportunity to exploit new technologies such as 

electric drives. In addition, the report should include an assessment of the potential 

to begin a 2-year pilot combat vehicle transmission program that would address the 

feasibility of consolidating production capabilities through a partnership with 

existing and potential suppliers. 

19
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0 billion for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee recommends authorization of 

$1.0 billion, a decrease of $23.4 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Munitions industrial base management

The committee notes that declining defense resources will likely result in a 

smaller munitions industrial base and that efforts are on-going to achieve a rightsized base that remains fully capable and viable. The committee is aware of the 

collaborative work being done by the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition 

(SMCA) and industry to develop management tools to help manage the industrial 

base. In particular, the committee notes that the Industrial Base Assessment Tool 

(IBAT) and the Minimum Sustaining Rate (MSR) database will use an iterative 

process to enable analysis of proposed ammunition procurement to identify 

potential negative impacts on the viability or capability of the munitions industrial 

base. The committee understands that avoidance of such impacts is essential for a 

base that, although considerably smaller, must continue to meet the many, varied 

needs of the military services. To that end, the committee believes that early 

knowledge of the budgetary plans of the military services would allow the SMCA to 

assess the capability of the munitions industrial base to respond, identify potential 

impacts, and point out alternatives for meeting immediate needs that do not 

jeopardize long-term viability of the munitions industrial base. 

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure that adequate 

funds are made available through the annual budget process to develop, operate, 

and maintain the management tools required to support the foregoing iterative 

process, including but not limited to, the IBAT and the MSR database.

M982 Excalibur program

The budget request contained $35.6 million for 416 Excalibur precision 

guided artillery Ib rounds.

The M982 Excalibur round is a precision guided 155mm artillery round 

that is used by the Army and the Marine Corps. The committee notes that over 745 

Excalibur rounds have been used by the Army and the Marine Corps in Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom with high success rates.

The committee supports the Excalibur program and believes that this 

precision guided capability is a combat multiplier. The committee understands the 

20
program remains on cost and schedule with a full-rate production decision 

scheduled for June 2014. The committee also understands that the Army is now 

procuring the Excalibur Ib round, which has significantly decreased program costs, 

while also providing increased performance and reliability. The committee notes 

the Army is currently conducting a comprehensive precision fires capability 

portfolio review and that the total procurement objective for Excalibur rounds could 

increase in future years. The committee encourages the Army to consider, as part of 

this precision fires capability portfolio review, the advisability and feasibility of 

replacing the current inventory of Excalibur Ia-1 and Ia-2 rounds with Ib rounds. 

The committee recommends $35.6 million, the full amount of the request, 

for the procurement of Excalibur Ib rounds.

Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support initiative

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the 

Secretary of the Army to provide a report on potential improvements to the 

Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) program initiative. The 

committee has not received this report and understands the Secretary of the Army 

plans to deliver it in June 2014.

The committee continues to believe the Army's Government-owned 

ammunition plants are critical to the Nation's readiness and to equipping the U.S. 

Armed Forces. The committee understands the ARMS program was created to allow 

the Army to rent to commercial companies portions of its Army Ammunition Plants 

(AAPs) that were not being used in production. The committee notes that revenues 

from the property rental are used to pay for the operation, maintenance and 

environmental clean-up at the facilities, and that the savings in overhead cost 

lowers the production cost of the goods manufactured, as well as funds the 

environmental clean-up at no cost to the taxpayer. The committee understands the 

following AAPs are participating in the ARMS program: Hawthorne Army Depot, 

Holston AAP, Iowa AAP, Lake City AAP, Milan AAP, Radford AAP, and Scranton 

AAP. The committee encourages the Army to maximize available capacity at these 

AAPs. For example, the committee notes that Milan AAP is using over 800,000 

square feet for ARMS activities.

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue to 

effectively utilize the ARMS program, and encourages the Army to find new and 

effective ways to improve upon cooperation and coordination among the Army, 

property managers, commercial interests, local and state agencies, and local 

economic development organizations to promote effective utilization of ARMS.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

21
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.9 billion for Other 

Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $4.7 billion, a 

decrease of $192.4 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the 

Secretary of the Army to provide a report on the advisability and feasibility of 

incorporating ultra-light reconnaissance robot (ULRR) capability as an enduring 

requirement. The report submitted to the committee by the Secretary stated that 

the current Army Unmanned Systems Management Plan validated the advisability 

of developing a variety of ULRR sensors to operate at the lowest tactical levels as 

part of an enduring requirement for all Active and Reserve Component units. In 

addition, the Secretary's report noted that tactical micro-robotic systems could free 

soldiers from direct exposure to a multitude of lethal threats across a host of 

common, squad-level mission sets. However, the report also noted some technical 

challenges, including radio frequency spectrum issues involved in systems used 

during Operation Enduring Freedom, once back in the United States. 

Given the substantial investment in ULRR by the Army to-date and the 

conclusions provided in the report, the committee encourages the Army to transition 

ULRR into a formal program-of-record so that any technical, logistical, or training 

issues associated with incorporation of ULRR into Army units may be resolved.

Body armor industrial base risk mitigation

The committee understands that the body armor industrial base includes 

the combat helmet industrial base, soft armor industrial base, and hard body armor 

industrial base. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed 

the Secretary of the Army to provide an assessment of the long term sustainment 

requirements for the body armor industrial base, to include supply chains for 

combat helmets, soft armor, and hard armor components. The committee received 

this assessment in March 2014. 

The committee understands that the military services would prefer to 

maintain at least two viable industrial base vendors for each area of the industrial 

base in order to mitigate serious risk, maintain competition for better body armor 

technology, as well as to retain required surge capacity. The committee is concerned 

that current funding profiles may not allow for two viable vendors in each area. The 

committee understands that without additional resources or additional contracts 

the industrial base would default to only one supplier in August 2015. The 

22
committee understands that specialty materials such as ballistic fibers and 

ceramics are raw material building blocks for body armor systems, and that few 

profitable applications for these materials exist outside of Department of Defense 

body armor programs. While foreign military sales (FMS) could offer industry an 

additional means for the manufacture and sale of various body armor components, 

there has been limited FMS interest from foreign countries. 

Based on this required assessment, as well as other assessments the 

committee has reviewed from the Defense Logistics Agency, the committee 

understands that there is significant risk to the hard armor industrial base both in 

the near-term and the long-term. The committee is concerned that the two qualified 

manufacturers are producing at below minimum sustaining rates, and that this 

could jeopardize their financial stability and viability beginning in fiscal year 2015. 

The committee also notes that one of the hard armor vendors is the sole supplier of 

a particular ceramic raw material to the Department of Defense and believes that 

the Department of Defense may lose the capability to meet surge requirements 

beginning in fiscal year 2015. The committee is concerned that once a capability, 

such as hard body armor, disappears and production lines are dismantled, it is 

projected that it would take at least 18 months to reconstitute that capability. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 

million in operation and maintenance, Army, to help mitigate risk to the hard 

armor industrial base and maintain two viable vendors.

Tactical generator recapitalization

The committee is aware that generators are the biggest consumers of diesel 

fuel in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for the Army and Marine Corps. Given 

Department of Defense directives to reduce costs through increased fuel efficiency, 

the committee supports service decisions to procure next generation tactical 

generators like the Advanced Medium Mobile Power Sources (AMMPS), which could 

produce over 20 percent greater fuel efficiency and 40 percent greater reliability 

than the current fleet of Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs). The committee 

understands that when the AMMPS fleet is fully deployed and operating, the 

Department of Defense estimates it will realize an annual savings of $745.0 million 

and 52.0 million gallons of diesel fuel over TQGs. 

The committee expects the military services to consider robust goals for 

increased fuel efficiency and reliability as part of any tactical generator 

recapitalization strategy. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to brief the congressional defense committees no later than November 3, 2014 on 

service plans to recapitalize tactical generator systems, associated fuel efficiency 

and reliability targets, and the financial impact that achieving these targets would 

have on fuel expenditures.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

23
The budget request contained $28.4 million for the family of heavy tactical 

vehicles (FHTV). The budget request also contained $89.2 million for the Palletized 

Load System (PLS) Extended Service Program (ESP). The budget request contained 

no funding for the Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck (HEMTT) extended 

service program (ESP). 

The committee notes with concern that the budget request included no 

funding for the HEMTT ESP within the FHTV program. As noted elsewhere in this 

report, the committee is concerned about the long-term viability of the tactical 

wheeled vehicle industrial base. The committee notes the Army had originally 

programmed $250.0 million for HEMTT ESP over the Future Years Defense 

Program, but that funding has now been reinvested into other outstanding, higherpriority requirements within FHTV, notably the PLS ESP. The committee 

understands that there still remains at least a 3-year requirement for HEMTT ESP. 

The committee is aware that based on the HEMTT ESP requirement 

identified in previous Army budget submissions, the Secretary of the Army does 

plan to include funding for HEMTT ESP in the Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) budget request for fiscal year 2015. While the actual timing of the 

submission of the OCO budget request is still uncertain, the committee believes 

additional funding would be required to help maintain balance in the heavy tactical 

wheeled vehicle industrial base. 

The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for 

continued production of HEMTT ESP vehicles. 

Family of medium tactical vehicles

The budget request contained no funds for the family of medium tactical 

vehicles (FMTVs). 

The committee is concerned about the current and future viability of the 

tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base. The committee is concerned that while 

budget request justification materials indicate that no funding is required for new 

FMTV procurement in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the out-year funding 

requests include $248.9 million and $249.1 million in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal 

year 2018, respectively. The committee believes that this strategy of stopping and 

restarting mature production lines is inefficient and problematic for the medium 

tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base. 

The committee believes that smooth and predictable funding levels, and not 

abrupt and large swings in funding and production requirements, would result in 

the best outcome for taxpayers, the industrial base, the military services, and, 

ultimately, the warfighter. The committee recommends mitigating any unnecessary 

breaks in FMTV production, and where possible, encourages the Army to maintain 

at least minimum sustaining rates of production. The committee understands the 

Secretary of the Army has requested additional funding for new FMTV production 

in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request. The committee 

believes that these funds would help to mitigate some breaks in FMTV production, 

24
but notes that there is uncertainty over the timing of the OCO budget request. The 

committee believes the Army should realign the current funding profile for FMTV 

production across the Future Years Defense Program.

The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for 

continued production of new FMTVs.

Military combat eye protection program

The budget request contained no funds for a military combat eye protection 

program.

The committee notes that requests for military combat eyewear are usually 

included in the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) budget request, which is based on providing RFI equipment to all deploying 

soldiers. The committee has not yet received the OCO budget request for fiscal year 

2015. The committee understands the RFI leverages current programs, lessons 

learned from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as 

commercial-off-the-shelf technology to give soldiers increased survivability, 

lethality, and mobility. The committee expects funding for military combat eyewear 

to be requested through the OCO budget request.

The committee understands the Army's military combat eye protection 

program was developed to ensure a standardized level of ballistic and 

environmental performance for protective eyewear. The committee understands the 

Army has created an Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) that allows 

Program Executive Office-Soldier to offer more choices in combat ballistic eyewear, 

which improves soldier acceptance and use of protective eyewear.

The committee commends the Army for establishing the APEL, encourages 

the continued rapid fielding of ballistic protective eyewear to all military personnel 

so that they can “train as they fight”, as well as to provide protection against a wide 

array of threats while deployed and in training. The committee encourages the 

Secretaries of the military departments to consider the potential training and 

operational benefits of issuing combat protective eyewear to all basic military 

trainees. 

Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles

The budget request contained $14.7 million for mine-resistant ambushprotected (MRAP) vehicle modifications.

The committee recognizes that mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles 

were rapidly procured to address critical warfighter requirements in the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. The committee notes these 

vehicles proved invaluable at protecting military service personnel from improvised 

explosive devices, and saved lives. The committee understands that current MRAP 

vehicle quantities exceed future requirements set forth by the military services. 

The committee recognizes the military services have carefully considered current 

and future requirements, as well as their ability to man, equip, train, and sustain 

25
MRAP vehicles to determine which vehicles should be retained as part of their 

enduring capability of protected mobility, route clearance, and Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal platforms. The committee understands the military services will retain the 

most capable MRAP vehicles to meet military operational and training needs.

The committee notes that approximately 13,000 excess MRAP vehicles will 

first be offered to other U.S. Government entities and then to potential foreign 

military sales (FMS) or excess defense article (EDA) customers. The committee 

understands that if there are no U.S. Government, FMS, or EDA claimants, the 

vehicles will follow approved disposition procedures for demilitarization. 

The committee believes there may be some operational value in using 

MRAP vehicles as mobile command posts at echelons above brigade. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Chief of Staff of the Army to provide a briefing to the House 

Committee on Armed Services not later than February 13, 2015, on the advisability 

and feasibility of using MRAP vehicles as part of current mobile command post 

modernization strategies. The briefing should include the following:

(1) An assessment of the potential cost savings, manpower requirement 

reductions, and other associated operations and maintenance savings; 

(2) The status and results of vehicle testing to meet the goals of mobile 

command post modernization;

(3) An assessment of the current status of command vehicle configurations, 

including age of the vehicles, number of vehicles required, manpower requirements 

per command post, and guidance on active fielding timelines for replacement 

vehicles; and

(4) The suitability, cost, and cost avoidance available through adaptive 

reuse of existing vehicles, including the MRAP vehicle.

Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and 

Explosive environments

The committee remains concerned about the increasing proliferation of 

Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of Mass 

Destruction, and believes that maintaining adequate modern protective equipment 

is of critical importance for the safety of U.S. forces in CBRNE environments. The 

committee notes that in regard to radiological hazards, accurate dosimetry is 

critical to the forecast of type, severity, and expected time of onset of symptoms, 

information needed to predict a person’s fitness for duty, and the provision of 

combat readiness information. The committee notes that the Department of the 

Army last validated a requirement for Individual Personal Dosimeters in 1975. 

However, the nuclear and radiological threat environment facing the Joint Force 

has changed dramatically over the past four decades and dosimeter technology has 

also improved. The committee is aware of efforts within the Department of Defense 

to develop a Joint Personal Dosimeter (JPD) and validate an updated requirement 

for the JPD. The committee understands that the JPD is expected to enter 

miestone C late in fiscal year 2015. The committee is concerned, however, that 

26
procuring JPDs to replace legacy Army systems will not begin until 2020, at the 

earliest. In addition, the committee notes that the Army currently has nearly 8,500 

legacy systems programmed for replacement. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to begin JPD procurement 

to replace legacy Army systems as soon after the milestone C decision as the 

availability of funds will allow. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a briefing to the committee by September 1, 2014, on the status 

of the JPD program and the efforts to validate an updated dosimetry requirement 

for the JPD. The briefing should include any recommendations that the Secretary 

has to begin procurement of JPDs earlier than 2020. 

Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting system

The committee notes that the Army currently has a mix of brigade combat 

teams (BCTs) with different tactical communications architectures, with most Army 

BCTs equipped with the Blue Force Tracker system. Some Army units, and 

elements of the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force still use the Enhanced 

Position Location Reporting system (EPLRS) for certain communications functions. 

In addition, some allied nations also use EPLRS. The committee understands that 

the Army intends to retire the remaining EPLRS systems it uses between fiscal 

years 2014-17. 

Overall, the committee supports the Army's plan to modernize its tactical 

communications network. However, the committee is concerned about the potential 

impact the retirement that the EPLRS system may have on the Army's ability to 

operate effectively in joint and combined operations. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, on the details of the Army's plan to 

retire the EPLRS system. The briefing should address any potential joint or 

combined operational issues with other military services and allied nations that 

may result from the Army retiring the system while it remains in use. In addition, 

the briefing should be coordinated with the appropriate Joint Staff offices that 

oversee requirements in the area of tactical communications.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $13.1 billion for Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $13.5 billion, an 

increase of $411.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

27
EA-18G Stretch

The committee understands and supports the Department of the Navy's 

requirement for additional airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft; based on the 

Department's Congressional testimony and formal war fighting campaign analysis. 

Controlling the electromagnetic spectrum is paramount to strike capability in 

future contested environments. The EA-18G Growler provides full spectrum 

capabilities for the Navy and Joint Forces. However, the Department insufficiently 

funded the Growler requirement, threatening shutdown of the manufacturing line. 

In concert with the procurement of 5 Growlers in FY15, the committee encourages 

the Chief of Naval Operations to utilize the Advanced Procurement funds for F/A-18 

E/F aircraft in FY14 ($75 million) to extend the production line to a minimum 

production rate of 2 aircraft per month. This extended production will ensure an 

AEA manufacturing line is in place for future procurement. The committee directs 

the Department of the Navy to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 

September 1, 2014 on the ability to extend the production line to a minimum 

production rate of 2 aircraft per month. The committee urges the Navy to provide 

the necessary funds to fulfill its AEA requirement in Fiscal Year 2016, and if 

needed, beyond.

H-1 engine program upgrade

The budget request contained $45.0 million for H-1 upgrades, but included 

no funding to upgrade the AH-1Z’s legacy T700-401 engine to the T700-401C 

configuration. 

The T700-401C engine is used in the Marine Corps’ AH-1Z and UH-1Y 

helicopters, has unique parts and provides improved power compared to the older 

T700-401 engine. The committee notes that the Marine Corps plans to procure 189 

AH-1Z helicopters, and understands that 36 of those aircraft are not currently 

planned to be upgraded with T700-401C engines. The committee further 

understands that having 2 different engines for the fleet of 180 AH-1Zs will result 

in a reduction of available helicopters since the T700-401 engine is becoming 

increasingly obsolete.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 19, 

2014, on the Marine Corps’ plan for either upgrading the 36 AH-1Z helicopters to 

the T700-401C engine configuration, or how the Marine Corps plans to incorporate 

the 36 AH-1Z helicopters with the T700-401 engine into the AH-1Z fleet with 

maintenance and logistic support. 

MQ-8 Fire Scout

The budget request contained $40.7 million for MQ-8 Fire Scout 

procurement. 

28
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial 

vehicle (VTUAV) which provides real-time and non-real time intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data to tactical users without the use of 

manned aircraft or reliance on limited theater or national assets. The committee 

notes that the budget request contained no funds for procurement of MQ-8 Fire 

Scout VTUAVs, but contained funds for procurement of MQ-8 control stations, 

ancillary equipment, training equipment, support equipment, technical support and 

logistics, which are critically needed to outfit the ships on which the MQ-8 is 

deployed.

While the committee supports the budget request, it is disappointed that 

the Department of the Navy has chosen not to fund procurement of aerial vehicles 

in fiscal year 2015. The committee continues to view the MQ-8 VTUAV as a critical 

ISR asset and encourages the Department of the Navy to fully execute its fiscal year 

2015 budget request, and include the procurement of additional MQ-8 VTUAVs in 

the budget request for fiscal year 2016 as well as in subsequent years. 

MV-22 carrier onboard delivery

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy has 

conducted an assessment of whether the MV-22 could be used to replace the C-2A 

Greyhound aircraft currently performing the carrier onboard delivery (COD) 

mission for the Department of the Navy. The committee further understands that 

the MV-22’s unique combination of speed, range, and vertical agility creates 

possibilities for transforming the way that carrier onboard delivery is accomplished.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 24, 

2014, on the Department of the Navy’s assessment of the MV-22 to perform the 

COD mission, any analysis of alternatives accomplished to replace the C-2A 

aircraft, key performance parameters required of a C-2A replacement aircraft, 

health and status of the C-2A fleet, and the current schedule to procure a C-2A 

Greyhound replacement aircraft. 

UH-1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits

The committee understands that aircrew members have been ejected from 

helicopters and seriously injured during crashes and hard landings. The committee 

notes that the Mobile Aircrew Restraint System (MARS) is a device developed and 

designed to prevent highly mobile aircrew from being ejected during a crash event 

and to provide fall protection when working near open aircraft doors or hatches. 

The committee encourages the Marine Corps to use available funding to procure 

and install additional MARS kits in Marine Corps UH-1Y and other aircraft.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

29
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $3.2 billion for Weapons 

Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $3.3 billion, an 

increase of $63.0 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Weapons 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act.

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $771.9 million for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends 

authorization of $771.9 million, full funding of the request, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement of 

Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are identified in division D of this 

Act.

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $14.4 billion for 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of 

$15.1 billion, an increase of $659.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Integrated communication systems

The committee is aware that advances in technology have enabled the 

development and fielding of integrated communications systems that combine the 

capabilities of legacy platforms, including Integrated Voice Communications

System, Tactical Variant Switch and Secure Voice System, into a single system. 

Examples in the U.S. inventory include the U.S. Coast Guard’s newly fielded 

National Security and Fast Response Cutter program.

The committee recognizes that the combination of legacy systems into one 

system has the potential to reduce acquisition and maintenance costs while 

simplifying training and providing increased operational effectiveness to ship 

commanders and crews. These benefits apply to both retrofit of legacy platforms 

and the outfitting of new platforms.

The committee encourages the Navy to examine these new integrated 

communications systems, and if proven cost effective and beneficial, to consider 

changing program requirements to specify the use of such systems.

30
Joint High Speed Vessel

The committee is aware of the premium that the Department of Defense 

places on the ability of U.S. military forces to deploy quickly to a full spectrum of 

engagements. In addition, the Department values the ability of U.S. forces to

debark and embark in a wide range of port environments, from modern to austere. 

The committee notes that the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), crewed by 

Military Sealift Command mariners, has demonstrated the ability to transport 

military forces, as well as humanitarian relief personnel and materiel, in a manner 

that is responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, and sustainable. The USNS 

Spearhead (JHSV-1) is currently deployed to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of 

responsibility.

The JHSV is designed to transport 600 short tons of military cargo 1,200 

nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots in sea state 3. JHSVs support Navy 

Expeditionary Combat Command and riverine forces, theater cooperating missions, 

Seabees, and Marine Corps and Army transportation. The original procurement 

objective for the JHSV was 18 ships. This procurement number was lowered to 10 

JHSVs as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee notes that the JHSV has the ability to support multiple 

branches of the military services, provide high-speed intra-theater sealift, operate 

in littoral environments and austere port environments, and support humanitarian 

and disaster relief activities. The committee also notes that the ship’s construction 

line is still operational. For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 

2015, on the operational benefits and cost savings associated with continuing to 

procure JHSVs. The report should specifically address the costs and benefits of 

buying the eight additional JHSVs that were originally part of the program.

Littoral Combat Ship

The committee is concerned about the survivability, lethality and 

endurance of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), as noted by the Government 

Accountability Office and others. In February 2014, after reviewing preliminary 

assessments and evaluations of the LCS, the Secretary of Defense reduced the total 

number of LCS seaframes to 32 from the planned procurement of 52 and also 

directed the Navy to submit alternate proposals to procure “a capable and lethal 

small surface combatant generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.” The 

Secretary noted the importance of not only presence but capability and power 

projection as the foundation of the Navy’s effectiveness and directed the Navy to 

study options to include a completely new design, existing ship designs (including 

the LCS), and a modified LCS. The Chief of Naval Operations has directed a Small 

Surface Combatant Task Force to report on these results by July 31, 2014.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2015, 

31
that examines the Department of the Navy’s study and its implications for the 

procurement of future small surface combatants. This report should assess:

(1) The study’s methodologies and key assumptions;

(2) Any alternate ship design(s) and modifications to the Littoral Combat 

Ship that the Navy evaluated, including expectations of cost, schedule, and 

requirements; and

(3) The extent to which the study was consistent with the approach of a 

formal analysis of alternatives, as set forth in the Department of Defense 

acquisition policy.

Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base

The committee notes that the most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan 

projects a requirement for a third Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Afloat Forward 

Staging Base (AFSB) variant ship in fiscal year 2017. Full funding for the second 

MLP AFSB ship was provided in fiscal year 2014. No advance procurement funds 

for the third MLP AFSB ship are currently programmed in either fiscal year 2015 or 

fiscal year 2016. Considering the expanded requirement for the MLP AFSB variant 

ships and the success of the ongoing shipbuilding program, the committee is 

concerned that a 3-year procurement gap between ships will increase costs, impact 

the industrial base, and delay delivery of important capabilities. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to explore possible approaches to 

minimize a production break between ships, including advance procurement 

funding, for the third AFSB ship. 

Moored Training Ship

The budget request contained $801.7 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy, for the Moored Training Ship program.

The committee notes that the Moored Training Ship program is intended to 

convert two decommissioned nuclear attack submarines into training platforms for 

nuclear propulsion crew members. The committee also notes that this program has 

experienced a $556.8 million cost overrun for the two conversions compared to fiscal 

year 2014 budget projections, and that this represents an 34 percent cost increase. 

The committee further notes that $229.7 million of this cost increase is included in 

the fiscal year 2015 budget request. While the committee understands that the 

Moored Training Ship program is not a formal acquisition program, the committee 

remains concerned that the 34 percent cost increase would be significantly over the 

critical cost growth threshold for major defense acquisition programs, established 

pursuant to section 2433, title 10, United States Code, also known as a "NunnMcCurdy breach". As a result, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 

provision that would require a review to be provided to Congress similar to that 

required for a "Nunn-McCurdy breach".

The committee recommends $572.0 million, a decrease of $229.7 million, in 

shipbuilding and conversion, Navy, for the Moored Training Ship program.

32
National Defense Sealift Fund

The committee notes that the Navy is proposing to disestablish the 

National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) and, as part of this, is proposing to shift 

funding for new construction ships from the NDSF to the Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. NDSF was created by section 1077 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) in part to fund 

new ship construction related to Department of Defense sealift ships and was later 

amended to permit the funding of new construction Navy auxiliary ships. NDSF is 

not a procurement account, but a revolving fund, and appropriations made available 

to the fund are not executed in the same way as dollars made available to SCN. In 

addition, new-construction ships funded through the NDSF, unlike SCN-funded 

ships, must have certain major components manufactured in the United States. The 

committee is concerned that transferring appropriations from NDSF to SCN for 

certain ships could result in potential cost increases as well as a reduction in major 

shipboard components that are manufactured in the United States.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the 

proposal to disestablish the NDSF and the budget recommendation to appropriate 

new construction Navy auxiliary ships through the SCN account. The Secretary is 

directed to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 

2015, detailing how the Navy would proceed if the NDSF were disestablished, how 

the Navy would ensure that there would be no cost increases, and how the Navy 

would plan to maximize the use of major shipboard components manufactured in 

the United States in the construction of Department of Defense sealift and Navy 

auxiliary ships.

Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office recently 

reported that the Navy continues to accept delivery of ships with large numbers of 

deficiencies. Depending on the contract type under which the ships were 

constructed, the Government may share a significant portion of the costs associated 

with fixing these deficiencies. In order to better assess the magnitude of this issue, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015, on the efficacy of 

warranties, guarantees, and other such mechanisms that are used in U.S. 

shipbuilding programs. This report should have a particular focus on:

(1) The extent to which these mechanisms are used in Government and 

commercial shipbuilding programs; 

(2) How the Government assigns responsibility for a defect and corrects 

such problems; and

(3) The extent to which these mechanisms may reduce the Government’s 

exposure to additional costs resulting from defective workmanship or equipment.

Surface ship test platform

33
The committee notes that the Manta test platform concept has been 

successfully used to evaluate submarine sensors at a greatly reduced cost compared 

to using a full-size submarine for test and evaluation. The committee believes that 

a similar surface ship test system could be utilized to test and evaluate existing and 

emerging sonar systems for surface ships. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2015, to include a cost-benefit assessment of designing and fabricating a 

purpose-built surface ship test craft that could be utilized to test and evaluate 

existing and emerging sonar systems for surface ships.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $6.0 billion for Other 

Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $6.2 billion, an 

increase of $222.3 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of this Act.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $983.4 million for

Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $958.2 

million, a decrease of $25.1 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement, 

Marine Corps program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System

The committee supports the potential procurement and rapid fielding of the 

Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 Remote Video Viewing Terminal (RVVT) to provide 

full motion video communications and improve tactical processing exploitation and 

dissemination capability. The committee notes that RVVT systems allow viewing 

and exploitation of video and metadata from multiple unmanned air, ground, 

surface, sub-surface systems. The committee understands that the Video Scout 

MC/3 RVVT program is intended to be an element of the Marine Corps air 

operations command and control system and is intended to increase Marine Corps 

intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and direct fire effectiveness through 

improved software capability, two-way communications, and smart antenna 

capability.

34
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $11.5 billion for Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $11.4 billion, 

a decrease of $122.7 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Air National Guard MQ-1/MQ-9 ground-based sense and avoid systems

The committee acknowledges that the operating configuration and 

equipment for Air National Guard (ANG) MQ-1/9 units, along with international 

and Federal aviation safety requirements, may limit the ability to operate in 

international and domestic airspace outside of military restricted areas. MQ-1/9 

flight operations require specific, International Civil Aviation Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or foreign authority approval which restricts the aircraft 

to insufficient airspace, and specific or limited routing and altitudes. Such 

restrictions prevent optimal aircrew training and degrade operational flexibility 

during Federal and state missions. However, the committee notes that the 

Department of Defense has made significant progress developing ground-based 

sense and avoid (GBSAA) systems, and that the Department of the Army is 

expected to begin GBSAA operations at five locations in fiscal year 2015. The 

committee believes that ANG MQ-1/9 operations centers configured with a GBSAA 

system could improve and expedite the assimilation of the MQ-1/9 into operations in 

both international and domestic airspace, and encourages the Department of the 

Air Force to work with the Department of the Army to deploy GBSAA systems 

where appropriate.

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program

The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force Battlefield 

Airborne Communication Node (BACN) program has been an effective program 

fielded through rapid acquisition authorities to support Operation Enduring 

Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. The BACN program 

currently uses EQ-4B and E-11A aircraft to host the BACN communications relay 

system. The committee is concerned, however, that in the absence of continued 

Overseas Contingency Operations funding that the program may be at risk. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 

rapidly transition the BACN program to a base budget program of record to ensure 

that this capability is maintained in the Department of the Air Force for the long 

term.

35
C-130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion system upgrades

The budget request contained $35.9 million for C-130H aircraft 

modifications, but contained no funding for the Avionics Modernization Program 

(AMP) or propulsion system upgrades. 

The committee notes that the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 

states that the Air Force will maintain 300 combat-coded C-130H and C-130J 

aircraft in the tactical airlift fleet inventory to support requirements and objectives 

in support of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and the Department of 

Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of Public Law 113-76), Congress 

authorized and appropriated $47.7 million for AMP and $41.7 million for propulsion 

system upgrades. 

The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Air Force invested 

nearly $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars for engineering, manufacturing, development, 

and testing of the C-130H AMP program, but has no plans to continue procurement 

and installation of C-130H AMP onto C-130H aircraft. In addition, the committee 

notes that the Secretary has no plans to modernize or upgrade the C-130H 

propulsion system in order to increase reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and onwing time of the engine, as well as decrease the overall cost and maintenance 

burden of the current propulsion system. The Secretary has not provided the 

committee with a coherent plan for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or 

explained how the Air Force plans to maintain medium-sized intra-theater airlift 

capacity and capability within both the Active and Reserve Components. The 

committee understands that the cost to continue the C-130 AMP program, as 

compared to the costs to individually complete modernization and upgrade 

requirements to keep the C-130H aircraft capable and relevant, are roughly the 

same. However, the committee believes that by failing to take actions to modernize 

the C-130H fleet in the very near term with C-130 AMP and propulsion systems 

upgrades, recapitalization costs, mitigation of obsolescence and diminishing 

manufacturing sources costs, or operating and sustainment costs will become so cost 

prohibitive in the future that the only course of action available to the Secretary 

will result in the divestiture of the C-130H aircraft from the Air Force inventory. 

Knowing that the majority of the C-130H fleet resides within the Reserve 

Components of the Air Force and that the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, 

and relevant to meeting current and future warfighter needs, the committee is 

concerned with the approach that the Secretary has taken with regard to the lack of 

robust modernization and upgrade of C-130H aircraft, if the aircraft is to have a 

service-life through 2040 as currently planned. Furthermore, C-130 AMP is 

estimated to reduce total ownership costs of the C-130H fleet by over 25 percent as 

compared to not modernizing the aircraft. The committee believes that if the 

Secretary is willing to expend at least $3.2 billion for two new presidential aircraft 

to achieve a benefit of a modernized and digital cockpit for the aircrew to execute an 

important mission in a benign flight environment, the Secretary should apply 

36
similar logic by spending significantly less than $3.2 billion for 179 C-130H aircraft 

that would provide a modernized and digital cockpit for C-130 aircrews that are 

required to tactically employ in more strenuous and dangerous flight conditions.

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would 

preserve the $1.5 billion taxpayer investment in the C-130 AMP program and would 

prohibit the Secretary from canceling the C-130 AMP program. Further, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to notify the congressional defense 

committees at any time the combat-coded fleet of C-130H and C-130J aircraft 

decreases below the 300 combat-coded aircraft prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial 

Defense Review. Finally, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Air Force to immediately obligate authorized 

appropriations provided in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 to continue C-130 

AMP. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $109.7 million, an increase of $73.8 

million, for C-130H propulsion system propeller and engine control upgrades, 

continued acquisition and installation of C-130 AMP kits, and no funding to begin 

an alternative communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic 

management (CNS/ATM) system program. 

F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of F-16 block 

40/50 mission training centers for the Air National Guard. 

An F-16 block 40/50 mission training center (MTC) is a distributed mission 

operations-capable flight simulator for F-16 block 40 and 50 weapon systems. Each 

MTC includes high-fidelity simulator cockpits, instructor operator stations, a threat 

server, and briefing and debriefing capability. Each MTC is also capable of linking 

to geographically distributed high-fidelity combat and combat support training 

devices, including command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance systems. This capability allows warfighters at home station to 

exercise and train at the operational and strategic levels of war as well as to 

conduct networked unit-level training.

The committee notes that F-16 block 40/50 MTCs are currently planned in 

the continental United States for Hill Air Force Base (AFB) in Utah, Shaw AFB in 

South Carolina, and Holloman AFB in New Mexico. The committee understand 

that other F-16 block 40 or 50 pilots located in the continental United States would 

need to travel to one of the three MTC locations, and believes that locating two 

additional MTCs in the Midwestern United States would save travel costs and 

make the F-16 block 40/50 MTC more available to Active Duty, Reserve and Air 

National Guard F-16 block 40 and 50 pilots, resulting in decreased travel costs and 

enhanced readiness. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 

budget for two additional MTCs which would be located at F-16 Air National Guard 

units in the Midwestern United States.

37
F-16 modernization

The budget request contained $133.1 million in PE 27133F for development 

of F-16 capabilities, but contained no funds for the development of the combat 

avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES), development of the computer 

modular receiver exciter (C-MoRE), or for development of the scalable agile beam 

radar (SABR) upgrade. 

CAPES would upgrade the F-16 blocks 40, 42, 50, and 52 with a new active 

electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, a new electronic warfare system, an 

integrated broadcast system, and a center display unit. The CAPES upgrade would 

increase the F-16’s survivability against emerging threats. C-MoRE is a reliability 

improvement demonstration program for the APG-68(V1) radar of the Air National 

Guard’s F-16 block 30 aircraft fleet that would demonstrate an electronic system 

upgrade while retaining the radar’s mechanically-scanned array. SABR is an F-16 

radar modernization program that would replace the mechanically-scanned array 

with an AESA radar that would enhance F-16 mission capabilities, provide 

improved electronic protection, and provide a three-fold increase in radar reliability. 

The committee notes that the budget request proposes the cancellation of 

CAPES. While the committee is disappointed that CAPES could not be funded, it 

understands that difficult choices were required due to budget reductions. The 

committee understands that the Department of the Air Force is reviewing future F16 capability upgrade options for fiscal year 2016, and believes that the Department 

of the Air Force may have more affordable options to improve the capability of the 

F-16 fleet. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the Air Force 

to consider both the C-MoRE and the SABR upgrade. 

The committee further notes that the Department of the Air Force’s 976-

aircraft F-16 fleet is 50 percent of the Department’s fighter force, and that the F-16 

block 40, 42, 50, and 52 fleets are likely to remain in the Department’s inventory for 

the next 15 to 20 years. The committee believes that capability upgrades to the F16 fleet are vitally important to address future threats. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees not later than February 16, 2015, that describes the plan for 

capability upgrades to the F-16 fleet including costs by year and by appropriation, 

risks of not upgrading the F-16 block 40, 42, 50, and 52 fleets with the CAPES 

upgrade, and the effect of the cancellation of CAPES on the Air National Guard’s F16 fleet.

High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

Over the past 2 years, the committee has supported the Global Hawk Block 

30 high-altitude unmanned aerial system and supports the current Department of 

the Air Force plan to retain the Global Hawk Block 30 for the high-altitude 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission. The committee notes 

that the Department of the Air Force has determined that Global Hawk operating 

costs have decreased while the Global Hawk Block 30 fleet has flown an increased 

38
number of hours compared to previous years in support of the combatant 

commanders.

 While the committee was pleased that the Air Force requested funding for 

Global Hawk Block 30 in the budget request for fiscal year 2015, the committee is 

concerned with the Department of the Air Force's plan to retire the U-2 fleet in 

fiscal year 2016. While the committee realizes that the Department can never fully 

meet the ISR demand of combatant commanders, reasonable and necessary ISR 

requests appear very likely to go unfilled if the current high-altitude airborne ISR 

collection capabilities of the U-2 are terminated. The committee notes that section 

143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113-66) required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report on all high-altitude ISR systems. The 

committee has not yet received this report and believes that any action to retire, or 

prepare to retire U-2 aircraft would be premature prior to the committee’s review of 

the report. To ensure that no actions are taken to retire or prepare to retire the U-2 

aircraft in fiscal year 2015, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 

provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 to make 

significant changes to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in storage. 

The committee also notes that section 133 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) limits the retirement of 

U-2 aircraft until equal or greater ISR capability is available to commanders of the 

combatant commands, and believes that the Department of the Air Force plan to 

retire the entire fleet of U-2s in fiscal year 2016 is inconsistent with this provision. 

The committee supports the Department of the Air Force efforts to upgrade 

the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to meet the requirements of the combatant 

commanders, but notes that this will take several years beyond the planned 

retirement of the U-2. In light of the known gaps, the committee has concerns with 

any plan that will leave the combatant commanders with less overall capacity and 

capability than they have today.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees 

by February 16, 2015, that would establish a phased high-altitude airborne ISR 

transition plan which fields capability at the same time or before the U–2 aircraft 

retirement, and which would result in equal or greater capability available to the 

commanders of the combatant commands. This plan should include the costs, 

schedule, and identification of fielded high-altitude ISR capability and capacity. If 

retirement of the U-2 would result in decreased capability or capacity for highaltitude reconnaissance, the report should also include the Department of the Air 

Force plans to mitigate the effects of the decreased capability or capacity.

KC-10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure

39
The committee notes that the President's request for the Future Years 

Defense Program 2016-19 did not take into account Budget Control Act of 2011 

(Public Law 112-25) sequestration level Department of Defense spending 

limitations. 

The committee understands that if the spending limitations in Public Law 

112-25 are imposed on the Department of the Air Force beyond fiscal year 2015, 

then additional reductions in critical capabilities and aircraft force structure will 

likely be necessary in order for the Department of the Air Force to comply with its 

share of spending authority. The committee understands from briefings and 

discussions with Air Force officials that the KC-10 Stratotanker aircraft could 

succumb to sequestration impacts. The committee is concerned that a divestment of 

a high-demand, low-density aircraft such as the KC-10 could have detrimental 

impacts for the Department of Defense in meeting its global reach and global power

objectives, as it relates to supporting the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The 

committee also notes that the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command 

(CUSTC) has validated that the requirement for aerial refueling aircraft capability 

is 567 aircraft. The Department of the Air Force currently has only 454 aerial 

refueling aircraft, resulting in a deficit of 113 aircraft short of the CUSTC 

requirement. The Air Force is not projected to have 567 aerial refueling tankers in 

its inventory, assuming that no KC-10 or KC-135 are divested, prior to delivery of 

the 112th KC-46 tanker aircraft in the next decade. 

Therefore, elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision that 

would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from using any funds or taking any 

action during fiscal year 2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer, 

any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force. In addition, if the President's 

request for fiscal year 2016 proposes to divest the KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft 

from the Department of the Air Force, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. 

Transportation Command, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, to submit to the congressional defense committees at the time of the fiscal 

year 2016 budget submission, an operational risk assessment and mitigation 

strategy that evaluates the military's ability to meet the requirements and 

objectives stipulated in the Department's Guidance for Employment of the Force, 

the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, and all geographical combatant commander 

steady-state rotational and warfighting surge contingency operational planning 

documents. 

KC-46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program

The budget request contained $1.6 billion for KC-46 Low-Rate Initial 

Production Lot 1 (LRIP 1) procurement of seven aircraft.

The committee notes that the KC-46 program has been executing to date 

without any requirements changes, and appreciates the requirements discipline 

that the Secretary of the Air Force has maintained since the beginning of the 

program. The committee supports the KC-46 program and the capability the 

40
aircraft will bring to the Air Force when it is eventually fielded. The committee also 

realizes that fiscal efficiencies can be garnered from the program at this point in 

time without a significant impact to program execution. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $1.4 billion, a decrease of $226.1 

million, for KC-46 LRIP 1 procurement of six aircraft to support higher priorities 

contained elsewhere in this Act. The committee expresses that the Secretary of the 

Air Force should not consider this as punitive action against the KC-46 program, 

and the committee expects the Secretary to maintain the same Future Years 

Defense Program procurement quantity of aircraft despite the one aircraft decrease 

in the fiscal year 2015 budget. The committee understands from discussions with 

Air Force program officials that a decrease of 1 aircraft in LRIP 1 will not have a 

significant impact to program execution and should not hinder the ability for 18 KC46 aircraft to be delivered by the contractual required assets availability date of the 

fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017. 

Spare engine requirements and inventory for F-15E and F-16 aircraft

The committee is aware that the Air Force has established a requirement 

for 25 additional spare engines for its F-15E and F-16 aircraft fleets, as validated by 

the Propulsion Requirements Study (PRS). The committee believes that, given the 

key role that the F-15 and F-16 aircraft will play in meeting fighter requirements 

until the F-35 aircraft is fielded in sufficient numbers, the extension of the F-15 and 

F-16 fleets will require a reliable base of spare engines. The committee is concerned, 

however, that while the Department of the Air Force has identified this 

requirement, it has not yet taken action to fulfill it. In addition, the committee 

understands that the F-100 production line is currently planned to terminate at the 

end of 2016 based on current orders. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2014, which 

details the Department of the Air Force's plan to address the unfulfilled 

requirement for F-15 and F-16 spare engines.

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $677.4 million for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization 

of $677.4 million, full funding of the request, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement of 

Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

41
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.7 billion for Missile 

Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $4.8 billion, 

an increase of $132.0 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $16.6 billion for Other 

Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $16.5 billion, 

a decrease of $64.0 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems repairs and upgrades

The committee notes that over the past 10 years, the Department of the Air 

Force has invested in hundreds of unmanned systems to support critical explosive 

ordnance disposal (EOD) missions. The committee also notes that many of these 

systems are in need of repair and upgrade after being used extensively in deployed 

environments. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force 

to establish a formal acquisition program for fiscal year 2016 to properly facilitate 

and manage the repair, maintenance, and upgrade of the Department of the Air 

Force's EOD unmanned systems.

Aircraft tug vehicles

The committee supports the Air Force’s goal to develop advanced power and 

energy technologies that promote energy efficiency and allow the force to meet 

mission objectives. To this end, the committee supports further study of the battery 

powered towbarless tow vehicles. The committee is aware that in a preliminary Air 

Force study, a battery powered towbarless tow vehicle demonstrated an ability to 

complete the same task as current aircraft tow vehicles using less energy while 

saving money and creating a safer work environment. The committee believes that 

if further studies confirm initial assessments of this capability, the Air Force should 

explore replacing additional existing aircraft tow vehicles with the new electric 

towbarless alternatives. 

Beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance systems

42
The committee is encouraged by the advances in distribution of full motion 

video and the bridging of disparate radio wave forms for enhanced interoperability 

as part of the Joint Aerial Layered Network. The committee recognizes that the 

fielding of beyond line of sight command and control and associated tactical pods in 

support of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance will provide valuable 

capabilities in response to stated urgent combatant commander requirements. 

Yet, the committee is concerned that a joint capability, called Tactical 

Airborne Communications Pod (TACPod) was developed using Air Force Quick 

Reaction Capability funding and processes, but is not being used across the military 

services. Rather than deploying the capability to meet combatant commander 

validated requirements, TACPod is instead being stored indefinitely. Separately, 

the committee is concerned that the Air Force is procuring an entirely different 

capability to meet essentially the same requirements that TACPod was originally 

developed to fulfill.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to provide a briefing to the committee by 

November 1, 2014, on the existing and planned activities in support of beyond line 

of sight command and control for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

systems.

Emergency Airfield Lighting System

The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force awarded a 

small-business set-aside contract to develop the Emergency Airfield Light System II 

(EALS II), but subsequently canceled the program after a successful 2013 

operational utility evaluation where only minor deficiencies were found. The 

committee believes that the capability of the EALS II will be a lasting requirement 

and is concerned that the costs associated with a new development effort for a 

system with comparable requirements to EALS II may have significant schedule 

and cost risks. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than July 

30, 2014, on the decision not to proceed with EALS II production. The briefing 

should include the Air Force's current plan to meet requirements for emergency 

airfield lighting and the projected funding required through fiscal year 2019.

Joint threat emitter procurement

The budget request contained $26.6 million in other procurement, Air 

Force,for combat training range equipment. Of this amount, $13.5 million was 

requested for procurement of one joint threat emitter (JTE).

The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining the proficiency of 

combat aircrews and their capability to respond to, survive and defeat the most 

advanced enemy air defenses they could encounter on any current battlefield. The 

committee is also aware that the JTE is intended to provide realistic electronic 

43
warfare training that can simulate the multiple threat scenarios of a hostile 

integrated air defense system. In addition, while older emitters are employed at 

numerous training ranges, the committee notes that they mostly simulate 

antiquated Soviet air defense systems designed during the Cold War. The 

committee believes that these older legacy emitters may not be adequate to train 

aircrews expected to challenge the most sophisticated enemy systems, such as the 

SA-20, SA-23 or HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems. Given the importance of the 

JTE, the committee is concerned that the Air Force Budget request only includes 

funding to procure one JTE in fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate options for potentially accelerating the 

production and fielding of JTE units and brief the committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives on the program by January 31, 2015.

The committee recommends $26.6 million, the full amount requested, for 

combat training range equipment.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.2 billion for 

Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $4.4 

billion, an increase of $172.1 million, for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Procurement, 

Defense-Wide program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-based coproduction

The budget request contained $176.0 million in PE 28866C for the Iron 

Dome short-range rocket defense system.

The committee has supported the Iron Dome Weapons System since the 

State of Israel’s first request for U.S. funding in fiscal year 2011. Since the first 

authorization of Missile Defense Agency (MDA) funding, U.S. taxpayers have 

provided $720.0 million for the program. The committee is aware that the Israeli 

requirement may necessitate up to $175.0 million in addition to the $176.0 million 

contained in the President's request. 

The committee has received "The Agreement Between the Department of 

Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of 

Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement," signed on March 5, 

2014. The committee is pleased that this agreement resolves many details of U.S 

coproduction of Iron Dome components and interceptors in the United States. The 

committee is aware that MDA and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) 

have entered into an international agreement to govern how the United States 

funds up to $680 million between fiscal years 2012-15 for Iron Dome. The 

44
committee is concerned that the agreement does not cover the full amount it 

recommends for fiscal year 2015. Given the significant U.S. taxpayer investment in 

this system, the committee believes that coproduction of parts and components 

should be done in a manner that will maximize U.S. industry participation in 

interceptor and battery deliveries for Israel’s defense needs. The committee 

recommends $351.0 million, an increase of $175.0 million, in PE 28866C for the 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system. 

However, the committee expects that the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

will not obligate or expend $175.0 million of that amount, and instead hold it in 

reserve and disburse it incrementally until receipt and acceptance by the MDA of 

sufficiently detailed cost and schedule justification from the Government of Israel. 

Such detailed cost and schedule justification must include:

(1) A timeline for Iron Dome expenditure of funds above the President's 

request for the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated or made available;

(2) Copies of signed and ratified contracts, subcontracts, and teaming 

arrangements between Israeli and U.S. industry for all Iron Dome coproduction 

efforts;

(3) Delivery to MDA of all technical data packages as accepted by U.S. 

industry suppliers for coproduction; and

(4) A common cost model of Iron Dome components, to be jointly developed 

and agreed upon by MDA and IMDO that includes: recurring and non-recurring 

engineering costs; estimates for future buys and actual costs beginning with fiscal 

year 2013; the required quantities for all components through fiscal year 2019; and 

component lead-times and delivery schedules.

Additionally, the committee expects the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

will ensure that: Iron Dome operational data has been provided per previous 

commitments; this additional funding be applied to the work share percentage for 

fiscal year 2015 funding between U.S. and Israeli industry as proscribed under the 

recently signed Iron Dome Procurement Agreement; and that the additional funds 

are required to meet Israeli defense needs. Any funds found to be in excess of 

Israel’s justified and documented needs during fiscal year 2015 may be transferred 

by the MDA to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and 

equipment according to priority needs.

The committee also believes that if there is a request for Iron Dome funding 

for fiscal year 2016, the Director, Missile Defense must establish for the committee 

how those funds will resolve details and agreements needed for U.S.-based 

coproduction of all-up-rounds and cover the export of Iron Dome technology to U.S. 

and Israeli allies, including coproduction of parts, components, and all-up-rounds of 

those exports.

The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency, in coordination 

with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than October 1, 

2014, on the information provided in the required detailed cost and schedule 

45
justification, including the views of the Director and the Under Secretary on its 

sufficiency. 

Further, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees not less than once each 

quarter in fiscal year 2015, starting October 1, 2014, on the progress in achieving 

the requirements established in "The Agreement Between the Department of 

Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of 

Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement."

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 101—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize appropriations for procurement at the levels 

identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne Reconnaissance Low 

Aircraft

This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of funds for the 

communications intelligence subsystem of the airborne reconnaissance low program 

until the Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the plan to integrate such subsystem into the signals intelligence 

modernization plan of the Army.

Section 112—Plan on Modernization of UH-60A Aircraft of Army National Guard

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a plan to 

the congressional defense committees on the Army's strategy to modernize the 

National Guard's fleet of UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters.

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk Block IV Missiles

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a 

multiyear contract for up to 5 years beginning in fiscal year 2015, pending 

submission to Congress of the certification requirements of section 2306b, title 10, 

United States Code, not later than 45 days prior to entering into the multiyear 

procurement contract. 

46
Section 122—Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship

This section would provide the Secretary of the Navy incremental funding 

authority to enter into a contract for the ship construction of a San Antonio class 

amphibious ship.

Section 123—Additional Oversight Requirements for the Undersea Mobility 

Acquisition Program of the United States Special Operations Command

This section would modify the current oversight requirements for the 

undersea mobility acquisition program of U.S. Special Operations Command, and 

require the Secretary of the Navy to review a transition plan for the undersea 

mobility capabilities developed by the Commander, U.S. Special Operations 

Command. This section would also repeal section 144 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). 

Section 124—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored Training Ship 

Program

This section would limit the obligation to no more than 80 percent of the 

fiscal year 2015 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding for the Moored Training 

Ship program until certain certifications and reviews regarding requirements and 

cost growth are provided to the congressional defense committees.

Section 125—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Mission Modules for Littoral 

Combat Ship

This section would limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the procurement of 

additional mission modules for the Littoral Combat Ship program until the 

Secretary of the Navy submits milestone B program goals for cost, schedule, and 

performance for each mission module increment, and certification by the Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation that sufficient mission modules are available to 

perform all necessary operational testing.

Section 126—Extension of Limitation on Availability of Funds for Littoral Combat 

Ship

This section would amend section 124 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and extend the funds 

limitation to include funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise 

available for fiscal year 2015. This section would therefore prohibit the expenditure 

of funds associated with Littoral Combat Ship 25 and 26 until the Secretary of the 

Navy submits a report of the Littoral Combat Ship program that was requested in 

section 124 of Public Law 113-66.

47
SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics Modernization 

Program for C-130 Aircraft

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from modifying or 

canceling the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program in fiscal year 2015 and would 

also prohibit the Secretary from beginning an alternative C-130H modernization 

program (except for developing and installing an Automatic Dependent Surveillance 

Broadcast system modification for the C-130H). The committee is concerned that 

any alternative modernization program the Air Force would pursue would offer less 

capability than the program of record. 

This section would also limit the funds authorized to be appropriated by 

this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for operation and 

maintenance of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force to not more than 75 

percent until a period of 15 days has elapsed following the date on which the 

Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Secretary has 

obligated the funds authorized to the appropriated or otherwise made available for 

fiscal years prior to fiscal year 2015 for the avionics modernization program of 

record for C-130 aircraft.

Section 132—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of A-10 Aircraft

This section would prohibit funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 

or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be 

obligated or expended to retire A-10 aircraft. This section would also require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study evaluating the 

platforms of the Air Force used, as of the date of the study, to conduct close air 

support missions, and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 

later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, which would include 

the cost per airframe carrying out the close air support missions, the capabilities of 

each platform evaluated under such study, and a determination by the Comptroller 

General with respect to whether such airframes other than A-10 aircraft are able to 

successfully carry out such close air support missions.

Section 133—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of U-2 Aircraft

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds 

authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 

2015 to make significant changes to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in 

storage. 

Section 134—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or Transfer of KC10 Aircraft

48
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from using any 

funds or taking any action during fiscal year 2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare 

to divest or transfer, any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force.

Section 135—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment of E-3 Airborne 

Warning and Control System Aircraft

This section would limit funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or 

otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be 

obligated or expended to divest more than four E-3 airborne warning and control 

system aircraft, or disestablish any units of the active or reserve components 

associate with such aircraft, until a period of 15 days has elapsed following the date 

on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense 

committees a report consisting of a certification that the Secretary is able to meet 

all priority requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands relating to 

such aircraft with a planned force of 24 such aircraft and a detailed explanation 

how the Secretary will meet such requirements with such planned force.

SUBTITLE E—DEFENSE-WIDE, JOINT, AND MULTISERVICE MATTERS

Section 141—Comptroller General Report on F-35 Aircraft Acquisition Program

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to 

review the F-35 acquisition program, and to submit a report not later than April 15, 

2015, and each year thereafter until the F-35 acquisition program enters full rate 

production. Each report would include the extent to which the F-35 aircraft 

acquisition program is meeting cost, schedule and performance goals; the progress 

and results of developmental and operational testing; the progress of the 

procurement and manufacturing of the F-35 aircraft; and an assessment of any 

plans or efforts of the Secretary of Defense to improve the efficiency of the 

procurement and manufacturing of the F-35 aircraft.

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $63.5 billion for research, development, test, 

and evaluation. This represents a $600.0 million increase over the amount 

authorized for fiscal year 2015.

The committee recommends $63.8 billion, an increase of $257.5 million to 

the budget request.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 research, 

development, test, and evaluation program are identified in division D of this Act.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, ARMY

49
Overview 

The budget request contained $6.6 billion for research, development, test, 

and evaluation, Army. The committee recommends $6.6 billion, a decrease of $13.9 

million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 research, 

development, test, and evaluation, Army program are identified in division D of this 

Act.

Items of Special Interest

Active protective system

The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 63005A for combat 

vehicle and automotive advance technology, which includes funding for Active 

Protection System (APS) research and development.

The committee is encouraged that funding for APS research and 

development was included in the fiscal year 2015 budget request. In the committee 

report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014, the committee noted that a lack of investment could soon create a 

critical capability gap for Army combat vehicles due to the rapid proliferation of 

advanced anti-tank guided missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. 

The committee notes that there are numerous types of APS available, including 

some that have already been fielded on operational vehicles in other countries and 

have performed well in recent demonstrations. It is crucial the Army keeps 

momentum going in this important effort; therefore, the committee encourages the 

Army to establish a program of record to develop, procure and equip required 

combat vehicles with APS as soon as feasible based on availability of funding.

The committee recommends $53.7 million, the full amount requested, in PE 

63005A for combat vehicle and automotive advance technology.

Applied Communication Information Network

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has been 

conducting research on a suite of capabilities that provides real time information on 

vessels of interest in a riverine environment. The objective of this research, which is 

part of the Applied Communication Information Network (ACIN), is to integrate 

Government off-the-Shelf, Commercial off-the-Shelf and emerging technologies to 

provide integrated command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities in a scalable, low-risk, costeffective and user-friendly system. The committee recognizes the need for a 

laboratory and test-bed capabilities with proven management and systems 

administration to support such efforts. The committee is aware that ACIN has 

demonstrated expertise in this area with a track record of transitioning its research 

into operational use. The committee encourages continued support for the ACIN to 

50
advance fielding of critical C4ISR technologies to military users in the riverine 

environment.

Combat feeding research and development

The budget request contained $10.9 million across several Army program 

elements for research and development of combat feeding technologies.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense Combat Feeding 

Research and Engineering Program (CFREP) is the only program within the 

Department of Defense that engages in research and development, to include highrisk, high payoff science and technology, for combat rations, field food service 

equipment and combat feeding systems to support the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 

Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

The committee is aware the budget request for fiscal year 2015 reflects a 

significant reduction when compared to projections for fiscal year 2015 in last year's 

budget request. The committee is concerned that the proposed reductions could 

have a disproportionate impact on CFREP's ability to perform its mission. The 

committee understands the reduced funding level may decrease CFREP’s ability to 

support requirements of future operating environments; develop innovative 

products that improve warfighter physical and cognitive performance; supply the 

military services with world-class products leading to an increasing dependence on 

industry that has no incentive to innovate due to lack of a market; contribute to 

reducing cost to the services over the long-term due to increasingly inefficient 

supply chains and reliance on commercial solutions. In developing its fiscal year 

2016 budget, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to increase 

funding for combat feeding technology projects.

The committee recommends $16.3 million, an increase of $5.4 million, for 

Army combat feeding research and development. 

Combat identification for dismounted users

The committee recognizes the importance of developing and deploying 

combat identification systems for dismounted users that utilize both radio 

frequency and infrared laser technologies to provide an all-weather, day-night, 

high-reliability individual kit to address specific anti-fratricide factors in 

dismounted operations. The committee is concerned that “friendly fire” incidents 

continue to be a source of casualties between U.S. forces, as well as partners and 

allies, due to the lack of such capabilities. The committee believes such capabilities 

exist and have been successfully demonstrated, and encourages the Department of 

Defense to proceed with further testing and evaluation to determine if these 

capabilities can be more widely fielded.

Dual mode tactical missiles

51
The committee continues to recommend that the Department of Defense 

pursue an all-weather, moving target-capable tactical missile that could be 

integrated on different military platforms. While the committee understands that 

certain capabilities, such as a single mode seeker missile, are appropriate when 

prosecuting certain targets, the committee is concerned that current capabilities 

may have difficulties defeating other targets in a cost-efficient and precise manner, 

while also ensuring low collateral damage. 

The committee is particularly interested in capabilities to counter highspeed, erratically maneuvering targets on land and at sea, as well as understanding 

how dual mode missiles could be used in counterterrorism (CT) operations. The 

committee notes the use of dual mode missiles, to include allied missile programs, 

could potentially close existing operational gaps, reduce the risk of collateral 

damage, and may result in cost savings relative to current Tactics, Techniques, and 

Procedures used as part of current direct action CT operations. The committee is 

aware of the recent integration and successful testing of a fully operational dual 

mode missile off an MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle system for the United 

Kingdom Ministry of Defense. The committee notes the Royal Air Force has used 

this dual mode missile extensively in overseas contingency operations and have 

reported positive feedback. Further, the committee is also aware that the Secretary 

of the Navy is funding an initial analysis of dual mode missile integration on the 

F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, and that initial feedback has been positive.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to provide a briefing to 

the House Committee on Armed Services by February 15, 2015, on the capabilities 

of existing U.S. and allied missile programs which utilize dual mode seeker 

technology. The briefing should also include an assessment of the applicability of 

current dual-mode missiles within the Nation’s counterterrorism efforts, including 

against high-speed, rapidly moving targets on land and sea, as well as an update of 

U.S. and allied efforts to integrate dual-mode missile technologies onto the MQ-9 

Reaper weapon system.

Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology

The committee is aware that the budget request for research, development 

test, and evaluation, Army included PE 63008A, "Electronic Warfare Advanced 

Technology." According to the budget justification documents, this program element 

"matures and demonstrates software, algorithms and services that focus on tactical 

cyber situational awareness, autonomous network defense, cross domain security 

and encryption solutions." The committee believes that the title for this program 

element is misleading and does not adequately describe or justify the way these 

funds are used. The committee urges the Army to appropriately title this program 

element in future budget submissions to properly identify the scope of work being 

conducted. 

Expeditionary communications

52
The committee understands that expeditionary missions, such as noncombatant evacuation operations or humanitarian assistance, present unique 

communication challenges as they can often take place in austere environments 

where little or no communications infrastructure remains intact. Moreover, the U.S. 

military often has a distinct requirement to communicate with other elements of the 

U.S. Government, non-governmental organizations, and host nation officials, and 

this must be facilitated with sufficient capability to do so effectively and securely. 

As the Department of Defense works to improve its expeditionary communications 

infrastructure, the committee urges the Department to explore the availability of 

secure, commercial cellular wireless networks that have been successfully deployed 

by the Department in tactical theaters of operation. 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment

The committee notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 

committee directed the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by February 15, 2014, evaluating the potential 

utility of fabric-based solutions to address soldier and civilian personnel exposure to 

inhaled hazards, including sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants, such as diesel 

exhaust and lead. The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army has 

failed to deliver this report to the congressional defense committees. Further, the 

committee understands that no substantive evaluation of potential protective 

technologies has taken place. The committee has been informed by the Program 

Executive Office-Soldier that the proper entity to evaluate fabric-based solutions is 

the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

(NSRDEC) in Natick, Massachusetts. The committee understands that NSRDEC 

has technical and scientific expertise in the areas of environmental protection, 

protective clothing, multi-functional textiles, materials, and fibers. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees not later than December 1, 2014, 

containing NSRDEC’s evaluation of the capabilities of known fabric-based solutions 

to mitigate soldier exposure to the inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants.

High explosive guided mortar program

The budget request contained no funding for the High Explosive Guided 

Mortar (HEGM) program. The budget request contained no funding for the XM395 

Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI).

The APMI round is a precision guided 120mm mortar munition that was 

procured to address an operational need from forces in Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF). The committee notes the Army procured 5,480 APMI rounds to 

address the operational need, and that to date, approximately 2,328 have been 

fielded in OEF, and the remaining are part of the war reserve inventory. The 

committee notes the Army has chosen not to transition this program to an official 

53
program of record, and that the Army does not anticipate a requirement to procure 

additional APMI rounds. The committee understands that based on positive 

feedback from OEF on APMI performance, the Army is moving forward with the 

HEGM program and anticipates starting the program in fiscal year 2016, with 

fielding beginning around 2022. Based on information provided by the Army, the 

committee understands HEGM would provide for increased capabilities over those 

demonstrated by APMI. 

Given the continued constrained budget environment, the committee 

expects the military services to maximize research and development funding, 

reduce procurement costs, and when possible develop joint requirements, instead of 

resourcing duplicative, stand-alone programs. The committee would expect the 

Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives that would include the 

APMI and Marine Corps precision extended range munition program before 

initiating a next generation precision guided mortar program. 

High Performance Computing Modernization program

The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers serves as 

executive agent for the Department of Defense High Performance Computing 

Modernization (HPCM) program, a responsibility that devolved from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 2012. The purpose of this program is to apply 

supercomputing resources to solve Department of Defense problems in research, 

development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition engineering. To meet this 

mission, the HPCM program must maintain state-of-the-art supercomputing 

resource centers, as well as software engineering talent to maintain modern and 

secure software applications for the user community.

The committee is also aware that the HPCM program has been operating at 

a level not currently supported by the level of funding requested in the President's 

request. The committee is concerned that the shortfall has only been mitigated by 

the repeated intervention of Congress to get the program to a sustainable level. The 

committee believes that the Department should conduct a thorough assessment of 

the program to ensure future budget requests are sufficient to right-size the budget 

to the needed infrastructure and support capabilities.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination 

with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, to review the 

HPCM program, and to submit a report on the findings to the congressional defense 

committees not later than September 30, 2014. The review should examine the 

following:

(1) Identify the capabilities that will be lost and the impact on Department 

if the HPCMP is funded at the budget request for fiscal year 2015 level throughout 

the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP);

(2) Identify the resources reduced, including manpower, in order to operate 

at the budget request for fiscal year 2015 level throughout the FYDP; and

54
(3) A strategy for closing the gap between the budget requests and the fiscal 

year 2012 HPCMP funding level throughout the FYDP.

Improved Turbine Engine Program

The committee continues to support the budget request for the Improved 

Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). ITEP is a competitive acquisition that is based on 

current research efforts and is designed to develop a more fuel efficient and 

powerful engine for the current Black Hawk and Apache helicopter fleets. The 

committee notes the benefits of improved fuel efficiencies through lower, specific 

fuel consumption that ITEP brings to the battlefield. In addition, the committee 

encourages the Army to consider maintenance and sustainment costs for ITEP and 

specifically, how these calculations would drive affordability of the program. 

The committee believes it is important that ITEP transition from Science 

and Technology to the Preliminary Design phase of Engineering and Manufacturing 

Development as soon as possible. Providing adequate funding for ITEP to maintain 

or accelerate the schedule will reduce risk and ensure continued program 

advancement and success. The committee encourages the Army to maintain its 

schedule to control development and program costs, mitigate technical risk, validate 

performance, and ensure the warfighter receives the best possible solution.

The committee, however, believes that the ITEP Business Case Analysis 

and Cost Estimate may be outdated and is concerned that it might not sufficiently 

factor in the total fuel savings or maintenance and logistics cost savings associated 

with the engine. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief 

the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on a path to update 

the study.

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program

The budget request contained $83.8 million in PE 65450A for Joint Air-toGround Missile (JAGM) research and development.

The committee continues to support the JAGM program based on the need 

for a replacement to the Hellfire missile program that provides an all-weather, longrange moving target capability. In addition, the continuation of the JAGM program 

would help sustain the tactical missile industrial base. Tactical missile technology 

remains an area of asymmetric advantage and technological superiority for the 

United States that the committee believes must be retained.

The committee has received the briefing as required in the committee 

report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014. The committee notes the Army continues to pursue a “dual mode” 

seeker as part of Increment 1 of the new acquisition strategy, with a milestone B 

decision planned in fiscal year 2015. From this briefing, the committee also 

understands the JAGM program completed a successful Critical Design Review in 

January 2014, and the program remains on cost, schedule and performance. The 

committee notes there will be a full and open competition for the engineering and 

55
manufacturing development contract award. The committee acknowledges that 

Army funding is constrained by the current budget environment, however, given 

current technology readiness levels as demonstrated during the technology 

development phase, the committee encourages acceleration of the Increment I 

program. 

The committee recommends $83.8 million, the full amount requested, in PE 

65450A for continued JAGM research and development.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

The budget request contained $45.7 million in PE 65812A, and $11.5 

million in PE 65812M to complete the engineering and manufacturing development 

phase of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The budget request also 

contained $164.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in 

Procurement, Marine Corps for the procurement of 183 low-rate initial production 

JLTVs.

The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) will complement the current fleet 

of Up-Armor high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles and would provide 

improved protection, payload, and performance to the Army's and the Marine Corps' 

light tactical wheeled vehicle fleets.

The committee notes the budget request would mark the first year of 

procurement for JLTV, and would also complete limited user testing. The committee 

supports the JLTV program and recognizes that the program remains on schedule 

despite the impacts resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-

25), and understands a milestone C decision is scheduled for June 2015. The 

committee notes that JLTV does not have any significant technology issues that 

would preclude development. Therefore, the committee expects the program to 

remain on schedule. The committee notes the JLTV program is the only new tactical 

wheeled vehicle modernization program for the foreseeable future, and the 

committee believes the JLTV program will be critical for maintaining the viability 

of the industrial base. 

The committee recommends $45.7 million in PE 65812A, $11.5 million in 

PE 65812M, and elsewhere in this report, $164.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Army, and $7.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps, the full amount of the total 

request, for the JLTV program.

Lightweight segmented tactical ladders

The committee acknowledges that improved mobility of the soldier 

increases safety and improves mission capability. The committee is aware that the 

tactical ladder is an important piece of equipment that is critical to many missions 

throughout the world. The committee understands that current tactical ladder 

systems are made from metal or fiberglass, weigh 40 pounds or more, and are often 

cumbersome to transport, especially on foot. The committee is also aware there may 

be commercially available, lightweight carbon fiber composite ladders that reduce 

56
ladder weight load to 11 pounds or less, while maintaining the strength and 

durability of heavier ladders. The committee also notes that current telescoping 

and foldout tactical ladders require a single soldier to carry the entire load, 

whereas a segmented ladder provides the option for weight distribution among 

members a group to improving portability.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 31, 

2014, on the potential benefits of lightweight segmented tactical ladders. The 

briefing should include an overview of the current military inventory and a review 

of available carbon fiber commercial ladder options that may reduce weight and 

provide additional flexibility to soldiers.

Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools

The committee recognizes the value in developing high-fidelity medical 

instruments to provide diagnostic analysis through non-invasive means. The 

committee believes that such tools lend themselves to use in austere environments 

like combat zones, natural and civil disasters, and settings where rapid and 

accurate diagnostic data must be obtained in an unsettled, often chaotic, 

environment where standard clinical support may be lacking. The committee 

encourages the Department of Defense to explore development of such non-invasive 

medical diagnostic tools for use in austere and highly unstable environments.

Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator

The committee believes that the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator 

(HEL-MD) is of great value to the Army and to the Department of Defense's efforts 

to develop directed energy weapons. The committee is concerned that the Army does 

not have a clear plan for the future of the HEL-MD. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing on the plan for the future of 

the HEL-MD to the House Armed Services Committee by December 1, 2014. This 

plan shall include an analysis on the feasibility of operational testing of the HELMD, including the possibility of operational testing of the HEL-MD in international 

locations such as Israel.

Rotorcraft hostile fire protection

The committee is encouraged by the continued effort of the Army and other 

military services to develop a hostile fire detection and defeat system that will 

function in the harsh environments produced by rotorcraft operations. In the past, 

hostile fire detection systems for rotorcraft have been limited to acoustic-based 

technologies even though rotor noise, wind noise and echoing off of topography 

restricts the system's accuracy. The committee wants to ensure that the Army is 

considering advanced technologies, like radar, that will pinpoint and integrate the 

location of hostile fire into the aircraft's defeat systems for engagement of incoming 

57
projectiles. Therefore, the committee directs Secretary of the Army to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by February 9, 2015, that details the 

Army's efforts to potentially implement a radar, ultra violet and infrared based 

hostile fire detection and defeat system into existing rotorcraft platforms.

Small Airborne Networking Radio program

The budget request contained no funding for the Small Airborne 

Networking Radio (SANR).

The committee is aware that the Army has deferred the SANR program 

indefinitely while moving forward with the less ambitious Small Airborne Link-16 

Terminal. The committee is concerned regarding the lack of information from the 

Army on the future of the SANR program and believes that full integration of the 

soldier radio waveform, originally intended to be provided by the SANR program, 

into Army airborne platforms will be essential in the future. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 

2014, with an update on the status of the SANR program.

Soldier protection system and weight reduction for personnel protection equipment

The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 64601A for Infantry 

Support Weapons. Of this amount, $7.5 million supports the continued 

development of the Army's Soldier Protection System (SPS). Elsewhere in this 

report, the committee notes that the budget request contained $63.1 million in 

Operations and Maintenance, Army for the initial procurement of SPS components.

The SPS provides a lighter weight modular, scalable integrated system of 

mission tailorable personnel protection equipment (PPE) while also improving the 

level of mobility, form, fit, and function for both male and female soldiers. The 

committed is aware the SPS includes subsystems such as protection for the head, 

eyes, extremities, torso, and other integrated sensor packages. The committee notes 

a milestone C decision is expected in fiscal year 2015. The committee notes the 

Army would field two to three brigade combat team sets per year and has 

programmed approximately $575.0 million for SPS across the Future Years Defense 

Program. While the committee commends the Army on their SPS effort, the 

committee encourages the Army to provide enough funding to maintain two vendors 

for competitive purposes, and also encourages the accelerated fielding of SPS to all 

soldiers. 

The committee has long championed the importance of reducing the weight 

of current body armor and personnel protection equipment systems, as well as 

stressing the critical need for robust investment in weight reduction initiatives, 

along with technology insertions to improve performance and survivability. The 

committee believes current body armor systems provide outstanding protection to 

the warfighter, but their weight contributes to the over-burden issue and decline in 

performance. The committee understands that body armor system weights have 

58
remained relatively constant over the last decade in spite of advances in materials 

technologies because protection levels have also increased in response to threats. 

The committee commends the Army for addressing this challenge by 

shifting from a more discrete component level development strategy to a more 

systems engineering and system level approach to body armor and PPE 

development as a means to improve soldier capabilities. The committee believes the 

Department must maintain significant investment in near-term solutions that can 

effectively reduce the weight of body armor, while also investing in the development 

of revolutionary new material technologies that could provide for significant 

breakthroughs in weight and performance. 

The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 64601A for SPS, and 

elsewhere in this report recommends $63.1 million for the procurement and fielding 

of SPS, the full amount of the budget request.

Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades

 The committee supports efforts to increase the protection level of Army 

Stryker vehicles and believes there is a need for additional innovation and 

competition within the program. In particular, the committee continues to support 

the ongoing Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, Stryker Vehicle 

Survivability Systems Integration Study program. The committee notes that this 

program has performed several integration studies reviewing the potential for 

incorporating occupant-centric survivability technologies onto Stryker vehicles. In 

addition, the committee understands that these kit-based solutions may potentially 

be installed during depot reset or in the field, and could enhance Stryker 

survivability and mobility across the fleet. The committee also notes that there are 

two variants of the Stryker vehicle, the Mobile Gun System (MGS) and the NBC 

Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV), that do not have the same level of protection as 

"Double V" equipped variants and that may immediately benefit from Stryker

upgrades explored as part of the study program. The committee encourages the 

Army to test and evaluate these technologies on the Stryker platform, with 

emphasis on the MGS and NBCRV variants that currently lack the same protection 

levels as other Stryker vehicles. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

brief the committee by December 15, 2014 describing the technologies identified 

within the Stryker Vehicle Survivability Systems Integration Study program, as 

well as the outcomes of any testing of these technologies on the Stryker platform.

Transparent armor technology development

The budget request contained $110.0 million in PE 63005A for Combat 

Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. Of this amount, $53.7 million was 

requested for combat vehicle survivability research and development to include 

transparent armor technology.

This program element matures, integrates and demonstrates combat and 

tactical vehicle automotive technologies that enable a lighter, more mobile and more 

59
survivable force. The combat vehicle survivability project matures and 

demonstrates protection and survivability technologies such as active protection 

systems, advanced vehicle armors, blast mitigation and safety devices to address 

both traditional and asymmetric threats to ground vehicles. The committee believes 

this project should also consider emerging technologies in the fields of glass, 

polymers, and coatings to field more resilient and lightweight transparent armor. 

The committee notes that improved transparent armor materials are 

required for improved durability and survivability of combat and tactical vehicles, 

as well as potentially reducing overall life-cycle and repair costs. The committee 

encourages the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center to 

engage in cooperative agreements with industry and academia in order to further 

the development of transparent armor material technology. 

The committee recommends $110.0 million, the full amount of the request, 

in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. 

UH-72 Helicopter health monitoring system

The committee is aware that the UH-72 Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) is 

not currently equipped with a health monitoring system. However, the committee 

has been informed that the commercial variant of the UH-72, the EC-145, is 

currently being outfitted with a Next Generation Health Monitoring System 

(NGHMS). 

The committee understands that a NGHMS could provide total aircraft 

monitoring and diagnostics of mechanical and electrical systems within a 

lightweight distributed architecture consisting of miniature sensors that contain 

processing and analysis functions operating with non-proprietary data protocols in a

secure cloud management infrastructure. NGHMS maintenance intelligence could 

provide early warning for failing systems that may reduce costly emergency 

maintenance, improving UH-72 maintenance schedules and fleet readiness.

Therefore, the committee encourages Army Program Executive Officer 

Aviation and Program Manager Utility Helicopter, to engage in a demonstration of 

NGHMS on the UH-72. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 

2015, that describes the potential for integrating and demonstrating NGHMS on 

the UH-72 platform. However, the committee expects that if the Army makes the 

decision to proceed with a program of record that it will be done using full and open 

competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems

 The budget request contained no funding for a universal tactical controller 

for unmanned systems.

The committee is aware that there is not presently a documented roadmap 

for acquiring a universal tactical controller for unmanned air and ground assets 

because there is neither a validated requirement, nor specific funding programmed. 

60
However, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the 

Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to conduct an 

advisability and feasibility study for developing a universal controller for Class I 

unmanned aerial systems and unmanned ground systems. 

As a result of this report, the committee recognizes the Army and the 

Marine Corps have collaborated to experiment with the feasibility of a universal 

tactical robotic controller for unmanned air and ground systems at the battalion 

and below echelons, with the results being viewed favorably. The committee notes 

that a draft Army Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for the Common 

Robotic System-Individual (CRS-I) has been generated which includes the 

capability for a common tactical controller that can control both air and ground 

assets. The committee understands that once the CRS-I CDD is validated, funding 

is programmed, and the program is initiated, acquisition of such a controller would 

likely be achieved through full and open competition and fielded as part of the CRSI program. 

Given these findings and the military services’ growing reliance on 

unmanned systems for a variety of missions, the committee encourages the Army 

and the Marine Corps to accelerate the development of a universal common tactical 

controller, to generate an acquisition roadmap, and to program funding for this 

initiative in the fiscal year 2016 Future Years Defense Program. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request contained $16.3 billion for research, development, test, 

and evaluation, Navy. The committee recommends $16.2 billion, a decrease of $82.5 

million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 research, 

development, test, and evaluation, Navy are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program

The budget request contained $105.7 million in PE 63611M for the 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps has significantly 

changed its acquisition strategy for the ACV program and will now use an 

incremental approach to developing, procuring, and fielding a next generation 

family of amphibious combat vehicles. The committee notes that in the near term, 

the Marine Corps is planning to use the first vehicle increment, ACV increment 1.1, 

as an armored personnel carrier that would deliver marines from ship-to-shore by 

means of a connector craft, and be used for inland missions. The committee 

61
recognizes this would address an immediate near-term, urgent capability gap for 

improved tactical mobility and survivability for deployed Marine infantry units. 

The committee notes that while the proposed schedule for ACV increment 

1.1 is aggressive, the committee expects the Marine Corps to benefit from lessons 

learned from previous next generation assault amphibious vehicle programs that 

suffered from requirements creep and immature technology readiness levels that 

led to significant cost overruns and schedule delays. The committee understands 

that results from previous developmental testing conducted on vehicles 

participating in the former Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) vehicle program, to 

include limited user demonstrations, have informed the Marine Corps that the 

technology for these potential vehicles is highly mature and is consistent with a 

stable set of requirements for this vehicle. Accordingly, the committee understands 

that the Marine Corps is recommending a streamlined procurement and fielding 

strategy for the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle. The committee supports the intent to 

streamline the procurement and fielding of the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle, and 

believes this program could potentially serve as an example for future major 

defense acquisition program reform. However, the committee notes that this 

streamlined approach to ACV increment 1.1 is contingent on mature technology and 

validated and stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely 

monitor this program under the auspices of the committee’s ongoing comprehensive 

acquisition reform effort. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Research, Development, and Acquisition), in coordination with Headquarters 

Marine Corps, to brief the committee not later than September 1, 2014, on the 

justification used to streamline the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle program, to include 

the documented results from the Marine Requirements Oversight Council and the 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council reviews, as well as the documented results 

from the Materiel Development Decision. The committee also directs the Assistant 

Secretary to brief the committee on any potential procedural and/or regulatory 

barriers that may prevent the Marine Corps from streamlining the ACV increment 

1.1 program. Based on information already provided to the committee by the 

Marine Corps regarding the streamlined procurement strategy for the ACV 

increment 1.1 program, the committee understands additional funds would also be 

required in fiscal year 2015 to support a contract award in fiscal year 2015. 

The committee recommends $190.8 million, an increase of $85.1 million, in 

PE 63611M for the ACV Increment 1.1 vehicle program.

Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 2, 2015, on the performance of the Navy 

Laser Weapon System (LaWS) after deployment aboard the USS Ponce. The 

committee requests the following development groups be represented at this brief: 

Directed Energy and Electric Weapons, Office of Naval Research; Naval Surface 

62
Warfare Center; Ship Command of the USS Ponce while testing LaWS; the actual 

operators of LaWS aboard the USS Ponce; and any other briefers the Secretary 

deems appropriate. This brief shall include: the preparation of the weapon system 

for deployment at sea, structural and power accommodations on the USS Ponce, any 

special training for the officers and crew, performance of LaWS from the perspective 

of the operators, recommendations for future pre-deployment training, and an 

assessment on the feasibility of near-term deployment of a directed energy ship 

defense system across the Navy.

Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and Modifications

The committee continues to support the Commandant of the Marine Corps’s 

ongoing efforts to lighten the combat carrying load of Marines, as well as efforts to 

modernize individual warfighter equipment. The committee understands the

Marine Corps is developing the Family of Optical Systems and Modifications 

(FOSAM) in response to a universal urgent need from deployed Marines. The 

FOSAM is a suite of multi-functional weapon optical systems to include various 

thermal, image intensifier, magnified optical, laser range-finding, illuminating, and 

pointer functionalities that would replace multiple single-purpose systems. The 

committee understands the FOSAM could improve functional capability for the 

warfighter, lessen the weight of individual equipment items, reduce the number of 

equipment items requiring field maintenance, and drive down operating costs. The 

committee encourages the Marine Corps to execute their current acquisition 

strategies for FOSAM and expects any future contracts to be competitively 

awarded.

MQ-4C Triton program

The budget request contained $498.0 million in PE 35220N for research and 

development of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system (UAS).

The committee notes that low rate initial production for the MQ-4C has 

been delayed one year to fiscal year 2016. The committee believes that this is a 

prudent delay that will allow sufficient development and testing to be completed 

and to minimize the risks of concurrent development and production. In addition, 

the committee is encouraged that the Department of the Navy has maintained 

stable requirements for the MQ-4C Triton. The Department of Defense's history of 

rushing complex systems into production before adequate testing has occurred and 

constantly changing requirements has resulted in excessive cost growth and 

unnecessary schedule delays. The committee encourages the Navy to continue with 

a conservative approach to the schedule and requirements for the MQ-4C in order to 

ensure that the program remains on a realistic path to providing the Navy with 

initial operational capability in 2018.

Additionally, the committee is concerned about significant delays in the 

research and development funding profile for development of the multi-intelligence 

(Multi-INT) signals intelligence (SIGINT) suite for the Triton aircraft. Sliding the 

63
development of this capability significantly elevates the risks associated with 

integrating SIGINT capabilities into the baseline aircraft ahead of the planned 

Milestone C event, the full rate production decision for the Multi-INT capability. 

Further, the committee is concerned about the maturity of the Triton Multi-INT 

concept of operations and resourcing with respect to integration of the ground 

station within the national and Department of the Navy processing, exploitation 

and dissemination enterprise.

Therefore, the committee recommends $530.4 million, an increase of $32.4 

million, for MQ-4C baseline Triton research and development to return the 

development schedule of the Multi-INT Triton sensor suite back to the plan 

proposed by the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014.

Navy deployment of the laser weapon system

The committee commends the Navy on its recent efforts to operationally 

deploy a directed energy laser weapon system. The Department of Defense has 

invested significant resources in directed energy weapon system research and 

development (R&D) with limited success at fielding an operational system. The 

committee recognizes the challenges posed by these R&D efforts, and understands

the complexity of the issues that still need to be addressed in order to transition 

directed energy technology to viable weapon systems. Recent demonstrations 

within the directed energy community, such as the Counter-electronics High Power 

Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) by the Air Force and the High Energy Laser 

Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD) by the Army, have shown significant progress 

toward addressing these issues. The committee notes that the deployment of the 

Laser Weapon System (LaWS) by the Navy onboard the USS Ponce, which will 

occur late in 2014, was the first deployment of a high energy laser system on a U.S. 

vessel in a realistic maritime environment. The committee congratulates the Navy 

on the achievement of this major milestone and looks forward to seeing the results 

of this deployment and how it will inform future decisions related to directed energy 

weapons. 

Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies

The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations recently issued 

guidance to Navy working capital funded entities, including the science and 

technology laboratories and test and evaluation centers, to cease conducting 

reimbursable work for other Federal agencies. The committee is concerned that 

such a moratorium ignores how working capital funded entities operate and the 

value that outside, reimbursable work can have on reducing the overall rate 

structure for entities like the naval warfare centers. The committee also believes 

that such a move could be detrimental to the overall efficiency of the Federal 

research and test enterprise by forcing other Federal partners to rely on contractors 

to provide these services, or to build additional, redundant scientific and test 

capabilities. For example, the Department of Homeland Security works very closely 

64
with the naval warfare centers to provide science, technology, test and evaluation 

capabilities for its programs, and without that support, the Department of 

Homeland Security would have to devote a larger percentage of its research, 

development, test, and evaluation budget to providing those services itself.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination 

with the Chief of Naval Operations, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by March 1, 2015, on the rationale for the decision to cease 

reimbursable work for Federal agencies outside of the Navy, and an analysis of the 

policy impacts of this decision, including the ability to facilitate interagency work 

and fully utilize existing infrastructure. The briefing should also examine the 

anticipated effect on Navy working capital fund rates if the policy is enforced, as 

well as the impact if the policy is rescinded. Finally, the briefing should examine 

the impact on each naval warfare center, and the role of the warfare center's 

commanding officers in making decisions related to reimbursable work.

Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare weapon 

development

The budget request contained $32.4 million in PE 24229N for Tomahawk 

and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) development. The budget 

request also contained $194.3 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy for 

procurement of 100 Tomahawk missiles, which is a decrease of 96 missiles from 

what had been planned for procurement in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The 

budget request also proposes to terminate Tomahawk Block IV procurement 

beginning in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the budget request contained $203.0 

million in PE 64786N for development of Increment I and Increment II of the 

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASUW) weapon. 

The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Navy's recommendation 

to terminate procurement in 2016 of the Nation's only long-range, surface-launched 

land-attack cruise missile production capability prior to finalizing concept 

development of NGLAW, which is not planned to be operationally fielded until 2024 

at the earliest. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the capability to 

recertify current inventory Block IV Tomahawk missiles could be put at risk if the 

Secretary of the Navy decides to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV production line in 

fiscal year 2016. The committee is also concerned that the Secretary has not clearly 

articulated a medium- to long-range conventional cruise missile requirements and 

capabilities strategy or roadmap that explains the bridge between production of 

current missiles to the development, production, and fielding of OASUW and 

NGLAW. The Secretary has also not clearly articulated how the missile 

requirements and capabilities differ between OASUW and NGLAW in meeting 

combatant commander requirements, or the reason that a separate missile is 

needed for OASUW and NGLAW in order to meet offensive surface-attack mission 

requirements. Further, the Secretary has not clearly articulated how the inventory 

stock of long-range cruise missiles will be replenished if the current stock of 

65
Tomahawk missiles is utilized to fulfill test, training, and warfighting requirements 

between 2016-24. The committee is also concerned that the Navy is well below all 

categories of inventory requirements and is discouraged that the Navy is only using 

one category of inventory requirements in stating that there is no risk by 

terminating Tomahawk Block IV production in fiscal year 2016.

The recommendation to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV production line is 

further compounded by the fact that OASUW Increment I is just beginning to 

transition to a program of record, and OASUW Increment II is still in the concept 

definition and refinement phase. The committee supports current efforts to develop 

an OASUW Increment I capability to fulfill the urgent operational need of the 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and encourages the Secretary to aggressively 

pursue fielding this capability. 

Therefore, the committee is skeptical of the Secretary of the Navy's decision 

to cease production of Tomahawk Block IV in 2016. The committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees in 

conjunction with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2016, that 

articulates the following: (1) a 15-year medium to long-range land attack cruise 

missile strategy and roadmap; (2) known or anticipated shortfalls and capability 

gaps of current cruise missiles; (3) an explanation of requirement differences 

between OASUW and NGLAW missile capabilities; (4) a transition strategy from 

current production land-attack cruise missiles to recertification of current inventory 

cruise missiles that discusses anticipated cost, schedule, and execution risks and 

issues; and (5) the cost, schedule, and execution risk associated with replenishment 

of current inventory cruise missiles that may be used for test, training, and 

operational requirements in order to maintain a sufficient inventory of cruise 

missiles until NGLAW is operationally fielded. The report may contain a classified 

annex or any other information that the Secretary desires to convey to the 

congressional defense committees.

The committee recommends $32.4 million, the full amount requested, in PE 

24229N for Tomahawk and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) 

development. The committee recommends $276.3 million, an increase of $82.0 

million, in Weapons Procurement, Navy for procurement of 196 Tomahawk missiles 

and to reduce risk to the Tomahawk missile industrial base. Elsewhere in this Act, 

the committee includes a provision that would authorize multi-year procurement 

authority for Tomahawk Block IV missiles if the Secretary of the Navy determines 

during deliberations of the fiscal year 2016 budget request that it is not prudent to 

shutter the production line at this time. The committee would support the 

Secretary’s decision to procure the maximum amount of additional missiles to fully 

satisfy inventory requirements and bridge transition to Tomahawk Block IV 

recertification and modernization in the most cost-effective manner possible, and 

especially during periods of constrained fiscal resources. Finally, the committee 

recommends $203.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 64786N for 

development of Increment I and Increment II of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare 

weapon. 

66
Oceanographic research

The budget request contained $45.4 million in PE 62435N for the Ocean 

Warfighting Environment Applied Research program.

For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains Auxiliary General 

Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR) vessels. Three of these vessels require a 

mid-life overhaul, partial funding for which was provided in the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6). The committee 

notes that funding provided to date does not fully support all of the items that the 

Navy has determined are necessary to fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to 

40-45 years.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $65.4 million, an increase of $20.0 

million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research, to 

procure the entirety of a mid-life overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion 

of this authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based selection 

procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 

10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures.

The committee continues to believe that oceanographic research is a core 

function of the Navy, and remains committed to ensuring the ability of the Navy to 

sustain its research priorities, even in the face of fiscally constrained budgets. The 

committee is concerned that the Navy has been decreasing funding in 

oceanographic research, especially sea-going research, and about the negative longterm implications these trends are likely to have on areas like anti-submarine 

warfare and battlespace awareness. The committee believes that the Navy 

infrastructure such as the AGOR vessels, deep submergence facilities such as the 

Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, or the instrumentation investments made 

by the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program are vital components 

to the Navy's program. Navy science and technology funding also plays a key role in 

information stewardship, including ocean mapping, oceanographic and 

meteorological data, that supports Navy, national and international scientific goals. 

Precision extended range munition program

The budget request contained $156.6 million in PE 26623M for Marine 

Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Of this amount, $11.6 million 

was for the 120mm Precision Extended Range Munition (PERM) program. 

The PERM is a GPS-guided, precision munition that consists of a propelling 

system, warhead, guidance system, fuze and container, and will be fired from a 

120mm Rifled Towed Mortar.

 Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66) required the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify to 

the congressional defense committees the stand-alone operational need for PERM, 

as well as a sufficient business case for PERM, as opposed to not using existing 

precision munitions in the war reserve. The committee notes this certification has 

67
not yet been provided, however, the committee has been informed by the Marine 

Corps, as well as the Joint Staff, that a favorable certification is imminent.

The committee is aware that the PERM program is the only 120mm 

extended range precision guided mortar program of record. The committee 

understands the PERM program is currently on schedule and a milestone C 

decision is currently scheduled for first quarter fiscal year 2015. The committee 

expects the Army and Marine Corps to continue to coordinate efforts for next 

generation precision guided munition programs.

The committee recommends $11.6 million, full funding of the request, in PE 

26623M for PERM development and low rate initial production.

Submarine detection research

The committee is concerned about the emerging threat of submarines that 

could potentially be deployed by adversaries in littoral areas of the United States. 

These platforms are expected to employ sophisticated quieting technologies to mask 

operations and deployment patterns. However, the committee understands that 

such submarines create wakes that can alter water column stresses and seafloor 

roughness over movable sediment beds, and that alteration of this roughness could 

leave a detectable non-acoustical signature that can be exploited to identify and 

track enemy forces in littoral zones, and also help to guide mobility operations of 

U.S. forces. The committee notes that recent advancements in multi-beam sonar 

processing technologies may allow for the near real-time detection of the small 

mobile roughness elements. Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy to 

evaluate advanced concepts and technologies for non-acoustic submarine detection 

focused on littoral zone seafloor scarring.

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships

The committee recognizes that there is a growing need for at-sea research 

and development platforms, especially with regard to the development and testing 

of new anti-submarine warfare technologies. In particular, the committee 

understands that there is a focus on new operational concepts that promise to 

improve wide area surveillance, detection, and attack capabilities against quiet 

adversary submarines operating in noisy and shallow water environments. A key 

element of this assessment process is support provided by the University-National 

Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and their research base to assist in antisubmarine warfare research. The committee supports continued investment in the 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and would urge the 

Department of the Navy to continue this critical research.

Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration

68
The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 64376M for Marine AirGround Task Force electronic warfare development, but included no funds for an 

unmanned aerial system (UAS) electronic attack demonstration. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy conducted a 

demonstration of an unmanned MQ-9 Reaper in a weapons and tactics instructor 

exercise at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, in October 2013, 

which included 86 aircraft, over 200 aircrew members and over 3,000 ground forces 

in a realistic threat environment. The committee understands that the MQ-9 was 

configured with a prototype stand-off jamming system which was able to defeat 

early warning threat radars, allowing the F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft to penetrate 

the simulated enemy air defenses. The committee further notes that the unmanned 

MQ-9 Reaper would provide over 20 hours of on-station time, which is about 15 

hours longer than manned aircraft with similar capabilities, and would require less 

logistical support in a deployed location. 

Based on the results of the October 2013 demonstration and the ability of a 

UAS to perform an airborne electronic warfare mission, the committee encourages 

the Department of the Navy to continue to pursue this capability by conducting a 

more sophisticated demonstration in fiscal year 2015 that would include multiple 

UAS electronic attack aircraft with a UAS mission package that includes electronic 

attack, electronic support measures and communication features. 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program

The budget request contained $403.0 million in PE 64404N for Unmanned 

Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) development.

The committee believes that current UCLASS Air System Segment 

requirements will not address the emerging anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) 

challenges to U.S. power projection that originally motivated creation of the Navy 

Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS) program during the 2006 Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR), and which were reaffirmed in both the 2010 QDR and 2012 

Defense Strategic Guidance. In particular, the disproportionate emphasis in the 

requirements on unrefueled endurance to enable continuous intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG), a 

capability need presumably satisfied by the planned acquisition of 68 MQ-4C 

Tritons, would result in an aircraft with serious deficiencies in both survivability 

and internal weapons payload capacity and flexibility. Further, the cost limits for 

the aircraft are more consistent with a much less capable aircraft and will not 

enable the Navy to build a relevant vehicle that leverages readily available and 

mature technology. As planned, UCLASS appears unsupportive of the 2012 

Defense Strategic Guidance for the United States to “maintain its ability to project 

power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged.”

The committee believes that the Navy needs a long-range, survivable 

unmanned ISR-strike aircraft as an integral part of the carrier air wings as soon as 

possible. However, investing in a program today that does not adequately address 

69
the threat will only delay, and could preclude, investment in and fielding of the 

right system later. Therefore, the committee believes special attention needs to be 

paid to threshold UCLASS requirements. 

Finally, the committee is concerned with multiple aspects of the proposed 

UCLASS acquisition strategy, including: insufficient time and funding for 

contractors to mature their designs in support of a full-scope Preliminary Design 

Review, due in part to late-developing and still-evolving air system performance 

requirements; the additional risk to the program associated with the Navy’s 

decision to abandon the precision landing system developed and successfully tested 

during the UCAS-D effort; and the potential risk associated with NAVAIR 

developing the UCLASS Mission Control System internally.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of the requirements for a carrier-based unmanned aircraft system to extend 

the ISR and precision strike reach of the carrier air wing in A2/AD threat 

environments projected for 2025-2035, and to provide a report on the review to the 

congressional defense committees by December 30, 2014. The review should pay 

special attention to revised threshold requirements for unrefueled mission 

endurance, automated aerial refueling, refueled mission endurance, survivability, 

internal weapons carriage and flexibility, and autonomy/mission control system 

functionality. It should include mission- and campaign-level quantitative analysis of 

representative carrier-based unmanned air system missions in the 2025-2035 

timeframe, including but not limited to ISR, precision strike, and electronic attack. 

It should also consider the overall composition of the future carrier air wing, 

including the optimal mix of manned and unmanned squadrons, for conducting 

representative joint ISR-strike campaigns in the 2030 timeframe. The committee 

also includes a provision elsewhere in this Act that would prohibit the Secretary of 

the Navy from awarding a contract for the UCLASS air vehicle segment until the 

Secretary of Defense completes the requirements review and provides the report to 

the congressional defense committees.

Virginia Payload Module program

The budget request contained $132.6 million in PE 64580N for development 

of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) program. 

The committee believes that undersea strike capability will be a critical 

capability for the U.S. military in the future, as U.S. forces begin to operate in 

increasingly contested environments. In addition, the committee notes that with 

the pending retirement of the four guided-missile nuclear submarines (SSGN), the 

U.S. military will lose a significant portion of its undersea strike capability. The 

committee believes that the VPM program is the lowest risk, lowest cost, and best 

path for maintaining, and eventually expanding, critical undersea strike 

capabilities. The committee also notes that by integrating the new strike capability 

into Block V Virginia-class submarines, the Navy is avoiding having to start an 

entirely new program that could take decades to come to fruition, whereas in 

70
contrast, the VPM program could provide this new capability to the fleet in time to 

partially compensate for the retirement of the SSGNs. Therefore the committee 

continues to support the VPM program.

The committee recommends $132.6 million, the full amount requested, in 

PE 64580N for development of the VPM program. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request contained $23.7 billion for research, development, test, 

and evaluation, Air Force. The committee recommends $23.9 billion, an increase of 

$125.5 million to the budget request.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 research, 

development, test and evaluation, Air Force program are identified in division D of 

this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Additive manufacturing

The committee is aware that additive manufacturing techniques and 

capabilities have the potential to dramatically lower the cost of maintaining aging 

weapon platforms for the defense sustainment community. Currently, the Air Force 

uses additive manufacturing for design iteration, prototyping, tooling and fixtures, 

and for some noncritical parts. However, in the future, the Air Force hopes to use 

additive manufacturing for building actual aerospace parts. The Air Force 

anticipates soon using additive manufacturing for parts like fuel nozzles and heat 

exchangers. The committee believes that the Air Force, and the rest of the 

Department of Defense, can utilize additive manufacturing improvements to save 

money in up-front manufacturing costs; improve fleet readiness by creating ondemand alternatives to current parts supply chain; reduce parts certification and 

transition costs; and reduce costs with creative improved weapon systems parts that 

are lighter and stronger. The committee encourages the Air Force to look at creative 

applications of additive manufacturing technology to reduce sustainment costs for 

its weapon platforms and other systems.

Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities talon hate program

The Department of the Air Force Tactical Exploitation of National

Capabilities (AFTENCAP) project pursues a wide range of technological and 

operational objectives through transition of proven national capabilities to 

warfighters for operational use and participation in design of future national 

capabilities in order to leverage them for tactical users. The committee supports 

the TENCAP program.

71
The Talon Hate program, developed under AFTENCAP, fields in fiscal year 

2015 and should provide a unique multi-domain capability to counter threats in the 

U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The committee 

understands the importance of reliable, jam-proof communications between 4th and 

5th generation fighters, the need to broadcast multi-source information in a Link 16 

compatible format, and the need to integrate national strategic data into that 

communication network. While the Talon Hate program will field four 

developmental pods for F-15s in the USPACOM AOR, the committee is concerned 

that a strategic plan to address this mission has not been developed, along with an 

analysis of alternative technical approaches to meeting the associated warfighter 

requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee 

on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by 

February 16, 2015, on the enduring military requirements associated with the 

Talon Hate program, a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of the various 

technical approaches to solving those requirements, and the associated strategic 

plan to addressing the requirements including near and mid-term 

recommendations. 

Air Force weapons simulation framework

The committee is aware that the Air Force ceded ownership of weapon 

system models to the prime contractors in the late 1980s. At the time, the Air Force 

decided to treat weapons as closed systems with the developer maintaining 

responsibility for every element of the system, to include all simulations. 

Government-owned models were relinquished and the government’s ability to 

conduct independent studies atrophied. The committee is concerned that such 

processes put the Air Force at a disadvantage to the commercial providers in the 

weapons acquisition process, and run counter to trends like open architecture, 

which allow the government to provide broad architectural guidance but leave 

execution to the contractor. 

The committee is aware, though, that the Army has maintained its 

development of Government-owned simulation resources in support of such 

programs as the Joint Common Missile. This has allowed the Air Force to regrow 

some of its modeling and simulation capability by working closely with the Army. 

The committee urges the Air Force to continue to work with the Army, and 

industry, to develop a conventional weapons simulation framework to lower lifecycle costs for conventional weapons and conduct benchmark tests for programs 

such as the Small Diameter Bomb. 

B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement program

72
The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 11113F for B-52 

squadrons, but contained no funding for the B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement 

(SR2) program.

The committee notes that the B-52 SR2 program is a radar replacement 

program that could take advantage of the advanced capabilities of modern, nondevelopmental radars, and maximize commonality with other platforms. In April 

2011, the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council recommended replacement of 

the existing B-52 radar with a non-developmental radar system. However, due to 

Air Force budget affordability concerns stemming from compliance with the Budget 

Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement 

program was terminated in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. In 2013, the Air 

Force reported to the congressional defense committees that a radar replacement is 

estimated to be the lower cost option rather than sustaining the current radar over 

the projected service life of the B-52. The committee understands the sustainment 

costs for the legacy radar system are predicted to significantly increase after 2017 

based on obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources issues. 

Therefore, based on the projected savings, as well as the need for common 

conventional capability across the B-52 aircraft fleet, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of the Air Force to include funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget request 

that would begin replacement of the B-52 legacy radar system. 

Common airborne sense and avoid

The budget request contained $11.8 million in PE 35220F for the design, 

development, integration and testing of a common airborne sense and avoid (CABSAA) capability for unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The C-ABSAA system would provide the capability to integrate unmanned 

aerial vehicles into United States national airspace system and globally. The 

committee notes that plans for fiscal year 2015 include continuing to refine CABSAA requirements and continuing to mature the C-ABSAA system with the Air 

Force Research Lab. The committee supports this plan and encourages the 

Department of the Air Force to continue annual funding to support a Milestone B 

decision in fiscal year 2019.

The committee recommends $11.8 million, the full amount of the budget 

request, in PE 35220F for C-ABSAA design, development, integration and testing. 

Cyber operations program elements

The committee notes that the Air Force has created specific program 

element and procurement lines for Offensive Cyber Operations (OCO) and Defense 

Cyber Operations (DCO). The committee is aware that this was done to consolidate 

the funding activities in these areas into single program lines to allow for rapid 

technology development and deployment for offensive and defensive tools. The 

committee commends the Air Force for being proactive in consolidating its 

activities, providing transparency in oversight for Congress while also allowing for 

73
rapid acquisition on the part of the Air Force. The committee believes this is a 

model for program management and oversight that should be emulated by the other 

services and Defense Agencies, to the extent that is practicable.

E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System replacement program

The budget request contained $73.1 million in PE 37581F for Next 

Generation (NextGen) Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 

research and development. NextGen JSTARS would replace the current E-8C 

JSTARS aircraft and provide battle management, command and control, 

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the combatant commanders. The 

Department of the Air Force currently plans to attain initial operational capability 

with four NextGen JSTARS aircraft in fiscal year 2022, and to attain full 

operational capability with 16 aircraft in fiscal year 2025. 

The committee notes that the E-8C JSTARS aircraft has provided effective 

joint air command and control in both land and maritime arenas. However, current 

JSTARS platforms are aging and the sustainment costs have increased. The 

committee also notes that the budget request includes a Department of the Air 

Force proposal to recapitalize the JSTARS fleet with a commercially available 

aircraft that will decrease the logistics footprint, decrease sustainment costs, 

increase operational flexibility, and operate in an anti-access/area denial 

environment. The committee supports this decision. However, the committee notes 

that past intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft programs have 

failed due to the selection of platforms too small to properly support the necessary 

mission equipment and crew. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to 

carefully review its requirements for the crew size, electrical power, mission 

systems equipment, and aircraft performance to ensure that any new JSTARS 

platform can provide equal or better capability than the current E-8C aircraft. 

The committee also notes that the Department of the Air Force currently 

plans to retire the JSTARS T-3 test aircraft in fiscal year 2015 and to retire five 

additional E-8C aircraft in fiscal year 2016. The committee further notes that that 

the NextGen JSTARS program is scheduled to release a request for proposal in late 

fiscal year 2015 and source selection is planned to be conducted in fiscal year 2016. 

The committee expects that the Department of the Air Force will take no action to 

prematurely retire E-8C aircraft before 2016, and before the committee is fully 

briefed on the acquisition strategy, schedule, costs, and key performance 

parameters of the NextGen JSTARS aircraft program. 

Finally, the committee understands that the Department of the Air Force 

intends to leverage high technological-readiness-level communication, sensor, battle 

management and command and control system technologies to reduce program cost, 

reduce schedule and reduce risk of the NextGen JSTARS aircraft program. The 

committee is concerned that a lengthy acquisition program will result in a 

capabilities gap which will leave the combatant commanders without an acceptable 

level of ground moving target indicator and battle management command and 

74
control capability for several years. The committee notes that the JSTARS analysis 

of alternatives described a need for the integration of existing technology rather 

than the acquisition of new systems, and believes that the use of existing technology 

combined with a commercially available aircraft can result in a significantly faster 

acquisition program. Accordingly, the committee urges the Department of the Air 

Force to accelerate the NextGen JSTARS program.

The committee recommends $73.1 million, the full amount requested, in PE 

37581F for NextGen JSTARS research and development.

EC-130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program

The committee notes that the current fleet of EC-130H "Compass Call" 

aircraft are the Air Force's only wide-area, airborne Command and Control 

Warfare/Information Operations weapon system, and that the Air Force plans to 

retire seven Compass Call aircraft in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the committee 

understands that the Air Force is conducting an analysis of alternatives (AOA) on a 

follow-on capability to replace the current Compass Call aircraft. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee 

on Armed Services not later than June 1, 2015, on the status and content of the 

AOA.

Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of modernized 

and upgraded ejection seats for Department of the Air Force fighter and bomber 

aircraft.

The committee understands that aircraft aging and heavy operations tempo 

have produced fatigue and corrosion in legacy ejection seat designs which were 

designed and procured by the Department of the Air Force in the mid-1970s. The 

committee further understands that the incorporation of modern helmet mounted 

displays creates significant risk to pilot survival during high-speed ejections 

because aerodynamic forces at high speeds within the current ejection seat 

operational envelope lift the modern helmet off the pilot, generating high-neck 

tension loads. Data indicates that the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and 

helmet mounted displays in tactical fighter aircraft can structurally fail above 450

knots, which causes wind-stream aerodynamics on the pilot's helmet to generate 

neck tension loads over 700 pounds, well above risk-of-injury thresholds to the pilot. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense Military Handbook 516B 

(MIL-HDBK-516B) for Airworthiness Certification Criteria prescribes a 

requirement for less than 5 percent risk of major injury resulting from an aircraft 

ejection event, but that the requirement stipulated is not being met today for 

ejection seats in legacy fighter aircraft or fifth generation tactical aircraft. The 

committee understands that state-of-the art upgraded ejection seats can effectively 

address these risks while at the same time providing significantly improved ease of 

maintenance and increased aircraft availability, but the Department of the Air 

75
Force has failed to take advantage of the new and improved ejection seat technology 

that would greatly enhance protection of pilots in ejection seat aircraft during 

emergency situations. The committee notes that the high-speed ejection of a 

tactical fighter pilot in January 2014 resulted in a pilot fatality because of the 

ejection’s high-neck tension load encountered during the ejection. 

 Subsequently, the committee encourages the Department of the Air Force 

to develop a strategy to begin replacing the 1970s-designed ejection seats equipped 

in most legacy fighter and bomber aircraft as soon as possible. The committee 

believes that minimizing sustainment life-cycle costs through commonality with 

currently-fielded components should also be included as a prime determinant in 

selecting an upgraded ejection seat. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees with the 

submission of the President's fiscal year 2016 budget to Congress, that articulates 

which Department of Defense type, model, series ejection seat equipped aircraft 

meet the aircrew survivability and equipment airworthiness requirements 

stipulated by current policy and regulation of the Department for pilots and aircrew 

that wear advanced helmet display equipment, night vision goggles, or both, during 

flying operations.

Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee establishes two budget 

lines in research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force account, and the 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force account titled "Ejection Seat Reliability 

Improvement Program". The committee recommends $10.5 million, an increase of 

$10.5 million, of which $3.5 million is for initial qualification in the research, 

development, test, and evaluation, Air Force account, and $7.0 million is for initial 

installation of upgraded ejection seats in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 

account.

F-35 25mm cannon ammunition

The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans for evaluating and 

fielding 25mm cannon ammunition for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Specifically, 

the committee is concerned about the procurement of some types of 25mm 

ammunition, potentially at the exclusion of any alternative North American 

National Technology Industrial Base offerings. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services not later than August 1, 2014, on the Air Force's plans to evaluate, test, 

and field 25mm cannon ammunition for the Air Force's F-35 fleet.

F-35 aircraft program

The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition program within the 

Department of Defense, with a current planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for 

the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter 

requirements. The committee notes that despite the decreased budget authority 

76
contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Department 

has not decreased its planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft. The committee 

strongly supports the requirement for fifth generation fighter aircraft due to 

projected increases in the effectiveness and quantities of threat anti-aircraft ground 

systems and adversary aircraft and their associated air-to-air weapons. The 

committee believes that without advanced fifth generation aircraft, the United 

States may be significantly limited in its ability to project power in the future. 

The F-35 program is approximately 50 percent through its flight test 

program which is planned to be completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. 

At a hearing held by the House Committee on Armed Services' Subcommittee on 

Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 26, 2014, the F-35 program executive officer 

testified that the F-35 program is making slow but steady progress. The committee 

notes that the F-35 program executive officer has identified the software 

development for the final development software block, known as block 3F, as an 

area with some risk remaining, which could result in a 4- to 6-month delay in 

delivery of software block 3F. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 

committee expressed a concern about delayed software development and 

recommended a provision that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish an independent team consisting 

of subject matter experts to review the development of F-35 software and to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees. This provision was included in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). 

The committee expects this report to be submitted by June 2014, and will consider 

future actions based on the recommendations submitted by the independent team of 

subject matter experts. 

F-35 block 4 program

The budget request contained $71.8 million in PE 20714F, PE 64800N, and 

PE 64800M for development of the F-35 block 4. 

The F-35 block 4 program is planned to provide follow-on F-35 capabilities 

after completion of the engineering and manufacturing development program, 

currently scheduled for October 2017, which would include the integration of 

additional U.S. and partner nation weapons into the F-35 aircraft. The block 4 

program would also provide a dual-capable F-35A aircraft for the Air Force, 

allowing it to perform both conventional and nuclear strike missions. Currently, 

the dual-capable mission is performed by both F-16 and F-15E aircraft.

The committee supports the F-35 block 4 program, which is developing a 

streamlined approach to deliver capabilities as soon as feasible. The committee 

notes that the block 4 development program would be completed in two parts, a 

block 4A and block 4B, and further notes that the block 4B program is currently 

expected to achieve its initial operational capability in fiscal year 2024. The 

committee understands that the dual-capable F-35 aircraft would be included in 

77
block 4B, and to replace the aging F-16 fleet, the committee encourages the 

Department of the Air Force to accelerate the completion of block 4B with future 

budget requests.

Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead

Combat Operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the 

Republic of Iraq have highlighted a growing demand for airborne ground moving 

target indicator (GMTI) sensing as well as significant phenomenologically-driven 

performance limitations in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operation 

environments. The committee understands that the Department of the Air Force 

intends to recapitalize the E-8C joint surveillance and targeting radar attack 

system (JSTARS) fleet on a more efficient airframe with modern radar, avionics, 

and communication systems, and on-board battle management and command and 

control (BMC2) and Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability. Well 

ahead of the initial operating capability (IOC) of any replacement platform, the 

Department of the Air Force intends to reduce the E-8C fleet by nearly one third, by 

reducing the E-8C JSTARS fleet from 16 to 11 aircraft, and to begin incrementally 

reducing associated E-8C JSTARS manpower. 

At the same time, the committee notes that the Department of the Air 

Force continues to test and field Global Hawk Block 40 aircraft with the multiplatform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP) MTI radar, eventually 

fielding 11 high-altitude, long endurance aircraft. The committee also notes that 

the Department of the Air Force development efforts relating to the vehicle 

dismount and exploitation radar (VADER) transitioned to the Army with no 

apparent plan to field a capability on Department of the Air Force remotely piloted 

aircraft (RPA). 

 The committee is concerned that the volume and pace of change in the 

GMTI development and fielding may be indicative of a lack of precision in the 

underlying requirement set. Clearly, the need to recapitalize the current JSTARS 

aircraft is urgent, and the committee believes a rapid acquisition to achieve the 

required BMC2 and ISR capabilities is necessary. While the JSTARS 

recapitalization platform is planned to achieve far better performance in the areas 

of higher altitudes, superior sensing, increased operational availability and speed, 

the number of platforms to be fielded is identical to that of the current JSTARS 

fleet. However, the requirement for the number of JSTARS was established long 

before 11 long-endurance high altitude GMTI platforms were developed. Also, 

limitations in GMTI performance against dismounts that led to the development of 

the VADER have not been fully addressed as part of the JSTARS recapitalization 

plan. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees 

by February 16, 2015, that captures the aggregate requirement for GMTI capability 

78
and capacity for the Department of Defense. The report should detail the current 

validated requirements for GMTI capabilities and capacities. Requirements should 

be expressed in terms of sensor fidelity using metrics such as ground radar coverage 

area, revisit rate, minimum detection velocity, target locating error, radar imaging, 

hours on-station per mission per month per year, sorties per month and per year, 

and anticipated targets types and density. The report should also highlight the 

degree to which the current Air Force plan, including the near-term reductions in 

JSTARS capacity and the end-state aggregate of 27 MTI aircraft compare to the 

underlying requirements.

Metals Affordability Initiative

The budget request contained $32.2 million in PE 63112F for advanced 

materials for weapons systems. Of this amount, $5.4 million is estimated for the 

Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI).

The committee notes that the MAI is a public-private partnership that 

includes the entire domestic specialty aerospace metals industrial manufacturing 

base. Air Force participation with MAI has resulted in significant improvement in 

the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace applications, including 

aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based superalloys and titanium. Due to the 

widespread use and need for the Department of Defense, the committee encourages 

the Air Force to engage with the other military departments and agencies to ensure 

they are able to leverage MAI for their specific needs. In addition, the committee 

encourages the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and 

Industrial Base Policy to examine the MAI partnership model to determine if it 

might be integrated into the work of the Lightweight and Modern Metals 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute in the advanced manufacturing initiative.

The committee recommends $42.2 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in 

PE 63112F for the MAI program. 

Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft

As the Air Force recapitalizes its tanker fleet, the committee believes it is 

important that nuclear command and control requirements for tankers be 

revalidated and a long-term plan be developed to fulfill any unmet requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Strategic 

Command, to review, and if appropriate update, the requirements contained in 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6811.01C related to 

nuclear command, control, and communications for tanker aircraft. The committee 

further directs the Chairman to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees by April 1, 2015, on the results of this review. 

Additionally, in the event that, subsequent to the Chairman's update, there 

are any unmet requirements contained in the updated 6811.01C for enduring 

tanker aircraft, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a 

79
plan to the congressional defense committees by November 1, 2015, to ensure that 

enduring tanker aircraft meet all requirements contained in CJCSI 6811.01C, as 

updated, related to nuclear command, control, and communications. The plan 

should include a schedule for updating all enduring tanker aircraft to meet any 

unmet requirements as well as associated costs and program details for such a plan.

Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program

The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 41319F for the 

Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program. 

The committee understands that the Air Force plans to develop the PAR 

acquisition strategy, complete milestone B documentation, continue market 

research, and develop the Systems Requirements Document in fiscal year 2014 and 

throughout fiscal year 2015. The committee is also concerned that the Air Force is 

planning to circumvent section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, regarding the 

requirement to complete a Preliminary Design Review prior to commencement of 

milestone B and contract award for the aircraft selection. As well, the Systems 

Requirements Review will not occur until at least 6 months after the aircraft 

selection. The committee also understands that the Secretary of the Air Force may 

attempt to assume the roles and responsibilities of PAR product support manager, 

system and subsystems integrator, and engineering systems and technical 

authority, which is a departure from past and current practices for those functions 

regarding presidential support aircraft. The committee believes this may increase 

risk to product development and execution of life-cycle sustainment activities of the 

PAR program. 

Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 

would require the Secretary of the Air Force to complete a Preliminary Design 

Review for the PAR program prior to the Milestone Decision Authority awarding a 

milestone B and contract approval for the PAR program. Further, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to comprehensively reassess the risk in 

assuming the aforementioned product support and integration management 

responsibilities, that have otherwise been the responsibility of the Original 

Equipment Manufacturer, for presidential support airlift aircraft. 

The committee recommends $11.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 

41319F for the PAR program. 

Wide area surveillance

The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 35206F for development 

of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained no funding for development of 

wide area surveillance. 

The committee notes that persistent day and night wide-area motion 

imagery (WAMI) capability is flying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and is 

considered by operational commanders to be a critical intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance program for combat units. 

80
The committee also notes that Congress provided an increase of $10.0 

million in fiscal year 2014 to begin integration of a near-vertical direction finding 

capability into an existing WAMI-equipped MQ-9 unmanned aerial system, which is 

resulting in a multi-intelligence capability. The committee understands that the 

Department of the Air Force plans to fund a WAMI system in fiscal year 2016 to 

begin a program of record. The committee is concerned that without funding in 

fiscal year 2015 to continue development of the multi-intelligence capable wide-area 

surveillance system, engineering teams will be reduced or disbanded, technical 

support to deployed systems will be impacted, and program improvement efforts 

will be reduced or terminated. The committee further notes that the Chief of Staff 

of the Air Force included an increase of $10.0 million for a WAMI sensor program 

among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2015. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.6 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, in PE 35206F for further development of WAMI. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request contained $16.8 billion for research, development, test, 

and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends $17.0 billion, an 

increase of $223.3 million to the budget request.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 research, 

development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide program are identified in division 

D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of Special Operations 

Forces

The committee is aware of a recently completed Analysis of Alternatives 

(AOA) for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of Special Operations Forces and that the 

review provides alternatives for continued operational capability as well as future 

growth for Navy Sea, Air, Land undersea insertion capabilities. The committee 

understands that this AOA included representatives from U.S. Special Operations 

Command, the Department of the Navy (Program Executive Officer, Submarines), 

and the Joint Staff and was coordinated by a study director from the RAND 

Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. The 

committee understands that the final publication of the AOA was to be made 

available to the congressional defense committees in March 2014. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a copy 

of the Analysis of Alternatives report in its entirety and a briefing on the report to 

the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2014. The report and briefing 

81
should be presented to the committees in unclassified and classified formats as 

determined by the Secretary of Defense. 

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment

The budget request includes $1.004 billion for the Ballistic Missile Defense 

Midcourse Defense Segment in PE 63882C for activities in research, development, 

test and evaluation, Defense-wide. 

The committee observes that while this is an increase for this program 

element, also referred to as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) segment, 

in the fiscal year 2015 budget request when compared to the fiscal year 2014 

request, that this year’s request also includes two new Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) activities, “Improved Homeland Defense Interceptors” and “Discrimination 

Improvements for Homeland Defense", not found in the prior year’s request. Thus, 

the basic GMD program funding has been cut in the proposed budget request for 

fiscal year 2015. 

The request supports the MDA’s top management focus areas: Capability 

Enhancement (CE) 2 Enhanced Kill Vehicle (EKV) return to intercept activities; 

interceptor reliability enhancements; sustainment of the weapons system; return to 

Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deliveries; Missile Field 1 refurbishment. The 

committee is concerned that as the only operationally-deployed system for defense 

of the United States against growing intercontinental ballistic missile threats, 

additional investments are required to ensure GMD provides reliable capability 

with long-term sustainment and modernization of the Nation’s most strategic 

defensive weapon system. The committee observes this system is approaching half 

of its life, 10 of 20 years, and additional funding may be required to conduct a 

robust reliability growth and testing program, and perform a modernization and 

technology refresh program. 

The committee is aware that following two successive test failures of the 

CE-2 EKV (FTG-06 in January 2010 and FTG-06a in December 2010), MDA 

completed a successful non-intercept test on January 26, 2013. The next step for 

the CE-2 Return to Flight will be an intercept test scheduled for June of 2014. The 

committee is also aware that an attempted intercept test of the CE-1 EKV on July 

5, 2013, which represents two-thirds of the operationally deployed GBI fleet but had 

not been tested since 2008, failed. The committee eagerly awaits the results of the 

Failure Review Board. 

The committee recommends $1.044 billion, an increase of $40.0 million, in 

PE 63882C for the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment in 

research, development, test and evaluation, Defense-wide. The committee expects 

these additional funds to begin to correct the short-fall present in the fiscal year 

2015 budget request for the reliability, refresh and modernization of the GMD 

system, including to upgrade the Capability Enhancement-2 kill vehicle software 

and batteries, the Command Launch Equipment Ground Fire Control architecture 

that was begun in fiscal year 2014, and stockpile reliability efforts. 

82
Bioforensic threat detection

The committee is aware that detecting, deterring, and defeating biological 

and physical agents used by terrorists is of critical importance to national security. 

The committee is aware that bioforensic detection capabilities can be helpful by 

identifying molecular markers in human cells following exposure to threat agents, 

and using suitable biomarkers for subsequent detection using field deployable 

equipment. Such methods can be used to rapidly identify and understand human 

individuals; drug plant sourcing; plant-based geographic locations; and the 

distribution routes of terrorist agents. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense to develop combined government, academic, and industrial partnerships to 

field small, deployable, and rapid bioforensic analysis capabilities for Department 

operational forces. 

Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities

The committee is concerned about the potential threat posed to the United 

States by biological weapons. The threat of a biological attack may come from a 

number of sources, including state, non-state and even lone actors, as was believed 

to be the case in the 2001 Anthrax attacks. The Subcommittee on Intelligence, 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on October 11, 2013, that 

examined the state of U.S. efforts for biodefense. During that hearing, the panel of 

independent expert witnesses was critical of the biosafety and biosecurity 

procedures in medical research facilities, identifying a lapse of proper screening and 

consistent procedures as a potential risk with respect to lone actor threats. While 

the committee notes that the biological agents stored in medical research facilities 

are not the only source of weaponizable materials, the committee believes the 

Department of Defense should take all precautions possible to mitigate the risk of 

bioterrorism. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not 

later than September 30, 2014, on biosecurity procedures within Department of 

Defense biological research facilities which handle or store Category A, B, or C 

priority pathogens. The briefing should include a discussion of personnel screening 

procedures, security procedures, and the means for training personnel on safety and 

security procedures. The briefing should also highlight any inconsistencies or 

variability in procedures across the facilities.

Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant High Reynolds Numbers

In Department of Defense Directive 4180.01, issued on April 16, 2014, the 

Department provides policy and guidance on energy planning, use, and 

management, and establishes an energy policy to "enhance military capability, 

improve energy security, and mitigate costs in its use and management of energy." 

One of the means to achieve these ends will include "improv[ing] the energy 

83
performance of weapons systems, platforms, equipment, and products, and their 

modifications."

The committee notes that mitigating turbulent boundary layer drag, which 

forms along the surfaces of all aircraft and marine platforms and produces a shear 

force that opposes the motion of the vehicle, is central to the goals of reducing fuel 

consumption and optimizing performance of military platforms, such as ships, 

submarines, and transport and fighter aircraft. Despite the critical and pervasive 

impact of these so-called "High Reynolds Number" turbulent boundary layers, the 

committee is concerned that only limited domestic capability exists to 

experimentally study them, though such studies are critical to developing and 

applying advanced computational techniques and empirical models to enhance the 

energy efficiency and performance of military platforms.

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services 

Committee on the Department's technical capabilities to experimentally study 

military relevant High Reynolds Number turbulent boundary layers and any gaps 

in the capability to carry out such studies by February 1, 2015.

Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities

The committee is aware of significant efforts within the Chemical Biological 

Defense Program (CBDP) to develop medical countermeasures to protect U.S. troops 

from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats. The committee 

notes that the development of a drug or vaccine to treat or protect against a given 

threat in many cases will take up to a decade from the time of conception through 

the Food and Drug Administration approval process to be available for use. 

However, the committee recognizes that the CBRN threat space is constantly 

evolving in terms of the type and severity of threats U.S. troops are likely to 

encounter at any point in time. The committee is concerned about the mismatch in 

these timescales, and therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs to brief the House Committee 

on Armed Services by September 30, 2014, on the approved process for establishing 

and validating the priorities for the threats for medical countermeasures research 

and development. The briefing should include a list of the current threats, and the 

frequency with which the priority list is updated.

Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols

The committee recognizes the National Academies, at the request of 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), has completed a study that 

reviewed current DOT&E test protocols for combat helmets.

The committee understands the study undertaken by the National 

Academies evaluated the adequacy of the Army's Combat Helmet test protocol for 

both first article testing and lot acceptance testing, including its use of the metrics 

of probability of no penetration and the upper tolerance limit used to evaluate 

84
backface deformation. The study also evaluated the adequacy of the current helmet 

testing procedures to determine the level of protection provided by current helmet

performance specifications. The committee notes there appears to be a lack of 

biomedical connection between either brain injury and performance metrics or 

penetration and backface deformation, and no scientific basis for the choice of 

backface deformation thresholds. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to establish a research 

program to develop helmet test metrics that have a clear scientific link to the modes 

of human injury from ballistic impact, blast, and blunt trauma. The committee 

recommends the Secretary of Defense ensure that appropriate threats, in particular 

fragmentation threats, from current and emerging threat profiles are used in 

combat helmet testing. The committee also expects DOT&E to consider the findings 

and recommendations in the National Academies study and make a determination 

as to whether a new or modified first article test protocol for combat helmets is 

required. 

Combatant commands and science and technology Communities of Interest

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense engages in a 

science and technology (S&T) planning process known as Reliance 21, which was 

established to coordinate and reduce unwarranted duplication in service and agency 

S&T efforts. The technical groups known as Communities of Interest (COI) are the 

heart of the Reliance 21 process, and they cover 17 technical areas. The committee 

recognizes that the COIs represent a key mechanism to assess programs, share 

information, and, when needed, to develop long-term roadmaps for key technology 

thrusts. However, the committee does not believe that all of the combatant 

commands are included in this COI process. Since most combatant commands have 

scientific advisers, and some have funds and authorities to carry out S&T programs, 

it appears to be an oversight for them not to be integrated into relevant COIs. The 

committee urges the Department to actively engage with combatant commands, 

such as Transportation Command and Cyber Command, in the S&T COIs to ensure 

their perspectives are included in current and future roadmapping and assessment 

activities. 

Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office

85
The budget request included $69.7 million in PE 63122DZ8 for the 

Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office (CTTSO). 

The committee notes CTTSO's unique contributions in supporting the 

warfighter with the rapid acquisition of counterterrorism and irregular warfare 

technologies and capabilities. The committee supports CTTSO's unique business 

model that rapidly identifies and prioritizes Department of Defense requirements 

and conducts timely research, development, testing, and evaluation projects. The 

committee recognizes the important role CTTSO continues to play now and in the 

future given evolving threats from terrorism and irregular warfare challenges. 

The committee recommends $89.7 million, an increase of $20 million, in 

63122DZ8 for the Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office. 

Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers

The committee is aware that one of the areas where the Department of 

Defense has been trying to reduce its costs has been in conference travel. With 

recent advances in collaboration tools, video teleconferencing, and telepresence, 

such travel can be reasonably scaled back in some areas with little negative impact 

on the workforce.

However, the committee is concerned that blanket restrictions on 

conference travel are having an acute negative impact on the science and 

engineering workforce. The committee recognizes that such conferences are not just 

professional enrichment for this sector of the workforce, but are vital and missionessential tools of the trade. For example, scientists and engineers use national and 

international sponsors of professional scientific societies to peer review their work, 

get exposed to the most recent advances in the international academic community, 

and better understand the technological advances of allies and adversaries alike. In 

addition, for many scientists and engineers, participation in these professional

societies is essential for professional development in order to attain fellowships and 

recognition within their respective fields of endeavor. The committee is aware of 

anecdotal examples of these travel restrictions, coupled with furloughs and pay 

freezes, contributing to some members of the workforce leaving public service.

The committee applauds the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics for recognizing the problem and issuing a memo on 

February 14, 2014, to clarify the guidance for technical and industry conferences. 

The committee urges the Under Secretary to continue to highlight this issue within 

the Department and to find appropriate mechanisms for tracking compliance with 

this guidance, and find additional means to support travel for the science and 

engineering workforce to attend technical conferences.

Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of medical countermeasures

The committee is aware of multiple efforts in biological defense within 

several Government departments and agencies, in particular in the area of medical 

countermeasures (MCM). The Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) within 

86
the Department of Defense has begun construction on an advanced manufacturing 

center for MCM in order to address the unique needs of the Department of Defense 

for medical countermeasures. However, the committee is also aware that the 

Department of Health and Human Services has also made significant investments 

in constructing its own centers for advanced manufacturing. In general, these 

centers will be focused on addressing the requirements of the Department of Health 

and Human Services for MCM.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats 

and Capabilities on October 11, 2013, the principal investigator for the Texas A&M 

Center for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing, one of the 

Department of Health and Human Services centers, testified that those centers 

were fully capable of meeting all Department of Defense requirements for MCM 

advanced manufacturing. This has raised questions regarding the need for the 

Department of Defense to fund what appears to be a duplicative effort. The 

committee notes that while there are differences in the capabilities between the 

Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services centers, 

there is also a significant amount of overlap.

The committee is aware that coordination on research and development of 

MCM is performed through the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures 

Enterprise (PHEMCE), in which the Department of Defense is an active 

participant. These coordination efforts are laudable. However, the committee is 

aware that the PHEMCE is not directly managing the advanced manufacturing 

process and will instead rely on a separate governance board. In light of these facts, 

the committee is concerned that, although the Department of Defense center for 

advanced manufacturing is already designed and construction has begun, the 

ability to coordinate with and leverage the efforts of other Government agencies for 

advanced manufacturing does not yet appear to be fully established, and therefore, 

the possibility of inefficiency and unnecessary redundancy within the Department 

of Defense is still significant.

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees by October 30, 2014, on the status of the 

coordination process for the advanced manufacturing of medical countermeasures 

between the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human 

Services. This briefing should include the following:

(1) Details of the Department of Defense's role on the governance board 

which oversees the advanced manufacturing process, including frequency of 

meetings, level of interaction, etc. 

(2) The degree to which the Department of Defense is able to utilize the 

Department of Health and Human Services advanced manufacturing centers, 

including a discussion of time and cost savings.

(3) Any application of best practices, lessons learned, etc. from past 

coordination efforts with the PHEMCE with respect to the current coordination 

efforts for advanced manufacturing.

87
(4) Any obstacles to the coordination process, including any issues which 

may prohibit or impede the Department of Defense's ability to utilize the 

Department of Health and Human Services advanced manufacturing centers.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum Challenge

The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) conducted a competition in 2013 and 2014 to develop advanced 

radio techniques capable of communicating in congested and contested 

electromagnetic environments without direct coordination or spectrum preplanning. 

This DARPA Spectrum Challenge entailed head-to-head competitions between 

multiple industry and academic teams, including an opposing red team, in a 

structured testbed environment that required teams to compete against one 

another, as well as work cooperatively. The winning teams won prizes totaling 

$150,000, and provided valuable insight for the Department of Defense into possible 

technical solutions for remedying the future spectrum crunch. 

The committee applauds the creativity of DARPA in using its prize 

authority to explore novel techniques for addressing spectrum-sharing problems. As 

noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is aware that spectrum is a vital 

national security resource which must be actively managed to ensure effective and 

efficient use that balances competing demands between the services, other Federal 

agencies, and the private sector. The committee sees this sort of competition as a 

useful tool to address broader national challenges related to spectrum. The 

committee encourages the Department of Defense, as well as other Federal 

agencies, to creatively use such prize and challenge authorities to find innovative 

solutions to growing problems like spectrum efficiency and sharing.

Development of antibiotics against biothreats

The committee is aware that Category A and B bacterial pathogens pose a 

significant risk to national security because they can be easily disseminated, result 

in high mortality rates, and require special action for public health preparedness. 

In addition to the Category A and B pathogens, the committee understands that 

there is a critical need for antibiotics against other highly resistant bacteria which 

also may pose a threat to the health and security of the Nation. These issues 

reinforce the committee’s concern about the full spectrum of bacterial infectious 

diseases that pose significant threats to our military. The Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency (DTRA), together with the Chemical Biological Defense Program 

(CBDP), have the mission to safeguard the United States and its allies from 

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) 

weapons of mass destruction by providing capabilities to reduce, eliminate, and 

counter the threat and mitigate effects. The committee recognizes that there are 

ongoing efforts within DTRA and the CBDP to develop antibiotics to combat these 

pathogens. However, the committee is also aware that the current austere fiscal 

climate will require these organizations to make difficult decisions regarding 

88
funding and priorities for a number of efforts, which may result in funding cuts for 

important research and development. Given the threat posed by these Category A 

and B bacterial pathogens, the committee encourages DTRA and the CBDP to 

continue research on the development of antibiotics to combat these pathogens.

Development of innovative detection and threat identification technologies

The committee remains concerned about credible threats posed by state and 

non-state actors in their attempts to acquire and weaponize chemical, biological, 

radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass 

destruction (WMD) for use against the United States and its allies. The committee 

is aware that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) continues to develop 

and field technologies that reduce, counter, and eliminate the threat of CBRNE 

WMD. The committee is also aware that as part of these efforts, DTRA continues to 

invest in small lightweight, person-portable detection equipment to detect CBRNE 

materials. The committee recognizes the importance of this equipment as enabling 

a wide range of operations within CBRNE environments, and therefore encourages 

DTRA to continue the development, demonstration and deployment of innovative 

and emerging detection and threat identification technologies that are useful across 

the widest-spectrum of CBRNE threats. In addition, the committee directs the 

Director of DTRA to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 

2014, on their efforts to advance and make operational a light-weight, personportable CBRNE detection and analysis device.

Electronic warfare roadmap

 The committee recognizes the importance of electronic warfare (EW) 

technologies, both for irregular warfare challenges such as defeating improvised 

explosive devices, as well as for peer competitors where anti-access and area denial 

threats are paramount. As the technologies for electronic warfare, signals 

intelligence, and cyber operations increasingly converge, the committee believes 

that it will be important to prioritize and coordinate science and technological 

investments to maintain technological superiority. The committee commends 

service research labs and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for 

making important EW technology investments, and recognizes the critical role that 

the Department of Defense's Reliance 21 Communities of Interest (COI) play in 

identifying the critical technologies that will be key for the United States to 

maintain its global advantage in EW operations out to 2025. The committee 

understands that the EW COI is working on an electronic warfare roadmap, and 

looks forward to seeing that document to better understand where the Department 

will be making key investments across the Future Years Defense Plan.

Expeditionary airfield technology

89
The committee understands that Expeditionary Airfields (EAF) are used by 

all the military services to support forward deployed air operations, and that EAFs 

have the capability to support all types of aircraft from all the military services in 

full spectrum operations. The committee understands the military services may 

require new EAF technology, an investment that could be critical to enhancing 

forward deployed military readiness in an expeditionary environment. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than February 15, 2015, on the following:

(1) The need for expeditionary airfields in the ongoing threat environment;

(2) The capacity of existing EAF technology to support additional air assets;

(3) The efficacy of expeditionary airfields in mobilization and 

demobilization in theater; and

(4) The status of development of new matting technology that can support 

additional weight and accommodate increased thermal load and engine blast from 

vertical lift aircraft. 

Field-programmable gate arrays for defense

The committee recognizes the importance of utilizing field-programmable 

gated arrays (FPGAs) for defense application in order to allow for greater flexibility 

in the processing power of some defense applications. The committee is aware, 

though, that such capability can also introduce vulnerabilities into defense systems, 

and the Department of Defense is challenged to find means to mitigate those 

potential vulnerabilities and ensure a high level of trust for this class of 

microcircuits. Further, the committee notes that the prevalence of foreign FPGA 

providers makes trusted sourcing for these microcircuits an additional security 

challenge that the Department must address.

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct an analysis of the Department’s 

strategy for utilizing FPGAs and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by March 1, 2015 on the results of the analysis. The briefing should 

address the following issues:

(1) How FPGAs fit into both Department’s microelectronics strategy, 

especially with regard to their use in both new and legacy systems;

(2) How trust and security vulnerability can be mitigated by the Trusted 

Defense Systems strategy;

(3) Any special budgeting, manpower, manufacturing or acquisition issues 

that may need to be addressed by the use and integration of FPGAs; and

(4) Recommendations for how to increase utilization of FPGAs, and if 

necessary, production capacity.

Future vertical lift

90
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees providing the status of the Department’s 

engagement with the Vertical Lift Consortium on related technology requirements 

and development strategies for next-generation vertical lift aircraft. 

The committee notes that the required report was delivered to the 

congressional defense committees on May 13, 2013. The committee recognizes

incremental improvements or upgrades to current Department rotorcraft will not 

fully meet future joint service operational requirements. The committee supports 

the development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the Department to 

expand the prototyping program to include vertical lift aircraft. The committee also 

understands that a key aspect of this program is the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) 

Aircraft Demonstrator. The program includes related research on next-generation 

rotors, drive trains, engines, sensors, and survivability. The committee encourages 

the Department to provide additional funding for this program in the fiscal year 

2016 budget request.

Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes

The committee recognizes that independent, non-profit research 

institutions provide value to the research and development portfolios of the 

Department of Defense. The committee believes that non-profit research 

institutions have unique capabilities, experience, and infrastructure that are well 

suited to technology maturation, risk reduction, and transition to programs of 

record. 

As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee is aware 

the Department is examining ways to better utilize the unique capabilities and 

expertise of non-profit research institutions, especially in the area of transitioning 

innovation to commercialization. Furthermore, the committee understands that the 

Department has been evaluating how to better utilize the special authorities within 

the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations in order to better leverage the 

capabilities of the non-profit research community. The committee is concerned that 

the Department has not clearly articulated that policy to the broader research and 

acquisition community to inform them of how they might best leverage those 

capabilities, and the special contracting authorities that might be used.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to issue updated 

policy guidance related to the use of non-profit research institutions that clarifies 

their role in the research ecosystem, as well as the special provisions within the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations that support their use. Additionally, the 

committee directs the Secretary to submit the updated policy guidance to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by 

March 1, 2015.

91
Health of the research and development enterprise

 The committee remains concerned about the long-term health of the 

Department of Defense research and development enterprise. There are currently 

67 Department laboratories across 22 states, 10 federally funded research and 

development centers (FFRDCs), and 13 university affiliated research centers, as 

well as a workforce of 60,000 employees, of which approximately 36,400 are degreed 

scientists and engineers. The committee recognizes the pivotal role these facilities 

and people play in maintaining the technological edge of the Department of Defense 

and providing the necessary tools for the warfighter. The committee is concerned 

that the declining state of much of the Department of Defense lab infrastructure, 

especially compared to academic, industrial, and international counterparts, can 

also serve to dispel many of the technology workforce that the Department would 

most like to attract.

The committee is determined to ensure that Department research and 

development capabilities remain robust in order to assure a vibrant and agile 

research and development enterprise. The committee is concerned that declining 

budgets and increasing threats are placing pressures on the Department that may 

lead it to make short-term decisions with long-term ramifications. The committee is 

unsure if the Department is striking the appropriate balance between near- and 

long-term objectives, which may negatively affect the overall health of the research 

and development enterprise. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to task the 

Defense Science Board to conduct an assessment of the organization, missions, 

authorities, and health of the defense research and development enterprise, and to 

submit a report on the findings of the assessment to the congressional defense 

committees by September 30, 2015. The assessment should include the following:

(1) How well do the defense laboratories respond to the needs of the 

Department?

(2) What mechanisms exist to refurbish and recapitalize Department of 

Defense labs, and how do those mechanisms compare with other Government, 

academic, international and industrial counterparts?

(3) How well does the Department attract, recruit, retain, and train its 

workforce to remain technically current and flexible to respond to emerging 

national requirements?

(4) Does the appropriate balance exist in each service between service 

control and laboratory director discretion so as to maximize laboratory mission 

effectiveness?

High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion

The committee notes that munitions to support contingency plans in the 

various combatant command areas of responsibility may require long-range 

munitions to ensure adequate penetration of anti-access, area-denial environments. 

The committee is aware that technology for high-efficiency, conventional missile 

92
propulsion subsystems necessary for such strike requirements is limited and may 

require further research and development. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to adequately resource efforts to mature high-efficiency 

conventional missile propulsion subsystems, and directs the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to the House 

Armed Services Committee by August 1, 2014 on current research and development 

efforts in this area.

Hypersonics research

The committee recognizes that hypersonics technology represents an 

important game-changing technology for the Department of Defense. The committee 

is aware that the Army successfully tested its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in 

2011 and plans additional tests this year. The Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force have cooperated on several hypersonics 

programs that have advanced the state of knowledge on materials and flight 

dynamics for such high-speed vehicles. Additionally, the committee understands 

that DARPA and the Air Force are beginning a new program to develop a highspeed strike weapon that will combine the characteristics of hypersonic flight with 

precision guidance to test a tactical weapon system. The committee believes that as 

such technology progresses, the Department will need to examine its test 

infrastructure to determine if additional investments and upgrades will be 

necessary.

The committee encourages the Department to continue to pursue advanced 

hypersonic technology to improve strike and reconnaissance capabilities, especially 

for denied areas. The committee believes that such investments are necessary to 

keep pace with foreign actors investing in similar capabilities, and should also 

examine methods for defending against hypersonic weapons as part of a balanced 

portfolio. The committee encourages the Department to closely monitor 

international hypersonics development efforts, as well as opportunities for 

cooperation with foreign allies. The committee applauds efforts such as the 

Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation program, which was a 

joint United States-Australian initiative to advance hypersonics technology, and 

utilized shared testing facilities like the Woomera Range in South Australia.

Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense maintains a 

significant presence on Kwajalein Atoll, including contractors and families, to 

support Department of Defense activities there. Further, the committee 

understands that data access for those families is limited to low-bandwidth phone 

modems, which can negatively impact the welfare of personnel and their families 

stationed at a remote location, where electronic communications are useful in 

maintaining personal and family relationships. 

93
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (DISA) maintains high-bandwidth network connections to the Atoll, which 

were designed with additional capacity to allow for future expansions. The 

committee is also aware of instances in the past when DISA has provided additional 

networking capacity for morale, welfare and recreation applications through base 

exchanges. The committee believes that DISA could provide such capacity to 

families on the Atoll with minimal effort and cost. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Director, Defense Information Systems Agency to submit a plan to the 

Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by March 15, 2015, 

on providing internet access to families on Kwajalein Atoll. 

Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy

The committee is aware of recent advances amongst the military services to 

field directed energy weapons, including the upcoming deployment of the Laser 

Weapon System onboard the USS Ponce by the Navy, as well as the recent testing of 

the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator by the Army at White Sands Missile 

Range. The committee congratulates the services on this progress. The committee 

is also aware that the laser systems used in both of these cases are commercial offthe-shelf industrial lasers which were purchased and modified by each service to be 

suitable for their respective military application. In many cases, these lasers do not 

provide enough power to achieve mission objectives, and there are several research 

and development efforts underway to develop laser systems which will be capable of 

fulfilling all mission requirements. However, the committee recognizes that there 

are many critical system engineering and integration problems that may be solved 

using these lower power systems in the interim, which will reduce both the time 

and cost associated with the deployment of directed energy systems. Therefore the 

committee encourages the Department of Defense agencies which are working to 

develop directed energy weapons to continue to examine the industrial base for 

technologies which may be utilized for these systems, and to leverage such 

technologies whenever possible.

Military service coordination and transition efforts for the chemical biological 

defense program

The Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) has the primary 

responsibility to develop technologies to protect U.S. troops from the threats posed 

by Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of 

Mass Destruction (WMD). The committee believes that frequent open 

communication between the CBDP and the military services is critical during all 

phases of the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) process for 

developing these technologies. Such communication is necessary to ensure not only 

that the warfighter requirements are being properly addressed in the early 

planning phases of the RDT&E process, but that the technology is transitioned to 

the military services on an adequate timescale to ensure the safety and protection of 

94
U.S. troops. Therefore, the committee encourages the CBDP to continue to improve 

its communication with the military services during all phases of the RDT&E 

process. 

In addition, the committee remains concerned about the level of protection 

currently available to U.S. troops who are at risk of being exposed to CBRNE WMD, 

in particular with regards to mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear. The 

committee is concerned that in many cases the equipment available to the military 

units may be outdated or inadequate to address current requirements. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and 

Biological Defense Programs to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by November 30, 2014, on the coordination between the military 

services and the CBDP. The briefing should include details on the process by which 

the CBDP solicits and incorporates input from the military services into its 

planning and prioritization of RDT&E efforts, as well as the current plans and 

efforts to transition the resultant technology, including MOPP gear for CBRNE 

environments to the military services.

Minority science and technology programs

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has been 

working for many years to strengthen its role with Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MIs), which not only 

support a broad range of research, but also creates a diverse pool of talented 

scientists and engineers that can support academic, industrial and federal research 

needs. The committee also commends the Department for expanding partnerships 

with non-profit organizations (NPO) that have a history of providing scholarship, 

mentoring and career advancement support to minorities pursuing science and 

technology careers consistent with Department mission and needs. The committee 

applauds the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

for issuing guidance in December 2011 to reinvigorate the Department's 

relationship with HBCU/MIs. In particular, this memo reiterated that "[t]hese 

institutions offer a talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) workforce that can benefit the research and educational efforts of the DoD 

and the nation." This memo focused on four areas of focus for action, including 

information collection to:

(1) Develop and maintain statistics on HBCU/MI success rates in response 

to competitive funding opportunities under broad agency announcements and other 

solicitations;

(2) Ensure that HBCU/MIs are made of aware of the opportunity for 

participation in all Department of Defense sponsored activities that invite 

participation of institutions of higher education;

(3) Encourage the use of Inter-governmental Personnel Act agreements or 

other personnel-detail mechanisms with HBCU/MIs; 

95
(4) Ensure that emphasis is placed on recruiting and selecting HBCU/MI 

faculty to serve on Department of Defense STEM scholarship, fellowship, and 

research review panels and HBCU/MI students are informed of and encouraged to 

apply to STEM scholarship, fellowship and internship programs.

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by 

December 15, 2014 on the measures and metrics used by the Department to better 

understand how the Department is fulfilling the guidance from the December 2011 

memo. In addition to demonstrating the Department's progress against the four 

goals above, this briefing should also examine what minority science and technology 

workforce, professional development, and technical assistance programs exist that 

could benefit from increased participation with HBCU/Mls, as well as what nonprofit organizations exist have a history of assisting minorities and HBCU/minorityserving institutions in expanding their participation in Department of Defense 

programs, including the leveraging of both Defense and NPO scholarship funds to 

achieve these purposes.

Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles

The committee is aware of the enabling effects of employing large 

quantities of unmanned aerial vehicles on the battlefield. However, the availability 

of pilots, and the costs associated with training and employing pilots, has in some 

cases limited the ability of the Department of Defense to mass and capitalize on 

these capabilities.

Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the 

congressional defense committees with a report by February 15, 2015 detailing the 

Department of Defense's plans to operationally test and deploy multi-aircraft 

control technology. This report shall include a breakdown of the efforts of each of 

the services along with the Department of Defense's plan to integrate those efforts 

between the services in order to minimize inefficiencies. The report shall also 

address advanced technology development and experimentation as well as the 

potential manpower savings of multi-aircraft control.

Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for unmanned aerial systems

The committee is aware that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are 

increasingly important in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

missions. The committee also notes that while the use of multiple-input multipleoutput systems is ubiquitous in commercial and some Department of Defense 

applications, it is largely absent in various Department of Defense airborne systems 

due to technological and operational challenges. The committee is aware that there 

is ongoing development of airborne radio frequency (RF) systems that could 

potentially improve the operation of airborne platforms, provide more robust antijamming capability, enable and enhance information collection and sensing of the 

96
operating environment, and incur minimum RF footprint to ensure a low 

probability of interception. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to leverage existing 

research and development to develop advanced, multi-mission, multi-antenna RF 

systems for UAS that will significantly enhance ISR capabilities in tactical 

networks resulting in improved mission success.

National Defense Education Program

The budget request contained $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z for the 

National Defense Education Program (NDEP) for the purposes of attracting, 

engaging, and developing current and future generations of science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent to benefit the Department of Defense. 

Of this amount, no funds were requested for pre-kindergarten-to-12th grade (PK-12) 

STEM outreach programs.

The committee cannot stress enough that the recruitment, retention and 

development of an experienced, technical workforce is a critical national security 

requirement for the Department of Defense and that these efforts must start at the 

earliest stages of the STEM pipeline. The committee also stresses that growth in 

STEM fields is important for the general economic health and competitiveness of 

the nation, but due to the special security requirements of Department of Defense 

employees, this need is especially acute.

The committee understands that as the demand for a diverse, highly skilled 

scientific and technical military and civilian defense workforce grows, the 

Department will need to continue to invest in strengthening local defense 

communities by enhancing student engagement in STEM initiatives that support 

the Department's research areas. The committee understands that NDEP K-12:

(1) Builds student interest in STEM fields and disciplines and in careers 

specific to the Department; 

(2) Develops defense-relevant science, engineering and mathematics skills; 

and 

(3) Provides a future talent pool to fulfill the Department’s demand for 

highly skilled STEM professionals by increasing access to authentic STEM 

experiences. 

The committee recommends $55.5 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in 

PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program. Of these funds, the 

committee recommends $45.5 million, the requested amount for the SMART; and 

$10.0 million for PK-12 STEM outreach programs, an increase of $10.0 million. Of 

the funds requested for PK-12, the committee recommends the Department use 

some of the funds to carry out STEM activities that will support school districts 

with high concentrations of military dependent families. Such activities should 

include a focus on increasing teacher effectiveness as well as student achievement. 

The committee also believes that such outreach activities should look at 

opportunities to support the development of a cyber focused skill sets.

97
Neuroplasticity research partnerships

The committee is aware of advancements in neuroplasticity research made 

by university and non-governmental rehabilitation hospitals that have collaborated 

to maximize what can be learned regarding the brain’s ability to develop and 

recover when it has become damaged. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense's medical research and development organizations to establish research 

programs with university systems and non-governmental rehabilitation hospitals 

that have partnered in order to develop rapid and innovative outcomes in the 

treatment of service members with traumatic brain injury that may lead to 

efficiencies in restoring brain recovery and neurological function. 

Optics and photonics for defense applications

The committee is aware of and recognizes the unique roles optics and 

photonics play in our Nation’s security, including everything from information 

technology and communications to medicine and advanced manufacturing. The 

committee understands the United States has been the world pioneer in 

transitioning optics and photonics research to national security applications. 

Department of Defense contributions have been pivotal in laying the foundation of 

those capabilities, from early investments in lasers to the development of medical 

free electronic lasers for military photomedicine applications.

The committee also understands that increased competition has put 

America's leadership position at risk. Further, the committee is aware that the 

administration is attempting to address some of these competitiveness issues by 

creating a number of advanced manufacturing centers, and has expressed the intent 

in the fiscal year 2015 budget request to fund three to five additional centers. 

The committee recognizes that the National Academy of Sciences report, 

"Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies for Our Nation," emphasizes these 

findings. For example, among its other findings, it noted:

(1) The federal government should develop an integrated initiative in 

photonics that seeks to bring together academic, industrial, and government 

researchers, managers, and policy makers to develop a more integrated approach to 

managing industrial and government photonics research and development spending 

and related investments;

(2) "The U.S. government, and specifically the Department of Defense, 

should strive toward harmonizing optics with silicon-based electronics to provide a 

new, readily accessible and usable, integrated electronics and optics platform";

(3) The U.S. defense and intelligence agencies should fund the development 

of optical technologies to support future optical systems capable of wide-area 

surveillance, exquisite long-range object identification, high-bandwidth free-space 

laser communication, 'speed-of-light' laser strike, and defense against both missile 

seekers and ballistic missiles; and

(4) "The United States should aggressively develop additive manufacturing 

technology and implementation."

98
Recognizing these imperatives, the committee encourages the Department 

to consider the establishment of a National Center for Optics and Photonics within 

its manufacturing mandate. The committee believes that doing so would allow the 

Department to create new opportunities for innovation, which will benefit the 

Department on multiple fronts. Specifically, the committee is interested in 

technological and manufacturing advances that a National Center for Optics and 

Photonics could make in critical defense applications such as advanced lasers, 

advanced optical materials, data storage, communication technologies, and sensors.

Prosthesis research

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has made 

significant investments in research for next generation prostheses, particularly for 

upper and lower extremities. With operations in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan winding down and current fiscal constraints on the defense budget, the 

committee is concerned that the Department will begin to move away from this area 

of research in favor of new topics for a new security environment, leaving a void in 

this area. The committee notes that while medical advances have dramatically 

increased the survival rates of the warfighter, it has also dramatically increased the 

number of wounded warriors requiring intense, long-term therapeutic care. The 

committee urges the Department of Defense to continue pushing the technical 

bounds of regenerative medicine and prostheses, including the development and 

refinement of new modalities for control of neurological implants, in order to 

maintain its commitment to the care and welfare of the wounded warrior 

community and their families. 

Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense

The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63882C for the Ballistic 

Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment. Of this amount, $99.5 million was 

requested for Improved Homeland Defense (HLD) Interceptors development, which 

the committee will refer to as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle. 

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) fiscal year 

2015 budget overview documents state that the budget request supports the 

initiation of the "redesign of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) for GMD 

[Ground-based Midcourse Defense]. The redesigned EKV will be built with a 

modular, open architecture and designed with common interfaces and standards, 

making upgrades easier and broadening our vendor and supplier base. The 

redesigned EKV will increase performance to address the evolving threat; improve 

reliability, availability, maintainability, testability and producibility; and increase 

in-flight communications to improve usage of off-board sensors information and 

situational awareness to combatant commanders for enabling new tactics such as 

shoot-assess-shoot." The committee expects the redesign will also maintain the 

capability for the future modernization path for the common kill vehicle phase II 

efforts that should achieve the long-sought "volume kill" capability. 

99
The committee has long believed that a new kill vehicle is required for the 

homeland missile defense system, mindful of the termination of one such 

modernization program in 2009, the Multiple Kill Vehicle. For example, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 

directed the Director, MDA to develop a long-term plan for the exo-atmospheric kill 

vehicle. And, again, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66) directed a plan, and authorized funding, for the development of 

an upgraded, enhanced exo-atmospheric kill vehicle for the GMD system that, "is 

capable of being deployed during fiscal year 2018." The committee expects the 

Director to proceed with the development, test, acquisition, and deployment of the 

redesigned kill vehicle as directed in that Act. 

The committee recommends $99.5 million, the full amount of the budget 

request, in PE 63882C for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle.

Space weather events research

The committee notes the value of the advice to the Department of Defense, 

including the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy, for the 

pursuit of space weather research and is aware of space weather impacts to the 

electric power grid, global satellite communications, global positioning system 

positioning and timing, space situational awareness, and potential loss of 

degradation of these capabilities. The committee is aware of the importance of 

observations and research of space weather phenomena to monitor and predict 

potential damage to the U.S. military and to protect national technological 

infrastructure. The committee is also aware that insufficient coordination and 

sharing among the agencies could lead to duplication of effort and less effective 

allocation of limited resources for this critical research. The committee recommends 

that the Secretary of Defense coordinate with the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 

National Science Foundation to provide necessary observations and support for 

research that will lead to reliable forecasts of significant space weather events.

Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit

The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 1160402BB, Special 

Operations Technology Development, and $7.5 million in PE 1160402BB, Special 

Operations Special Technology, to support ongoing developmental efforts for the 

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Tactical Assault Light Operator 

Suit (TALOS), designed to improve operator survivability in direct action or kinetic 

environments. 

The committee notes that more than $4.5 million of fiscal year 2013 and 

fiscal year 2014 Major Force Program-11 funding has been put towards TALOS 

efforts thus far. The committee also notes that despite aggressive marketing efforts 

by USSOCOM, TALOS is not a program of record, but rather "an overarching 

vision" that provides "a coordinating focus for many of USSOCOM's science and 

100
technology efforts spanning multiple capability areas." The committee understands 

that present efforts are being used to survey current technologies and to better 

inform future requirements documents, and that USSOCOM intends to deliver a 

fully functional prototype assault suit by August 2018. 

The committee is concerned that these requirements are not being properly 

coordinated with related or complementary efforts at the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems 

Command. While USSOCOM is the proper authority to define Special Operations 

Forces peculiar requirements, it may not be the appropriate entity to lead such 

developmental technology efforts, like TALOS. While the committee understands 

that Natick Soldier Systems Command is currently developing and partially 

funding one of the two Generation I prototypes for USSOCOM, the committee is 

concerned that USSOCOM is also funding outside private sector research, and that 

overall efforts lack proper coordination and oversight, systems integration and 

collaboration, and prototype evaluation.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the 

congressional defense committees by August 1, 2014, on the TALOS project and 

similar efforts to include: (1) the overall TALOS requirement for U.S. Special 

Operations Forces, including requirements validation; (2) a list of funded activities 

for fiscal years 2013-14, as well as planned activities for fiscal year 2015 and 

beyond, including efforts through DARPA, Natick Soldier Systems Command, the 

other military services, the Rapid Innovation Fund, and industry; (3) coordination 

efforts undertaken with USSOCOM, DARPA, Natick Soldier Systems Command 

and other similar ongoing research and development activities; (4) project timelines 

including the development of prototypes and anticipated funding; (5) any other 

developmental efforts underway that could satisfy USSOCOM TALOS-like

requirements, and (6) any other items the Secretary of Defense deems appropriate. 

Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and Equipment Systems Program 

Management Office

The committee is aware of the research and development (R&D) 

contributions of the Special Operations Forces Survival, Support and Equipment 

Systems (SOF-SSES) Program Management Office. These R&D efforts focus on 

improving personal protective and individual support equipment as well as life 

support and tactical combat casualty care for the warfighter within the U.S. Special 

Operations Forces. The committee recognizes the importance of these efforts for the 

sustainment of the readiness and superiority of the Special Operations Forces 

(SOF), as well as for the continued successful completion of SOF missions. The 

committee encourages the U.S. Special Operations Command to continue to 

maintain the appropriate level of funding in order to sustain these important efforts 

within the SOF-SSES Program Management Office.

Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency

101
The committee is aware that spectrum is a vital national security resource 

which must be actively managed to ensure effective and efficient use that balances 

competing demands between the military services, other Federal agencies and the 

private sector. In the committee report accompanying the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H. Rept. 110-652), the committee 

noted its concern over the availability of spectrum for defense applications and the 

increasing scarcity imposed by additional spectrum auctions and competition with 

commercial wireless providers. For this reason, the committee is pleased that the 

Department of Defense has recently issued an Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategy 

to provide more strategic guidance to shape the future of the Department's 

spectrum operations. As noted in the new strategy, "[the Department of Defense] 

must act now to ensure access to the congested and contested electromagnetic 

environment of the future. Specifically, the Department must adapt how it acquires 

and uses spectrum resources. Our approach must include acquiring more efficient, 

flexible, and adaptable systems while developing more agile and opportunistic 

spectrum operations to ensure that our forces can complete their missions."

 The committee is also aware that this strategy is the first step in a longer 

process to develop a roadmap and action plan to inform future actions and 

resourcing. In addition, the committee believes that the Department needs to 

identify opportunities where it should focus research and development efforts to 

address any technological gaps, or where additional testing for commercial 

technologies may be needed to integrate into defense systems. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the 

Department of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 

January 15, 2015, on the status of the associated Spectrum Roadmap and Action 

Plan, as well as a science and technology roadmap for technologies that are needed 

to improve spectrum efficiency.

Three-dimensional integrated circuits

The committee is aware that the changing market dynamics of the 

microelectronics industry have led the Department of Defense from being a market 

driver to a market follower. Except in some highly advanced sectors requiring 

especially high levels of trust, the Department will most likely be highly dependent 

on outside market forces to supply its microelectronics needs. For example, newly 

emerging technology like three-dimensional (3D) integrated circuits (IC) are an 

important technology that the Department will need to understand and monitor in 

the future. Such complex, multi-layer chips will provide new useful functionality, 

but also make detection of supply chain vulnerabilities more difficult to detect than 

traditional ICs.

In a report provided to the committee, the Department indicated that there 

was a highly competitive supplier network and sufficient domestic capacity for 3D 

ICs, but that there were also "impressive capabilities for 3D ICs being developed 

and implemented overseas...largely through the support of foreign government 

102
investments." The report also stated that, "While there does not appear to be an 

immediate need for creating any new domestic 3D IC manufacturing capabilities for 

defense applications, making better use of the existing domestic capability could be 

very beneficial for maintaining DOD [Department of Defense] technology leadership 

and to avoid surprises from potential adversaries." The committee urges the

Department to closely monitor developments with 3D ICs, not only to leverage 

rapidly evolving commercial capabilities for its own uses, but also to understand 

how potential adversaries use these technologies.

U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation

The budget request contained $96.8 million in PE 63913C for Israeli 

Cooperative Programs in missile defense for fiscal year 2015. Of this amount, $10.7 

million was requested for the Israeli Arrow program, $54.4 million for the Israeli 

Upper Tier program (also known as Arrow III), and $31.7 million for the Israeli 

Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense program (also known as David’s Sling 

Weapons System (DSWS)).

The committee supports these cooperative programs and is pleased with the 

record of success seen over the past year. For example, on January 3, 2014, the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization 

(IMDO) successfully completed a flight test of the Arrow 3 Interceptor missile over 

the Mediterranean Sea. This test was an important step towards fielding an 

additional layer of defense, with exo-atmospheric capability, against ballistic missile 

threats to the State of Israel. Additionally, on November 20, 2013, MDA and IMDO 

successfully conducted an intercept test using the DSWS. This second intercept test 

of DSWS continues to prove out the lower-tier capability Israel and the United 

States have cooperatively developed for the defense of Israel. 

The committee continues to support these cooperative programs being 

mindful of the January 29, 2014, Annual Threat Assessment testimony of the 

Director of National Intelligence before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 

that, “Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle 

East.”

The committee is also mindful of section 8070 of the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of Public Law 113-76), which noted that of the 

$149.7 million provided for the DSWS, $15.0 million was provided for production of 

its interceptors in the United States and in Israel. Given the significant ongoing 

U.S. taxpayer investment, the committee supports co-production of these programs, 

and the committee expects to be regularly updated on the implementation of these 

appropriated funds. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses the Iron Dome system. 

The committee recommends $268.8 million, an increase of $172.0 million, in 

PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative Programs.

Vaccine research for equine encephalitis

103
The committee is aware that equine encephalitis is a serious health hazard 

with potentially fatal consequences that is prevalent in North, Central and South 

America, as well as the Caribbean. Because equine encephalitis is naturally 

occurring, but has also been investigated as a potential biological weapon, the 

Department of Defense is developing a vaccine for equine encephalitis that remains 

in Investigational New Drug Status. The committee also notes that while equine 

encephalitis is a high priority for the development of medical countermeasures for 

the Department of Defense, it has not been a priority for the Department of Health 

and Human Services due to the relatively small number of occurrences within the 

continental United States. The committee acknowledges that such an 

investigational new drug might have application for the civilian population, but the 

process for making a determination to use these vaccines in cases of civilian 

emergency is not well defined.

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs to provide a briefing to the 

House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2014, on the coordination 

between the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human 

Services through the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures 

Enterprise (PHEMCE). This briefing should discuss the mechanisms by which 

medical countermeasures, which are developed by the Department of Defense could 

be made available to the civilian population should the need arise, with emphasis 

on vaccines that may only exist in the Department of Defense stockpile. The 

briefing should also include any obstacles to employing such a process.

Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability

The committee is aware that the Air Force and the Department of Defense 

completed a Joint Concept Technology Demonstration (JCTD) for a high-powered 

microwave cruise missile in 2012. The Counter-electronics High power microwave 

Missile Project (CHAMP) JCTD demonstrated a multi-shot and multi-pulse high 

power microwave warhead integrated into an existing cruise missile which is 

capable of delivering low-collateral damage attacks against electronic systems in 

facilities. The committee understands that such systems still require development 

to provide capabilities in a small form-factor and in a reusable platform, as well as 

additional modeling and simulation to better characterize effects and battle damage 

assessment.

Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Air Force is conducting an 

analysis of alternatives to determine if there is a need to develop a program of 

record for an enduring capability that would refine the technology demonstrated 

during the CHAMP JCTD, or look at other technologies to provide non-kinetic 

counter-electronic effects. As noted in Section 267 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), CHAMP (or a variant 

thereof) "should be considered among the options for a possible materiel solution in 

response to any near-term joint urgent operational need, joint emerging operational 

104
need, or combatant command integrated priority for a non-kinetic counter-electronic 

system."

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

in coordination with the combatant commanders, to provide a briefing to the House 

Armed Services Committee by February 15, 2015 on the need for a near-term 

counter-electronics capability. This briefing should examine the combatant 

command integrated priority lists for each of the geographic and functional 

combatant commands to determine if there is an urgent or emerging need for 

CHAMP or a similar system that should be addressed within the next two to three 

years. If such needs exist, the briefing should also include a determination of 

whether or not a joint urgent operational need statement, or a joint emerging 

operational need statement, will be submitted by the affected combatant commands.

Vapor compression cooling systems technology

The committee notes that the majority of Department of Defense electronic 

systems intended for field use in harsh environments use thermoelectric cooling 

technology and that this method of cooling is often required in Department of 

Defense requests for proposals. The committee also notes that vapor compression 

electronic cooling technology may provide cooling systems that are smaller, more 

energy efficient, cost effective and reliable than the legacy systems. 

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 June 1, 2015, addressing where vapor compression 

thermal management systems may best be used in remote or mobile applications to 

cool electronics. The report should include, at a minimum, the process used to 

identify specific programs where these thermal management systems could be 

appropriate and examples of programs using deployed electronics that have 

effectively used vapor compression thermal management systems. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $167.7 million for operational test and 

evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $172.7 million, an increase of $5.0 

million to the budget request.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 operational test 

and evaluation, Defense program are identified in division D of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Information Assurance and Interoperability Program

105
The committee is aware that the Director for Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E) is responsible for the Information Assurance (IA) and 

Interoperability Program (IOP), which provides assessments of services and 

combatant command systems, networks, and procedures during training and 

exercise venues. The committee believes cyber-range capabilities which are 

beginning to be used in such assessments may also be employed to assess the 

cybersecurity and interoperability of acquisition systems during development and 

prior to fielding. The committee further believes that for many acquisition 

programs, having low-cost access to cyber-range environments that can replicate 

the characteristics of systems and their operational network could provide a safe 

and repeatable means to conduct more rigorous IA/IOP testing during development 

than is currently being done. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense Chief Information 

Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics to work closely with major program offices, cyber ranges, and the DOT&E 

to identify such environments and develop opportunities to conduct early IA/IOP 

testing of those systems during development. The committee believes that earlier 

and closer cooperation can go a long way to better position programs for successful 

IA/IOP performance in operational tests and in the field.

Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing

The committee is aware that programs with significant software 

components often conduct a variety of red teaming and penetration testing to 

determine if there are cyber vulnerabilities that might be exploited by sophisticated 

adversaries. The committee is also aware that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Director for Operational Test and 

Evaluation are revising policies to ensure that such testing becomes a mandatory 

best practice. However, the committee is also aware that no mechanism exists to 

provide periodic follow-up to revisit testing to determine if the program has made 

any effort at remediation. The committee encourages the Department of Defense's 

acquisition and cyber authorities to develop some sort of report card for programs to 

track their progress when it comes to penetration testing and remediation to ensure 

security requirements are not being ignored or given short shrift when the 

pressures of budget, schedule, and performance come into conflict. The committee 

believes that such measures could be incorporated into existing reporting

requirements, such as the Selected Acquisition Reports.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations

106
This section would authorize appropriations for research, development, 

test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Preliminary Design Review of Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization 

Program

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to complete a 

preliminary design review of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program 

prior to receiving a milestone B approval from the Milestone Decision Authority. 

Section 212—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Armored Multi-Purpose 

Vehicle Program

This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds to not more than 

80 percent for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program until the 

Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional defense committees on 

the Army's plan to eventually replace all M-113 Armored Personal Carriers (APC) 

within Echelons-Above-Brigade (EAB) formations.

The committee notes that in 2007, the Army identified the M-113 APC for 

replacement due to its inadequate survivability and force protection. The committee 

further notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and in the committee 

report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013, the committee provided numerous options for consideration by the 

Army to accelerate the AMPV program. The committee understands that the Army 

has released a Request for Proposal for the Echelons-Below-Brigade (EBB) 

requirement which is focused on survivability shortfalls within the Armor Brigade 

Combat Team. The committee continues to support the AMPV program and expects 

the Army to conduct the competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. 

However, the committee is concerned that although the Army's current 

plan addresses a critical shortfall within EBB formations, there is currently no plan 

to address the survivability shortfalls within Echelons-Above-Brigade formations. 

The committee understands that there are approximately 2,000 M-113's within 

existing EAB formations. 

 In addition, the committee notes that on at least one occasion, an Armor 

Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) deployed to the Republic of Iraq with Stryker 

Medical Evacuation Vehicles. Therefore, this section would also require the 

Secretary of the Army to include as part of the report, an assessment for the 

feasibility of incorporating medical wheeled variants within the ABCT.

Section 213—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Carrier-Launched 

Airborne Surveillance and Strike System

107
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from awarding a 

contract for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike 

(UCLASS) system air vehicle segment until the Secretary of Defense completes a 

UCLASS requirements review and provides the results of that review to the 

congressional defense committees.

Section 214—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne Reconnaissance 

Systems 

This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of funds to not more 

than 25 percent for the imaging and targeting support of airborne reconnaissance 

systems, until the Secretary of the Air Force delivers a report to the congressional 

defense committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. 

The elements of the report would include a detailed plan regarding using such funds 

for fiscal year 2015, and a strategic plan for the funding of advanced airborne 

reconnaissance technologies supporting manned and unmanned systems. 

The committee notes that the Air Force did not provide substantive 

information for the proposed use of these funds, aside from the general area of 

imaging and targeting support.

Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Weather Satellite Follow-On 

System 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to place the last 

remaining satellite of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) on the 

launch manifest for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. 

Additionally, this section would direct the Secretary to establish an additional 

launch, for acquisition in fiscal year 2015, under the Evolved Expendable Launch 

Vehicle program using full and open competition among certified providers. The 

Secretary would have the flexibility to determine the appropriate satellite launch to 

be competed.

This section would also limit 75 percent of the funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the 

weather satellite follow-on system until the Secretary submits to the congressional 

defense committees the plan to meet the meteorological and oceanographic 

collection requirements validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

The plan must include how the Secretary will launch and use existing assets of the 

DMSP; how the Secretary will use other sources of data, such as civil, commercial 

satellite weather data, and international partnerships, to meet such requirements; 

an explanation of the relevant costs and schedule; and the requirements of the 

weather satellite follow-on system.

Section 216—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-Based Infrared Systems 

Space Data Exploitation

108
This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds to not more than 

50 percent for the data exploitation under the Space-Based Infrared Systems 

(SBIRS) space modernization initiative, which funds modernization and evolution of 

technologies to meet the SBIRS mission, until the Secretary of the Air Force 

delivers a certification to the congressional defense committees. The Secretary 

would be required to certify that the limited funds available for this effort will be 

used in support of data exploitation of the current SBIRS program of record, 

including the scanning and staring sensor; or that the data from the current SBIRS 

program of record, including the scanning and starring sensor, is being fully 

exploited and no further efforts are warranted.

The committee is concerned that the Air Force is not focusing on developing 

the capabilities to fully exploit the data from the existing SBIRS program. During 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request hearing for national security space activities, 

the Commander of Air Force Space Command was asked about SBIRS exploitation 

and responded that, ‘‘We have not even scratched the surface, I think, of the 

potential that’s there. We have another sensor that we haven’t fully exploited yet as 

part of that satellite. We’re doing a good job on the scanning sensor. The staring 

sensor, which has much better fidelity, we really haven’t fully wrung out yet, 

because we've been so focused on getting the scanning sensor calibrated and 

certified.’’ The committee supports the Commander of the Air Force Space 

Command's stated comments, and encourages the Air Force to focus on achieving 

full performance and exploitation of SBIRS.

Section 217—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted Payload and Wide 

Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based Infrared Systems

This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act for hosted payloads and wide field of view testbed 

alternative approaches to the Space-Based Infrared Systems program of record 

until completion of the ongoing analysis of alternatives (AOA). The funding would 

also be limited until 60 days following a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees and congressional intelligence committees on the AOA findings and 

recommendations of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. 

Strategic Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation. The limitation would not apply to efforts to examine and 

develop technology insertion opportunities for the program of record.

Section 218—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Protected Tactical 

Demonstration and Protected Military Satellite Communications Testbed of the 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program

This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act for protected tactical demonstration and protected military 

satellite communications testbed alternative approaches to the Advanced Extremely 

High Frequency program of record until completion of the ongoing analysis of 

109
alternatives (AOA). The funding would also be limited until 60 days following a 

briefing to the congressional defense committees on the AOA findings and 

recommendations of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. 

Strategic Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation. The limitation would not apply to efforts to examine and 

develop technology insertion opportunities for the program of record.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 221—Revision to the Service Requirement under the Science, Mathematics, 

and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program

This section would amend subparagraph (B) of section 2192a(c)(1) of title 

10, United States Code, by modifying the service obligation requirement to also 

include employment with a public or private sector entity or organization outside 

the Department of Defense if the Secretary of Defense determines that employment 

of the person with such entity or organization for the purpose of such obligated 

service would provide a benefit to the Department of Defense. 

Section 222—Revision of Requirement for Acquisition Programs to Maintain 

Defense Research Facility Records

This section would modify the requirements of subsection (b) of section 2364 

of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the need for acquisition programs to 

maintain a record of all issue papers from a defense research facility related to said 

acquisition programs.

Section 223—Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for Pilot Program to 

Include Technology Protection Features during Research and Development of 

Certain Defense Systems

This section would amend Section 243(b) of the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) by striking “at 

least one half of the cost of such activities” and inserting “an appropriate share of 

the cost of such activities, as determined by the Secretary”. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OVERVIEW

While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-67) 

and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-

66) made notable progress in restoring critical levels of military readiness to more 

acceptable levels, challenges to full-spectrum readiness remain in fiscal year 2015. 

Department of Defense officials have highlighted persistent shortfalls in almost 

110
every area of operation and maintenance, the main funding component for force 

readiness, stating that, “despite progress in buying back lost readiness, current 

resources force a compromise of future and non-deployed readiness to support 

today’s forward operations. This has led to increased risk in the military 

departments’ ability to meet new requirements or additional rotations that are 

beyond the scope of their currently planned training and deployment requirements.” 

To continue reducing risk and improving the readiness of the force, the bill 

would authorize additional budget authority for multiple unfunded priorities of the 

military departments, to include the restoration of funding for operational tempo, 

flying hour programs, facilities sustainment, and depot maintenance. The bill 

would also authorize additional budget authority for readiness initiatives such as 

corrosion prevention, control, and mitigation.

The Army has been in a state of continuous war for the past 13 years, the 

longest in the Nation’s history. The Army also supports operations and worldwide 

requirements with more than 168,000 soldiers deployed or forward stationed in 

nearly 150 countries. This high operational tempo and a primary focus on 

counterinsurgency operations, coupled with tighter budgets, sequestration, and a 

shrinking force, will continue to challenge the Army’s ability to provide a sufficient 

number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) trained for decisive action, an issue that 

must be addressed. While facing this challenge the Army must also find a way to 

reset and reconstitute the force, responsibly draw down operations in the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan, and fully develop its role under the Defense Strategic 

Guidance. The Army must also find a way to keep the National Guard and the 

Army Reserve as viable components of the total Army. 

The Navy has experienced 13-plus years of sustained combat operations, 

the last seven of which have seen a significant part of the force operating above a 

tempo level that is sustainable for the long term, and this elevated pace of 

operations is expected to persist in light of the combatant commander demand for 

maritime assets. The stress induced by this demanding operational tempo is 

reflected in a gradual, but persistent, decline in fleet readiness for non-deployed 

forces. Fiscal challenges and a limited budget continue to create backlogs for Navy 

maintenance, specifically in aircraft maintenance, and fiscal instabilities have 

resulted in de-scoped ship maintenance availabilities from the previous fiscal year. 

When coupled with the impacts of the sustained surge, which has taxed both 

equipment and personnel at rates significantly higher than anticipated, the tenuous 

progress the Navy has made over the past 2 years to reverse degraded surface fleet 

material readiness is threatened. 

Despite slight improvements in Marine Corps readiness levels resulting 

from the ongoing drawdown of forces in Afghanistan, the Marine Corps will 

continue to be challenged in meeting global commitments, reconstituting the force, 

and sustaining high operational tempo as it downsizes to 182,000 personnel and 

faces a dramatic increase in demand for Marine capabilities around the world. In 

particular, the Marine Corps will be challenged to meet new crisis response force 

presence demands in Europe, South America, and the Middle East in support of 

111
Department of State and Department of Defense missions as well as the expansion 

of critical legacy missions such as the Marine Security Guard program, which is 

slated to grow at an increasing number of high-risk embassies. 

The Air Force is still slowly recovering from the recent impacts of 

sequestration which led to one-third of Air Force fighter and bomber squadrons 

standing down, curtailment of training and lost qualifications, and adverse impacts 

on officer development. The Air Force’s recovery will remain challenged with high 

operational tempo beyond the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan. The 

committee is concerned about Air Force estimates that it will be approximately 

2023 before the Air Force fully recovers and operational risk is adequately 

addressed. The committee is concerned about the recovery of the Air Force, as its 

Flying Hour Program is currently operating at full capacity, leaving no ability to 

buy-down current backlogs in training. 

The operation and maintenance funding authorized by this title seeks to 

address many of these areas of concern. It addresses depleted force readiness levels 

and related high levels of assumed risk and makes several requests of the 

Department of Defense to report on plans to address acutely challenged areas and 

return the force to full-spectrum readiness. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS

Base Realignment and Closure 2018

The budget request included $4.8 million, in Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-wide, to support a request to conduct a new round of Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) to align infrastructure with planned force structure changes. The 

requested funds would be used to develop recommendations and to manage BRAC 

efforts.

The committee recommends no funds to support the development of 

infrastructure recommendations prepared in the context of a new BRAC 

authorization.

Corrosion Prevention

The committee commends the Department of Defense on the formulation of 

policy and guidance to address corrosion, which costs the military departments 

more than $20.0 billion annually and leads to decreased readiness, increased 

manpower requirements, and significantly higher life-cycle sustainment costs. 

However, despite addressing the issue in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 

Law 113-66), the committee is concerned about the pace of acquisition of proven 

anti-corrosion products and the resulting impacts on sustainment costs. The 

committee is also concerned about the impact inadequate resourcing may have on 

112
the pace of anti-corrosion technology development. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 1, 2015, on the implementation of corrosion prevention measures 

both within the military departments and the Corrosion Prevention Program Office.

Further, the budget request contained $4.8 million in operation and 

maintenance funding for the Corrosion Prevention Program in addition to military 

department and departmental research efforts to combat corrosion, which the 

committee believes to be inadequate. The committee recommends an additional 

$20.0 million to be divided equally among the military departments' corrosion 

prevention efforts and the defense-wide Corrosion Prevention Program. 

Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces

The committee recognizes the importance of Marine Corps Special Purpose 

Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (SPMAGTFs) in meeting emerging combatant 

commander operational and force-presence requirements. The committee 

understands that the Marine Corps intends to expand the current SPMAGTF-Crisis 

Response capability at Moron Air Base in Spain and stand up an additional 

SPMAGTF in both the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) areas of responsibility focused on crisis response, 

contingency, offensive and defensive, security, humanitarian, and non-combatant 

evacuation operations. 

However, the committee is concerned that for the second fiscal year in a row 

the President's budget request failed to fully fund these critical requirements in the 

base budget. The committee notes that it authorized an additional $40.6 million in 

fiscal year 2014 to help the Marine Corps fund this emerging requirement. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $905.7 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for Marine Operating Forces which compose the 

core elements of the MAGTF and SPMAGTF. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee 

would authorize $939.5 million, an increase of $33.8 million, for Marine Operating 

Forces to support the operation and maintenance costs of creating the Special 

Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-CENTCOM and the Special Purpose 

Marine Air-Ground Task Force-SOUTHCOM. 

However, the committee expects the Marine Corps to fully fund all 

SPMAGTF operations in future fiscal year base budgets.

Support for International Sporting Competitions

The budget request contained $10.0 million for Support for International 

Sporting Competitions (SISC). This is a no-year appropriation.

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is working 

with Special Olympics International, Special Olympics North America, and the 

Games Organizing Committee for the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer Games 

in Los Angeles to determine the potential scope and scale of the Department's 

support. The Department expects it will spend between $1.0 million and $3.0 

113
million in SISC funding to support the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer 

Games in Los Angeles.

The committee notes that as of March 2014, there is an obligated balance of 

$3.8 million in this account, as well as $4.3 million in allocated but unobligated 

funds. These unobligated funds were previously allocated for certain sporting 

events that have since concluded; therefore, the funds are available for the next set 

of "logistical and security support for international sporting competitions," which is 

the purpose of this fund. 

Due to the availability of unobligated funds currently within the account, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 million from the President's budget 

request. 

ENERGY ISSUES

Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy Security Mandate

United States military installations consume large amounts of energy and 

water to maintain effective installation operations and ensure mission readiness 

and capability. At the same time, U.S. utilities systems may be at risk from civilian 

power grid failures due to natural or manmade threats, including cyber threats and 

electromagnetic pulse events. The United States experienced significant power 

disruptions from severe weather events in 2012, including Hurricane Sandy which 

affected the northeast region, and the derecho which affected the mid-Atlantic, 

including the National Capital Region, as well as late winter storms in FebruaryMarch 2014 that left hundreds of thousands of customers without power in areas 

from the Northeast through the Midwest and parts of the Deep South. These 

weather events affected installations, housing, military logistics centers, training 

centers, military commands, and other critical military activities. As such the 

committee is concerned that the impact of such disruptions to an installation's 

electricity, potable water, and wastewater services has a direct impact on critical 

mission readiness. It is vital that military installations have the ability to maintain 

effective operations and energy security despite such disruptions. 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense and the 

military services are focusing on the potential for utilities service disruptions to 

impact installation mission capability and consequently to ensure the ability of the 

installations to nonetheless maintain operations. Still, it is not clear what efforts 

the Department is undertaking to ensure and promote energy security across its 

facilities. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to undertake a study of the status of the Department’s and the military 

services’ actions to ensure mission capability and energy security in the event of 

potentially significant and long-term disruptions to electric, potable water, and 

wastewater services at domestic and overseas military installations. The study 

should address the following questions:

(1) What is the status of water and energy security plans, strategies, and 

related guidance to the military departments and the installations to ensure 

114
mission capability through the continued provision of electricity, potable water, and 

wastewater services in the event of natural or manmade disruptions?

(2) To what extent were domestic military installations able to maintain 

effective mission capability during natural or manmade utility service disruptions 

since 2012?

(3) How are the military departments and installations planning to 

continue ensuring mission capability and energy security despite the threat to 

electric, potable water, and wastewater services posed by natural or manmade 

service disruptions? The Comptroller General should report the results of this 

study to the congressional defense committees by March 2, 2015.

Marine Hydrokinetic Technology

The committee commends the Navy for efforts to assess ocean energy 

technologies, as defined in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(Public Law 110-140), and encourages the Navy to continue its work with the 

Department of Energy and designated National Marine Renewable Energy Centers 

for marine hydrokinetic demonstration activities at or near Department of Defense 

facilities. Waves, tidal and ocean currents have the potential to significantly 

contribute to the country’s electricity production, and ultimately, help the 

Department of Defense reduce its energy costs on military installations. The 

committee recognizes the Navy's efforts to further test, research, develop, and 

deploy maritime security systems, at-sea surveillance and communications systems, 

and advance opportunities to reduce the cost of energy and increase energy security 

at Department of Defense facilities. Therefore, the committee urges the Navy to 

continue their efforts in ocean energy research and development where cost 

effective. 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the 

energy efficiency initiatives, including non-conventional power sources, of 

unmanned aerial vehicles to extend range and endurance and increase speed. The 

review should also include an assessment on how the adoption of autonomous 

technology could reduce the demand for energy and logistics. The Secretary should 

submit the results of the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2015. 

LOGISTICS AND SUSTAINMENT ISSUES

Army Workload and Performance System

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report 

criticizing the Army's management of the Army Workload and Performance System 

(AWPS), the Army manpower requirements determination tool, and related 

115
matters. Remarkably, the Army failed to provide any responses to GAO's findings. 

This report noted that the Army failed to submit annual progress reports regarding 

implementation of AWPS master plan or catalog any revisions of the master plan to 

Congress as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002 (Public Law 107-107). The initial master plans submitted to the committee 

were responsive and compelling and evidenced high-level interest within the 

Department of the Army. As a result, the committee concluded from those early 

reports and system demonstrations that the Army was serious about installing 

time, workload, and performance management systems across the Army 

infrastructure for all categories of labor, including logistics and sustainment.

While the committee commends the Secretary of the Army for his recently 

released responses concerning the GAO report on AWPS and its coverage of 

important segments of the issues, the committee concludes that the Army's failure 

to comply with the directives in Public Law 107-107 requires a re-evaluation of how 

to complete this departmental task. The committee recommends that a highpriority Secretariat-level project office and reporting structure be established with 

sufficient authority to implement the original, responsive master plan and its 

revisions. Further, the Secretary should affix responsibility for an inclusive, annual 

master plan implementation reporting process. 

The committee expects the Government Accountability Office, as required 

by law, to evaluate the master plan and report to Congress on the Army's progress. 

As stated in previous committee reports (as well as Army reports), evaluation 

should include not only implementation throughout Army commands and 

infrastructure, but also assess whether budget submissions are supported by this 

data. In the committee report (H. Rept 104-131) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 104-106), the committee 

noted that the evaluation should include corporate-level systems and integration. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States, 

as part of this ongoing work, to examine and report to the House Committee on 

Armed Services on how the workload and manpower data provided through the 

AWPS system could improve reporting and transparency for 50/50 workload 

reporting, including all maintenance activity in acquisition organizations, as well as 

Army Materiel Command. 

Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance Workload Distribution

The committee has become aware that, apart from the Army, the military 

departments have not involved their audit agencies in validating the data 

submitted for incorporation into the annual report to Congress required by section 

2466 of title 10, United States Code, also known as the "50/50 report," for several 

years. The committee is troubled by the finding that in the limited number of cases 

where auditors have been involved in reviewing these data, they identified 

significant errors. The committee is also aware that in some instances, the data 

included for submission related to depot-level workloads performed under 

116
contractor logistics support, interim contractor support, or other contractual 

arrangements are generated through the use of algorithms or other forms of cost 

estimation. In some cases, these estimates appear to have been generated using 

insufficiently rigorous methodologies.

These findings lead the committee to conclude the fidelity of the data 

supporting the annual "50/50 report" is questionable and could be distorting the 

true distribution of workload between the public and private sectors, reducing the 

committee’s confidence in the report’s accuracy and completeness, as well as 

inhibiting the military services from making fully informed decisions regarding 

source of repair in the context of section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.

The January 14, 2014, guidance titled "Reporting Guidance for the FY2013-

2015 Report to Congress on the Distribution of Department of Defense Depot 

Maintenance Workloads," issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics 

and Materiel Readiness, states that "Military departments and Agencies shall 

obtain the assistance of internal audit agencies or an Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD)-agreed upon third party to conduct detailed reviews to validate the 

process for capturing depot maintenance expenditure data by reporting 

organizations." The committee notes that this reporting guidance reflects a change 

from prior guidance, which did not include process validation, only data validation 

prior to OSD submission. In the committee’s view, it is imperative that the data 

submitted to the Congress be validated. Moreover, the committee believes that 

participation of the military departments’ audit agencies in validating the data 

submitted for the “50/50 report” will provide the greatest assurance that what is 

reported represents an accurate and complete picture of the distribution of depotlevel workload between the public and private sectors.

Accordingly, the committee directs the military departments and defense 

agencies to comply with the guidance to the fullest extent, and, to the degree that it 

is practicable, ensure direct military department audit agency involvement in this 

effort. Specifically, this effort should provide assurance that the data submitted for 

inclusion in the “50/50 report” is accurate and complete. The Secretary of Defense, 

in the next two annual reports to Congress required under section 2466 of title 10, 

United States Code, should include a description of the efforts made by each of the 

military departments and defense agencies to comply with the validation 

requirement. The committee notes that if voluntary compliance is not evidenced, 

the committee will consider statutory enforcement. 

Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces and Associated 

Sustainment Issues

Forward presence is critical to the Navy's goals of building partnerships, 

deterring aggression without escalation, defusing threats, and containing conflict 

without regional disruption. Naval forces provide forward presence through a 

combination of rotational deployments from the United States, Forward Deployed 

Naval Forces (FDNF) in Japan, Guam, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian 

117
Republic, and forward stationing ships in places such as the Kingdom of Bahrain, 

the Republic of Singapore, and Diego Garcia. The Navy’s ability to implement these 

concepts depends on U.S. bases and strategic partnerships overseas that provide 

places where forces can rest, repair, refuel, and resupply. In the FDNF construct, 

the ships, crews and families all reside in the host nation. This construct is in 

contrast to forward stationing, where the ship’s families reside in the United States 

and the crew rotates to the ship’s overseas location for deployment.

The committee seeks a more detailed understanding of the Navy's decisionmaking process to designate ships to be either FDNF or forward stationed and the 

relative costs and benefits of each approach. The committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees by February 27, 2015. The report should include a review and analysis 

of:

(1) The Navy’s process for determining the homeport locations of naval 

vessels, including FDNF;

(2) The Navy’s process for stationing naval vessels outside the United 

States; 

(3) How the Navy calculates deployment costs of vessels homeported inside 

and outside the United States;

(4) The extent to which the Navy has utilized rotational crewing to meet 

forward presence requirements;

(5) The operational availability achieved by rotational crewing, the savings 

achieved, and the limitations associated with directed rotational crewing;

(6) The operational support and sustainment effects of deploying U.S.-based 

vessels to a forward operating station as opposed to homeporting vessels outside the 

United States, including costs of complying with section 7310 of title 10, United 

States Code, maintenance requirements; 

(7) The infrastructure requirements, as well as host-nation acceptance 

requirements to ensure the assets are received overseas; and

(8) Any other issue that the Comptroller General determines appropriate.

Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of Fair and Reasonable 

Cost of Spare Parts

The committee has received testimony that sustainment of military 

equipment is the most expensive phase of the Department of Defense's acquisition 

process. The committee is alarmed by frequent reports from the Department of 

Defense Inspector General (DODIG) and the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) that the Department has paid hundreds of millions of dollars above what are 

considered fair and reasonable prices for weapon system spare parts and is missing 

opportunities for significant savings.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector 

General to perform a comprehensive audit to determine if current Department of 

Defense guidance is sufficient to obtain fair and reasonable prices for equipment 

118
spare parts. The audit should assess the extent to which the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) and the military departments have put in place metrics for 

measuring:

(1) Guidance and efforts to improve demand forecasting are effective for 

ensuring appropriate and adequate provision of spare parts and other supplies 

needed to keep military equipment ready and operating; and

(2) Inventory management cost efficiency.

The DODIG should also assess the costs the Department of Defense has 

incurred by paying prices beyond what is fair and reasonable for spare parts and 

other supplies. The DODIG’s audit should assess the prevalence of disparities 

between prices deemed to be fair and reasonable and those prices paid by the DLA 

and the military departments for spare parts or supplies, and potential cost savings 

if the parts or other supplies had been obtained by DLA and the military 

departments instead of through a performance-based logistics support contract. 

The DODIG should provide a report on the results of the audit to the congressional 

defense committees not later than February 28, 2015.

Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport Hazardous Materials for the 

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly 70,000 separate 

shipments of security sensitive material. Trucks carrying these shipments travel 

tens of thousands of miles on U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares 

across all 50 States. Materials that are transported include missiles, arms/weapons, 

ammunition, explosives, radioactive material, and classified items. Shipments are 

executed under the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) program which 

requires stringent safety and security standards for operators who are licensed to do 

business with the program.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a comprehensive 

review of the policies and procedures used 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). In its report 

to the committee, the GAO stated that the Safety Measurement System scores used 

by the Department to determine safety performance of its TPS carriers “should not 

be used to draw safety conclusions about a carrier’s safety condition. As a result, 

the Department may not be using the most reliable data from the Compliance, 

Safety, Accountability’s Safety Measurement System to determine which carriers 

should be eligible for the [TPS] program.”

As a result of this finding, and to ensure the safety and security of 

Department of Defense’s shipments of sensitive arms, ammunition, and explosives, 

the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, to examine 

the data limitations of the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s Safety and Accountability program and report to the House 

Armed Services Committee by December 15, 2014, on what changes, if any, should 

119
be made to the process used by the Department of Defense to determine hazardous 

material carrier eligibility and evaluate performance of carriers within the TPS 

program. Additionally, the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, is directed 

to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by September 30, 

2015, on the progress made to implement the changes.

F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy

The budget request contained $778.0 million for F117 engine maintenance, 

repair, and overhaul (MRO) activities. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force has struggled to 

reign in F117 engine MRO costs. The committee is concerned that the Secretary of 

the Air Force cannot sufficiently determine whether the Department is paying a fair 

and reasonable cost for F117 MRO because of limited performance and cost data 

available to the Department as a result of the F117 MRO contract structure and 

administration. As a result, the committee encouraged the Air Force to seek a 

competitive strategy for F117 MRO, specifically competition for repair, overhaul, 

supply chain management, and systems engineering support activities. The Air 

Force determined that prospective vendors had the potential to use commercial data 

to derive F117 rates and factors, and that vendors illustrated avenues to procure 

parts from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the F117 engine. 

Furthermore, the F117 engine is 91 percent similar in design to the PW2000 

commercial engine, and the PW2000/F117 manuals are similar for overhaul and

component repair.

In fall 2013, the Air Force attempted competition through issuance of a 

request for proposals but subsequently determined that proposals received were 

deemed not viable due to proposed costs. In performing a root-cause analysis, the 

Department determined that immediate competition was not possible because 

supply chain management competition was not feasible, vendors would need 3 to 5 

years of F117 engine usage data, and engine OEMs have become increasingly more 

involved in after-market sales by offering life-cycle support programs.

The committee notes that the Air Force plans to consider an alternative 

MRO strategy that has the potential to reduce sustainment costs of the F117 

engine, but the committee remains concerned that the Air Force may be limited in 

determining whether F117 sustainment costs are fair and reasonable as compared 

to commercial-derivative PW2000 engine MRO costs being borne in the private 

sector.

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 

continue pursuit of an F117 MRO sustainment strategy that will achieve 

measurable cost reduction and sufficient insight to OEM sustainment data and 

metrics in order to determine cost fairness and reasonableness of the F117 

sustainment program execution. The committee also encourages the Secretary of 

the Air Force to re-evaluate the necessity for contracting with the prime system 

vendor for F117 MRO activities to determine whether process and cost efficiencies 

120
could be gained by contracting directly with the F117 OEM. The committee also 

includes a provision elsewhere in this act that would prohibit the F117 Milestone 

Decision Authority from approving entry into subsequent F117 sustainment 

contracts without the required MRO data that provide the Secretary of the Air 

Force sufficient insight to determine whether the Secretary is outlaying fair and 

reasonable costs to own and operate the F117 engine as compared to commercialderivative PW2000 ownership MRO costs in the private sector.

Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment

The committee is aware of the unique challenges and varied relationships 

associated with the broad range of customers who have for decades supported the 

continued combat vehicle production capability at the Joint Systems Manufacturing 

Center (JSMC). As a government-owned, contractor-operated facility, JSMC 

represents a unique, long-term fiscal challenge for the U.S. Army for the continued 

maintenance and periodic upgrade of the facility, which has a deferred maintenance 

and repair projects list totaling over $40.0 million. Production Base Support 

funding over the past several years has been insufficient to support minimum 

JSMC maintenance requirements, including correcting critical safety and 

environmental deficiencies. 

The Department of the Army must ensure the facility is properly resourced 

to efficiently and effectively meet the Army’s tank and other combat vehicle 

production-related requirements, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and Direct 

Commercial Sales for the foreseeable future. The committee understands the 

difficulty in determining how the Department should share the operational support 

costs associated with the JSMC across the broad range of current and future 

customers. For example, future FMS programs could generate more than $10.0

million in facilities usage fees. The committee believes reinvestment of these funds 

could help remediate facilities maintenance deficiencies and subsequently benefit 

all current and future JSMC customers. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services not later than February 9, 2015, on the Army’s analysis, plans, 

and/or recommendations, to include potential legislative proposals, on how the 

operational costs associated with the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center could be 

equitably applied so that the facility can remain viable and relevant. 

Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence

The committee recognizes the mutual benefits to both the organic and 

commercial industrial base of partnering activities especially in a resourceconstrained environment. The committee also believes that full visibility into the 

scope and scale of partnerships is critical for proper oversight of industrial base 

sustainment. As a result, the committee is concerned about the lack of visibility into 

the Department of Defense's public-private partnership activities authorized by 

121
section 2474 of title 10, United States Code. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to deliver to the congressional defense committees by January 5, 2015, a 

report on all partnerships entered into pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United 

States Code, in fiscal year 2014 and for the preceding three fiscal years. The report 

at a minimum should include the location of work performed under the partnership, 

the commercial and organic entities comprising the partnership, the length of the 

partnership, and a description of the work performed by the partnership. 

Report on the Department of Defense’s Transportation of Hazardous Materials

The Department of Defense transports more than 1.5 million hazardous 

material (HAZMAT) shipments each year. These shipments can be high-risk as well 

as highly sensitive and, if improperly handled, labeled, or packaged could result in 

the loss of life, property damage, and harm to national security interests. A complex 

framework of statutes and regulations governs the Department’s handling, labeling, 

and packaging of hazardous material shipments. The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) recently reported on challenges the Department has experienced in 

implementing these regulations, which can adversely affect the safe, timely, and 

cost-effective transportation of hazardous materials. For example, in some cases 

Department of Defense installations did not provide carriers transporting sensitive 

arms, ammunition and explosives hazardous materials with timely access to secure 

hold areas or assist them in locating the nearest alternate means to secure those 

shipments, leaving these items in the public domain longer than necessary. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department to develop a process to 

identify and implement the necessary corrective actions to ensure that its 

installations provide secure hold as required. Additionally, GAO found a 

substantial number of hazardous material shipments were not documented and 

packaged in accordance with regulations and other guidance, which resulted in 

delays. The committee is concerned about costs (and potential operational impacts) 

that may be incurred by the Department as a result of these delays or whether any 

materials were unnecessarily shipped through the more expensive Transportation 

Protective Services program because they were improperly identified as sensitive 

items. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on the Department of Defense’s 

transportation of hazardous materials. That report should also be provided to the 

Comptroller General of the United States at that time. Specifically, the report 

should include, but is not limited to, a discussion of:

(1) The root causes of improper documentation and packaging of HAZMAT 

throughout the Department of Defense transportation system;

(2) The extent to which Transportation Protective Services are being used 

to transport HAZMAT shipments that could safely and securely be transported 

using less costly means;

122
(3) Any needed corrective actions and an action plan with associated 

milestones to implement those corrective actions. 

After the Secretary provides the report to Congress, the Comptroller 

General of the United States should conduct a review of the report and provide a 

preliminary briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by March 15, 2015, with a final report or reports to follow 

within 120 days.

Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport SecuritySensitive Materials for the Department of Defense

The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly 70,000 separate 

shipments of security sensitive material. Trucks carrying these shipments travel 

millions of miles on U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares across all 

50 States. Examples of materials that are transported include missiles, 

arms/weapons, ammunition, explosives, radioactive material, and classified items. 

These shipments are executed under the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) 

program which requires stringent safety and security standards for operators who 

are approved to do business with the program. However, a comprehensive study of 

the necessary safety standards, technology, and public liability of carriers in the 

TPS program has not been conducted.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by December 15, 2014. That report should 

include, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) An assessment of whether there is sufficient data in the Department of 

Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Compliance, Safety, 

and Accountability program to evaluate carrier safety performance and what 

additional data may be necessary;

(2) A determination of what additional standards should apply to the 

process used by the Department of Defense to decide Transportation Protective 

Services carrier eligibility and evaluate performance of the TPS program;

(3) An assessment of whether proven safety technologies recommended by 

the National Transportation Safety Board (e.g., roll stability control systems, 

forward collision warning systems, electronic logging devices) should be mandated 

for trucks transporting TPS shipments in order to reduce the risk of a catastrophic 

accident or damage to materials; 

(4) An assessment of whether minimum public liability and property 

damage insurance should be increased for TPS carriers; and

(5) An assessment of whether TPS carriers need to staff 24 hour call centers 

to monitor operations and assist in emergencies.

Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul

123
The committee understands the Navy continues to request partial funding 

to support submarine propeller repair and overhaul (SPRO) in the Overseas 

Contingency Operations account, rather than planning for full funding based on 

true historical and current year SPRO expenditures within the Navy’s annual 

defense budget. Additionally, the committee remains concerned with the Navy's 

ongoing proposed "repair only" approach to SPRO. The committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to re-evaluate this plan and report to the Committee on 

Armed Services of the House of Representatives by December 15, 2014, on an 

approach, to include both fiscal year 2015 and Future Years Defense Program 

funding, that addresses the ongoing mix of both propeller repair and overhaul 

needs. 

Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its rapid and 

successful deployment of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force (AMDTF) 

and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense battery to 

Guam last spring in response to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s 

aggressive posture. The committee notes that Army Chief of Staff, General 

Raymond Odierno, in testimony before the committee, stated that the Army is 

working on plans to sustain a long-term presence of a THAAD battery and an 

AMDTF on Guam to provide necessary protection of military manpower, assets, and 

civilians. In order to better understand the requirements to sustain an AMDTF and 

THAAD battery on Guam, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in 

consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to report to the 

committee by January 31, 2015, on the following requirements related to THAAD 

sustainment:

(1) An accounting of force structure needed, including potential Army 

National Guard or Army Reserve force structure;

(2) Potential military construction needed for force protection and other 

sustainment issues;

(3) Estimated military personnel and operation and maintenance costs; and

(4) Any legal, statutory, or authority challenges associated with sustaining 

an AMDTF and THAAD battery on Guam.

READINESS ISSUES

Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the Western Pacific

Recognizing the strategic importance of the Department of Defense’s efforts 

to rebalance forces to the Asia-Pacific region, the committee continues to question 

the adequacy of airlift and refueling capabilities in that region. U.S. Pacific 

Command (PACOM) must accomplish a variety of missions and requirements in a 

geographic area of responsibility that spans almost 9,000 miles from Hawaii in the 

Pacific Ocean to the Republic of Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Airlift and refueling 

124
capabilities play a critical role in supporting and sustaining forward-deployed forces 

in the Asia-Pacific region.

The committee is concerned about the ability of the U.S. Air Force to 

provide sustained airlift to support ground forces and equipment in the region to 

meet current and emerging requirements. Particularly, the committee is concerned 

about the cost of the current rotational tanker presence in the western Pacific. 

Given current budget constraints and the risk in the readiness accounts, the 

committee is concerned that rotational presence may not be the most fiscally 

prudent means of meeting airlift and refueling requirements, especially in light of 

the potential for sustained sequestration. The committee, therefore, directs the 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, in consultation with the Commander, Pacific 

Air Forces, to brief the committee by March 30, 2015, on airlift and tanker 

capabilities in the Pacific Command area of responsibility. At a minimum, the 

briefing should include:

(1) The cost of current rotational tanker presence in the western Pacific;

(2) The cost of permanently stationing tankers in the western Pacific to 

meet current operational requirements; and 

(3) Plans for future beddown of permanent and rotational airlift and tanker 

assets in the western Pacific to meet Pacific Command operational requirements.

Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment

The committee is aware that the Army continues to successfully incorporate 

training modules to detect changes in human behavior through Advanced 

Situational Awareness Training (ASAT). The committee recognizes the benefits of 

such training and the enhancement to mission effectiveness, decisive advantage, 

enhanced use of existing optical equipment, and reduction of civilian casualties that 

it can help provide. The committee believes the benefits of situational awareness 

training are significant enough to warrant a long-term assessment of ASAT training 

requirements and a plan for possible future institutionalization. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct an assessment 

of ASAT training and brief the House Committee on Armed Services on the results 

not later than October 1, 2014. This assessment and briefing should specifically 

include current ASAT training requirements, the cost and time required to 

institutionalize an ASAT training program across the Army, and quantifiable 

training benefits achieved by ASAT training to date. 

Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements

The committee is concerned that low-altitude radar coverage deficiencies at 

Army aviation training ranges are creating undue risk. These aviation safety 

hazards contributed to a mid-air collision in December 2011, resulting in the loss of 

all crew members. The committee commends the Army for working to mitigate this 

risk with the installation of wide-area multilateration systems. Multilateration 

systems provide improved situational awareness in all weather conditions, are 

125
highly scalable, more affordable than traditional radars, have been proven in 

commercial aviation, and provide accurate tracking and data capture for training 

operations and after-action reports. Multilateration systems are capable of precision 

surveillance and identification of all transponder-equipped aircraft at all altitudes.

The committee encourages the Army to continue fielding wide-area 

multilateration systems on its training ranges to provide aviators with realistic 

operational scenarios and to enhance safety for aviators and civilians who live in 

proximity to military training areas. 

Army Aviation Training

The committee notes the continued demand for Army aviation capabilities 

on the battlefield and the importance of providing real-world training to Army 

aviators throughout the program of instruction at the Army Aviation Center of 

Excellence. The committee recognizes the training, cost, and performance benefits of 

instructing Army aviators on aircraft that operate more similarly to the Army’s 

current fleet of dual-engine, glass cockpit, four-blade combat helicopters. 

Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training

The committee is aware of the historical utilization of contracted fighter 

aircraft to enhance and augment training. The roles of these aircraft range from 

replicating adversaries with high-end electronic warfare capabilities, to developing 

air battle manager skills, to conducting joint terminal attack controller training. 

Using commercially provided assets to augment airborne tactical training can 

prolong the service life of U.S. military aircraft and reduce the number of training 

support missions flown by military aviators. 

The committee is also aware that additional contracted tactical training 

capacity exists and that there may be potential for additional savings or cost 

avoidance through the increased utilization of that capacity. Given the increased 

need to maximize efficiencies in training in order to preserve readiness and assets, 

the committee encourages the military departments to utilize, to the maximum 

extent practical, commercially provided tactical airborne training augmentation.

Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System

The committee is concerned by the proliferation of more advanced threats 

to U.S. Armed Forces and the lack of more advanced instrumentation to support 

aviation combat training. These increasingly complex weapons threats require 

equally complex next-generation capabilities that can provide realistic training 

while at the same time reducing cost of current “live-fly” exercises. The Common 

Range Integrated Instrumentation System has demonstrated critical attributes 

including: an integrated multi-level security that will enable seamless 

communications between legacy and next-generation aircraft as well as between 

U.S. and coalition forces; flexible architectures that enable live, virtual constructive 

126
training capability; and a network architecture that is deployable, both ashore and 

at sea. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to make 

maximum reuse of mature, scalable, and secure technologies developed for the test 

range community when considering their applicability and affordability for military 

training ranges.

Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics

For decades the Department of Defense has used “C-ratings,” which 

measure unit resources and training against doctrinal wartime missions, to 

measure the readiness of its forces. However, to support the recent missions in the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, units have repeatedly

been reconfigured and task-organized or called upon to execute missions that 

differed from their core doctrinal mission statements. To better portray readiness in 

this new environment, the Department has added “assigned mission” and 

“capability” ratings to its traditional C-ratings. The military departments and 

combatant commands also began reporting readiness assessment levels (RA-levels) 

to portray their strategic readiness. While the combination of traditional and newer 

readiness metrics have allowed the Department to portray its readiness for a much 

wider range of missions than in the past, the metrics do not fully account for the 

time component of readiness. Traditional C-ratings and assigned mission ratings 

tend to emphasize readiness at a particular point in time (the day the rating is 

completed). Capability and RA-ratings have an implicit time component because 

they measure readiness against timelines that are laid out in operations and 

contingency plans. However, the committee has observed that none of the metrics 

clearly answer the question of when forces will be ready. Over the past decade, 

when the committee has asked that question, the ubiquitous response has been that 

most units will be ready “just in time.”

With the prolonged growth of non-discretionary spending placing continued 

fiscal pressure on the defense budget, the “just-in-time” answer does little to help 

decisionmakers minimize risk while preparing for a future that, in the words of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is “dangerous and uncertain.” Because units 

from different military departments can often provide similar, if not identical, 

capabilities, the committee believes the Department’s leadership and the Congress 

need to understand differences in both the speed and cost at which the military 

departments can provide ready forces to meet combatant commander requirements 

so they can prioritize resources and minimize risk.

To help inform the committee’s oversight and its consideration of the 

President’s budget request, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the Department of Defense’s readiness. The review should 

include, but not be limited to: 

(1) The current readiness of the military departments and combatant 

commands, as reported in their December 2013 readiness reports;

127
(2) A description of the key factors that are affecting the readiness of the 

military departments and the combatant commands, as well as a description of the 

steps being taken to address or mitigate the impact of those factors; 

(3) An analysis of the extent to which “time” is or has been incorporated as 

a quantitative or qualitative component of current and past readiness metrics: and

(4) A description of any efforts the military departments, the combatant 

commands, the Joint Staff, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense have made to 

modify their readiness metrics or add any additional metrics to better address the 

question of when units or commands will be ready.

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a preliminary 

briefing on these four elements to the congressional defense committees by 

February 15, 2015, with a report or reports to follow.

OTHER MATTERS

Arctic Center of Excellence

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy released its Arctic 

Roadmap for 2014-2030, which provides near-term, mid-term, and far-term 

direction to enhance the Navy’s ability to operate in the Arctic region. The 

committee notes the roadmap includes an implementation plan that provides a 

timeline and identifies organizations to lead specific actions recommended by the 

roadmap. One of these actions includes identifying requirements in fiscal year 2015 

to establish an Arctic Center of Excellence, as well as developing an Arctic 

engagement plan focusing on partnerships with international, interagency and 

private sector stakeholders that enhance security. The committee believes that the 

establishment of such a center would support the Navy’s focus areas identified in 

the roadmap. In developing the requirements for such a center, the committee 

encourages the Department to consider, among other things, how such a center 

could support Arctic-related training, operations, maritime domain awareness, 

scientific research, and technology development. When considering potential 

locations the Department should consider candidates that can effectively bring 

together elements from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland 

Security, academia, and other public and private stakeholders who can contribute to 

advancing U.S. interests in the Arctic. 

Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy

The committee notes the Army Combat Shirt (ACS) is a field-tested and 

Army-authorized combat shirt approved for combat operations. The ACS is worn, in 

most cases, as the base layer for the Army's interceptor body armor system, and 

provides soldiers with a highly breathable, moisture wicking clothing option with a 

flame resistance capability.

The committee commends the Army's efforts to develop and field high 

performance flame resistant clothing to deploying soldiers through the rapid 

128
fielding initiative. The committee also notes that the ACS remains coded for 

wartime use only. The committee believes the same high performance and flame 

resistant protection capabilities provided by the ACS in combat operations could 

also be applied for domestic training and field exercises in the United States. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the 

Chief of Staff of the Army, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by October 1, 2014, on steps being taken to evaluate the ACS and other 

flame resistant combat uniforms items to desribe (a) the near-term policy for 

authorizing use in appropriate field exercises and training scenarios at unit 

commander’s discretion; and (b) the advisability and feasibility of implementing a 

long-term fielding plan for incorporating the ACS and other flame resistant combat 

uniforms as organizational equipment in appropriate units and in sizes and designs 

specific to female soldiers.

Briefing on Invasive Species Management

The committee notes that in the fall of 2013, the coconut rhinoceros beetle, 

an invasive species to the Hawaiian Islands and Guam, was discovered on the 

island of Oahu and has been found on Guam since 2007. While it is unknown how 

the species came to Hawaii or Guam, the committee is aware that a coconut 

rhinoceros beetle population was identified on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, 

which is in close proximity to Honolulu International Airport. Since discovering the 

existence of this invasive species on Hawaii, the committee notes that the 

Department of Agriculture has been leading the effort, jointly with the Department 

of Defense and appropriate State agencies, to eliminate breeding sites, and monitor 

and control the spread of the coconut rhinoceros beetle on the island of Oahu. 

In addition to the more immediate response, the committee notes that the 

Department of Defense is already addressing invasive species through other 

mechanisms. Specifically, the Department of the Navy is supporting efforts to 

develop the Micronesian Biosecurity Plan, jointly with the Department of 

Agriculture, and the governments of the State of Hawaii, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In 

preparing the plan, the partners evaluated invasive species risks to marine, 

terrestrial, and freshwater ecosystems, to include the coconut rhinoceros beetle. 

Additionally, for invasive species management, the committee notes that Joint Base 

Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint Region Marianas maintain an Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan which includes measures to prevent the proliferation 

of invasive species.

The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to continue its work 

with the Department of Agriculture, as well as State and local entities, to monitor 

and contain any further spread of the coconut rhinoceros beetle within Hawaii and 

Guam. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the 

committee not later than September 1, 2014, regarding the status of the coconut 

129
rhinoceros beetle on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint Region Marianas 

and steps the Department of the Navy has taken, working with partners, to control, 

mitigate, or eradicate the species or its habitat.

Cold-Weather Protective Clothing

The committee is concerned that the use of end-of-year funding for the 

acquisition of cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and equipment for training, and 

for cold-weather combat negatively affect military readiness and the defense 

industrial base. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, not later than September 30, 2014, a report describing the 

Department's efforts to provide the Active and Reserve Components with the coldweather clothing, glove systems, and equipment required for training and 

deployments. The committee directs the Secretary to include in the report an 

update on the funding needed to meet Active and Reserve Component requirements 

for cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and equipment in fiscal years 2015 and 

2016. The report should also include an acquisition strategy and spending plan 

outlining the projected schedule for the obligation of funds to acquire the necessary 

equipment.

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense’s Arctic Capabilities

In its 2012 report on Arctic capabilities, the Government Accountability 

Office noted that while the Department of Defense has undertaken some efforts to 

assess the capabilities needed to meet national security objectives in the Arctic, it is 

unclear whether the Department will be in a position to provide needed capabilities 

in a timely and efficient manner. Pursuant to the recommendations in that GAO 

report that the Department of Defense develop a risk-based investment strategy 

and collaborate with other interagency stakeholders to identify longer term needs, 

the Department published an Arctic Strategy in November 2013. In that strategy, 

the Department identified a number of investments that will need to be made over 

time while noting the risk that investments in Arctic capabilities may not compete 

successfully against other priorities. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to provide to the congressional defense 

committees a review addressing: 

(1) The process used by the Department of Defense to identify and develop 

the capabilities required for the Arctic mission to include identifying the supporting 

force structure, personnel, training, equipment, and infrastructure; 

(2) The extent to which the Department has identified any capability gaps; 

and developed mitigation plans and timelines to address those gaps; 

(3) How the Department of Defense is collaborating with other agencies 

such as the Coast Guard to identify and address longer-term needs in the Arctic; 

and 

130
(4) Any additional information the Comptroller General deems appropriate 

in the context of that review. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a preliminary 

briefing to the House Armed Services Committee on the review by February 6, 2015 

with a report to follow within 90 days.

Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition of Excess Defense 

Articles

The Department of Defense is a large provider of surplus personal property 

and equipment that goes to local governments, fire and police departments, 

Veterans Service Organizations, hospitals, and many other local entities. The 

transfer of surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal agencies and 

local and State governments by the Department provides a significant savings of 

American taxpayer dollars. As budgetary resources continue to shrink, it is 

imperative that American tax dollars are well spent and managed and re-utilization 

within the Department of Defense is maximized. Furthermore, it is important that 

any surplus personal property and equipment that is being sold through the 

Department of Defense surplus property sales program is done in accordance with 

laws relating to the disposition of excess and surplus property. As surplus personal 

property and equipment become more valuable, the Department of Defense and the 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) should have procedures and protocols to ensure 

that fair market value for surplus personal property and equipment is being 

received. If the Department is not receiving fair market value for surplus personal 

property and equipment being sold, this could be a serious financial loss to the 

American taxpayer.

To ensure that the taxpayer is getting the greatest financial benefit out of 

surplus equipment originally purchased with tax dollars, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review and report to the congressional 

defense committees on the Department of Defense’s and the Defense Logistics 

Agency’s excess and surplus personal property programs, including their programs 

that provide excess or surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal 

agencies and to local and State governments and on their programs that sell 

surplus personal property and equipment. The review should include, but not be 

limited to, an examination of:

(1) The methods DLA uses to provide visibility of available excess property 

and equipment to interested agencies and provide access for physical inspection of 

the property and equipment; 

(2) Instances in which Department of Defense property and equipment that 

have been declared excess, and that are desirable for use by other Federal agencies 

and by State or local governments, are transferred to a commercial vendor for sale; 

(3) The process DLA uses to code property and equipment for disposition, 

particularly instances in which property and equipment that have been coded for 

return to military units are transferred to a commercial vendor for sale; and

131
(4) The costs that DLA incurs by destroying appropriately coded property 

and equipment that otherwise could be demilitarized and made available to 

interested Federal agencies or State and local governments.

(5) Instances where the Department did not receive fair market value for 

excess or surplus personal property and equipment transferred to a commercial 

vendor for sale.

The Comptroller General should provide a preliminary briefing to the 

congressional defense committees by March 15, 2015, with a final report or reports 

to follow.

Office of Net Assessment

The budget request contained $8.9 million within Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the Office 

of Net Assessment (ONA). 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense continues to 

decrement the proposed funding for the office. The committee is concerned that this 

decrement, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense’s plan to realign the office 

under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, may limit the ability 

and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments. The office 

has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge 

the “group think” that can often pervade the Department of Defense. The committee 

believes that the growing array of complex security challenges facing the United 

States, as highlighted in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, coupled with a 

constrained budget environment, will only create greater demand for the 

unconventional thinking and solutions that the Office is capable of providing. 

One such challenge is in the area of space deterrence, and elsewhere in this 

Act, the committee includes a provision that would require the office to conduct a 

study of potential alternate defense and deterrent strategies in response to the 

existing and projected counterspace capabilities of the People's Republic of China 

and the Russian Federation. 

The committee therefore recommends $18.9 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, for fiscal year 2015 for the Office of Net Assessment. This recommended 

authorization is reflected in a new funding line for the Office of Net Assessment 

within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, as shown in section 4301 of this 

Act. 

Also, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would

codify the Office within chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, and establish a 

dedicated program element for budgeting purposes. The committee believes the 

office must remain an independent organization within the Department reporting 

directly to the Secretary. However, the committee also recognizes that 

improvements can be made within the Department to ensure the office’s 

assessments better inform and influence its overall strategy and policy. Therefore, 

132
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the House Committee 

on Armed Services, not later than September 5, 2014, a plan for how the 

Department can better leverage the Office as well as a description of the activities, 

deliverables, and allocation of funds planned for the Office of Net Assessment for 

fiscal year 2015. 

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers

The budget request contained $3.6 million for the Concept Development, 

Study and Planning for Future Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination 

Centers (RSCC) within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. 

The committee notes that this request is unwarranted and ahead of need 

given the statutory limitation on the establishment of an RSCC or similar entity by 

U.S. Special Operations Command within a regional geographic combatant 

commander’s (GCC) area of responsibility, in accordance with section 1244 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The 

committee also notes that section 1244 of Public Law 113-66 required that the 

Secretary of Defense submit a report to certain congressional committees within 

180 days after the date of enactment of Public Law 113-66, outlining RSCC 

requirements and anticipated legislative authorities that may be needed to support 

such requirements. The committee notes with concern that this report has yet to be 

delivered. The committee furthermore believes that any RSCC-like initiatives or 

requirements should be put forth by regional GCCs to ensure such initiatives are 

linked comprehensively to all regional plans, requirements, and activities. The 

committee therefore denies the requested amount of $3.6 million for the Concept 

Development, Study and Planning for Future Regional Special Operations Forces 

Coordination Centers and redirects this funding to more direct operational 

readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the 

Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special Operations Command. Furthermore, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide the report as mandated 

in Public Law 113-66. 

Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant Uniforms

The military services currently have validated requirements for flameresistant uniforms for personnel in specific military occupational specialties and for 

personnel deploying to hostile environments. The committee believes the current 

flame-resistant requirements are appropriate and not in need of modification. 

However, the committee is concerned that the military services are not adequately 

exploring emerging flame-resistant capabilities and technology that may allow the 

services to expand protection to additional service members at a reduced cost.

The committee notes that the high material costs associated with flameresistant uniforms and accessories have historically limited the distribution of such 

uniforms to military units that are preparing to deploy, are currently deployed, and 

to those serving in certain military occupational specialties. The committee 

133
understands that service members in such units require flame-resistant uniforms 

because of the high risk of burn injury posed by the contemporary operational 

environment. While the committee understands that these service members have 

an increased risk of sustaining a burn injury, the committee believes that other 

service members in training and domestic operations are also at-risk of sustaining 

burn-related injuries. The committee is concerned that flame-resistant uniforms are 

not available to these service members due to the cost-prohibitive nature of the 

current uniforms.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on emerging flame-resistant technologies and evaluate whether these 

technologies can provide cost-effective protection to a wider range of service

members. The secretary shall report the findings of the assessment to the 

congressional defense committees within 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions

 The committee commends the Department of Defense for its efforts to 

reduce unnecessary expenses. However, the committee remains concerned that the 

Department will exclude strategic locations in its efforts to curtail training, travel, 

and conference costs. The committee encourages the Department to take

appropriate action to reduce costs and recommends the Department not exclude 

specific geographical areas for training, travel, and conferences, including those 

critical to our national security strategy or those aligned with the Department's 

strategic guidance.

U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region Office

The budget request contained $5.0 million for the U.S. Special Operations 

Command National Capital Region (USSOCOM-NCR) office within Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide. 

The committee notes that this funding would have provided for an 

additional USSOCOM Washington, DC-based coordination office. The committee 

understands, however, that based on further analysis, USSOCOM has discontinued 

efforts to develop and implement its concept for the USSOCOM-NCR office, and 

that the Secretary of Defense has endorsed this decision. The committee further 

understands that USSOCOM will continue to maintain its USSOCOM Washington 

office at the Pentagon, and that it will sustain its current support to the interagency 

and planning process.

Therefore, since the USSOCOM-NCR requirement is no longer valid, the 

committee denies the requested $5.0 million for the office and redirects this funding 

to more direct operational readiness requirements within Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special Operations 

Command. 

134
United States Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families 

Program

The budget request included $67.0 million within Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program. Of this 

amount, $48.3 million supports the Human Performance Program (HPP) within 

POTFF. The budget request also included $14.8 million within Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, for USSOCOM Behavioral Health and Warrior Care 

Management Program through the Defense Health Program. The committee 

recognizes the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women within the 

Special Operations Forces (SOF) and their families after more than 12 years of war. 

The committee has always made the care of all service members and their families 

its highest priority, including members of SOF. The committee notes with concern, 

however, that suicide rates for SOF have continued to increase since calendar year 

2010, and that for the past 2 years, suicide rates within USSOCOM have surpassed 

those of the military services.

The committee understands that most suicide prevention programs within 

USSOCOM have focused on training and awareness, and that USSOCOM is 

preparing to expand a pilot peer-to-peer training program. The committee also 

understands and is supportive of the many service-provided suicide prevention 

programs that USSOCOM has utilized at the component level. While action taken 

by USSOCOM has been positive, the committee is concerned that targeted suicide 

prevention programs within the command remain nascent and slow-moving given 

the troubling suicide statistics across the forces. The committee notes that 

USSOCOM only recently signed and promulgated a force-wide Suicide Prevention 

Policy Memorandum dated March 31, 2014, and that, according to USSOCOM, 

"suicide prevention efforts have been minimal and met as unfunded requirements." 

The committee is also concerned that, given these increased rates of 

suicides across the force, the POTFF program lacks a distinct focus on suicide 

prevention programs and places too much costly emphasis on the Human 

Performance Program geared towards improving physical readiness with costly 

military construction and multi-year service contracts for physical therapists, 

strength and conditioning specialists, athletic trainers, and sports dieticians. The 

committee notes that these activities, while related holistically to the well-being 

and mental health of SOF, will likely do little to immediately address the high 

number of suicides currently impacting the force. Furthermore, the present POTFF 

focus on human performance and physical readiness places an over-reliance on 

contracts that are unsustainable and cost-prohibitive across the Future Years 

Defense Program, diverting resources otherwise required to immediately address 

suicides across the force. The committee notes that of the $67.0 million requested 

for POTFF, only $7.2 million was to support the Psychological Performance 

Program to promote, maintain, and restore the psychological and behavioral health 

of SOF. 

135
Therefore, of the $67.0 million within Operation and Maintenance, Defensewide, to support the USSOCOM Preservation of the Force and Families program, 

the committee recommends $25.0 million to support Human Performance Program, 

a reduction of $23.3 million, and $38.1 million to support USSOCOM Behavioral 

Health and Warrior Care Management Program, an increase of $23.3 million. In 

addition, the committee also recommends the full amount of $7.2 million for the 

Psychological Performance Program within POTFF. Elsewhere in this Act, the 

committee includes a provision that would require a comprehensive review and 

assessment on prevention of suicides among members of U.S. Special Operations 

Forces. 

United States Special Operations Command Proposed Sponsorship of U.S. Naval 

Ship Sumner

The committee is aware that the United States Special Operations 

Command (USSOCOM) recently requested transfer of sponsorship of the United 

States Naval Ship (USNS) Sumner (T-AGS 61) from the Military Sealift Command 

to USSOCOM to support near-term maritime requirements for United States 

Southern Command. The committee is also aware that USSOCOM has initiated a 

new-start procurement using current fiscal year 2014 funds to begin modifications 

to USNS Sumner estimated at $8.9 million. The budget request for fiscal year 2015 

included $20.3 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to further 

modify and operate USNS Sumner within the United States Southern Command 

area of operations. 

The committee is concerned that the proposed transfer of sponsorship of 

USNS Sumner to USSOCOM and proposed command and control relationships are 

without precedent, and that projected costs for the current fiscal year and across the 

Future Years Defense Program will far exceed current estimates. Further, the 

committee has concerns that the requirement is being funded only by USSOCOM 

Major Force Program -11 (MFP-11) funds which are limited by section 167 of title 

10, United States Code, to provide only the incremental funding and acquisition of 

special operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services. Since the committee 

understands that this platform will be used to also support the geographic 

combatant commander theater campaign plans such as counter-narcotics, 

humanitarian assistance, and security force assistance, the committee believes that 

MFP-11 funding is an inappropriate source for these costly modifications and 

operations, and that MFP-11 is being used to supplant activities that should be 

provided for by the services and the geographic combatant commander. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

briefing to the congressional defense committees by August 1, 2014, on the proposed 

transfer of the USNS Sumner from Military Sealift Command to USSOCOM. The 

briefing at a minimum should outline: 

(1) The validated requirement as defined by the geographic combatant 

commander; 

136
(2) Anticipated costs across the Future Years Defense Program and funding 

sources; 

(3) Reason for the use of USNS Sumner, to include a business case analysis 

discussing efficiencies and cost savings; and

(4) Any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Furthermore, given these concerns, the committee denies the requested 

amount of $20.3 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to further 

modify and operate USNS Sumner and redirects this funding to more direct 

operational readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance, Defensewide, Flying Hours Program for USSOCOM.

Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe 

regulations prohibiting the disposal of covered waste in open-air burn pits during 

contingency operations, except when no alternative disposal method is feasible. The 

committee further notes that the Report to Congress on the Use of Open-Air Burn 

Pits by the United States Armed Forces, submitted on May 12, 2010, pursuant to 

Public Law 111-84, stated that “The introduction of incinerators, plus other thermal 

(to include waste-to-energy) and non-thermal waste disposal options, are intended 

to eventually displace the use of burn pits." The report concluded, “DoD must 

continue to explore viable technical solutions for waste reduction and waste disposal 

in all categories—solid, medical, and hazardous—and then make such solutions 

available through easily acquired commercial or DoD provided equipment.” To that 

end, the committee is aware that the final burn pit that was being operated in 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in compliance with Department of Defense and 

U.S. Central Command policies, as required by Public Law 111-84, was closed in 

April 2014. Remaining U.S. locations within Afghanistan utilize a combination of 

landfills, incinerators, and removal of waste by local nationals. 

The committee is also aware that the Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has observed problems associated with 

incinerators that have been installed in Afghanistan. Such problems include poor 

construction, planning and design, and coordination between contracts for 

constructing the incinerators and for operating and maintaining them. The 

committee understands that the Department of Defense is assessing commercial 

incinerator and other waste-disposal technologies to determine the feasibility for 

use at bases of varying size, maturity, and duration. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to 

provide a briefing for the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 

2, 2015, on the lessons learned related to waste-disposal methods in contingency 

operations and provide an update on the Department’s assessment of wastedisposal technologies, to include those that would provide an efficient, reliable and 

137
deployable capability that adheres to electrical and construction standards that 

ensure life, safety, and health of U.S. personnel.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding

This section would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance 

activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on Prohibition of Payment of 

Fines and Penalties from the Environmental Restoration Account, Defense

This section would eliminate a sunset date for the requirement for the 

Department of Defense to obtain congressional authorization before paying fines 

and penalties under the requirement set forth in section 2703 of title 10, United 

States Code. The current requirement for congressional authorization does not 

apply to funds authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Restoration 

Account, Defense after fiscal year 2010. This section would strike any such date 

limitation.

Section 312—Biannual Certification by Commanders of the Combatant Commands 

Relating to the Prohibition on the Disposal of Waste in Open-Air Burn Pits

This section would require the combatant commanders to submit a 

biannual certification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives that covered waste under the jurisdiction of the 

commander has not been disposed of in violation of the regulations set forth in 

section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111-84). This section also prescribes additional details required in instances of 

noncompliance. 

Section 313—Exclusions from Definition of "Chemical Substance" Under Toxic 

Substances Control Act and Report on Lead Ammunition

This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15, United States Code, 

to add to the exclusions any component of any article including shot, bullets and 

other projectiles, propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article, and 

primers. This section would also require the Secretary of the Army to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees not later than September 30, 2015, 

that would detail the costs for the procurement of small arms alternative lead 

138
ammunition and the qualification of non-lead alternatives, and include an 

assessment of which non-lead variants of ammunition exist.

Section 314—Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel 

Procurement Requirement

 This section would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to exempt the Department of Defense 

from the requirements related to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that 

section. 

Section 315—Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of Alternative Fuels for 

Operational Use

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the 

congressional defense committees 60 days before the bulk purchase of alternative 

fuels intended for operational use. 

Section 316—Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels

This section would limit the Department of Defense's ability to purchase or 

produce biofuels until the earlier of either the date on which the Budget Control Act 

of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) is no longer in effect, or the date on which the cost of 

biofuel is equal to the cost of conventional fuels. This section would provide an 

exception for biofuel test and certification and research and development.

Section 317—Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction of Biofuels 

Refineries 

This section would require the Department of Defense to obtain a 

congressional authorization before entering into a contract for the planning, design, 

refurbishing, or construction of a biofuels refinery.

SUBTITLE C—LOGISTICS AND SUSTAINMENT

Section 321—Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on Prepositioning of 

Materiel and Equipment

This section would amend the strategic policy on prepositioned materiel 

and equipment required by section 2229(a) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure 

newly established crisis response elements are considered when developing goals, 

assessing challenges, and synchronizing requirements. 

Section 322—Comptroller General Reports on Department of Defense 

Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for Prepositioned Stocks

139
This section would modify the reporting requirement in section 321 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to run 

through 2017, 3 years following the initial report due in 2014, for a total of four 

reports over 4 years.

Section 323—Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support for the Conveyance of 

Excess Defense Articles to Allied Forces

This section would create a 2-year pilot program allowing the Secretary of 

Defense to provide logistics support for the conveyance of excess defense articles to 

allied forces participating in bilateral or multilateral training activities with the 

Armed Forces of the United States. This authority would be subject to funding 

limitations and would expire on September 30, 2016. The Secretary of Defense 

would be required to provide a report on the use of the authority to certain 

congressional committees at the end of any calendar year during which the 

Secretary carried out the pilot program.

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 331—Repeal of Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation and 

Financial Support for Military Museums

This section would repeal an annual report by the Secretary of Defense on 

Department of Defense operations and financial support for military museums 

required by section 489 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 332—Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities Currently Funded 

Through Amounts Authorized to Be Appropriated for Overseas Contingency 

Operations

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees concurrent with the President's budget for fiscal 

year 2016, pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a one-time 

assessment of enduring mission requirements, equipping, training, sustainment, 

and other operation and maintenance-related activities of each military 

department, combat support agency, and the Department of Defense currently 

funded through the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget. The provision 

also requires associated funding information and a 3-year migration plan to move 

enduring requirements funding into the base budget.

The committee is concerned about the large portion of enduring activities, 

training, sustainment, and other military requirements being funded through 

amounts authorized to be appropriated for OCO. The committee believes the 

Department of Defense is accepting high levels of risk in continuing to fund noncontingency related activities through the OCO budget and has not fully articulated 

140
the scope of enduring OCO-funded activities or a clear path forward in migrating 

enduring requirement resources to the base budget. 

Section 333—Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned Force

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a strategic 

assessment of the regionally aligned force to the congressional defense committees 

concurrent with the submission of the President's budget for fiscal year 2016 

pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. 

The committee supports the U.S. Army's regionally aligned force (RAF) 

concept, but has concerns about the institutionalization of pre-deployment training, 

incorporation of lessons learned, and the adequate coordination of activities 

between contractors, Special Operations Forces, Army RAF units, and joint exercise 

partners. The committee is also concerned about the complexity of utilizing 

multiple funding authorities to support RAF activities and impacts associated with 

the long-term commitment of RAF forces to meet security cooperation requirements. 

The committee believes better coordination and long-term planning are needed to 

ensure RAF units maintain high levels of core mission readiness while supporting 

geographic combatant commander requirements. 

The committee notes that while elsewhere in this report, the committee also 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the RAF concept, 

more specifically its employment in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility, 

the committee expects the assessment required by this section to be a separate and 

distinct forward-looking, internal assessment of the RAF concept, yet inform the 

Comptroller General’s work.

Section 334—Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on Military Readiness

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to 

report to the congressional defense committees the readiness and cost impacts of 

the reductions in operation and maintenance funding required in section 4301 of 

this Act.

SUBTITLE E—LIMITATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORITY

Section 341—Limitation on Authority to Enter into a Contract for the Sustainment, 

Maintenance, Repair, or Overhaul of the F117 Engine

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from entering 

into a subsequent contract for the sustainment, maintenance, repair, and overhaul 

of the F117 engine until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Secretary of 

the Air Force has structured the contract in such a way that provides the Secretary 

required insight into all aspects of F117 component and subcomponent historical 

usage, cost, service-life, and supply chain management data sufficient to determine 

141
that the Secretary is paying a fair and reasonable price for F117 sustainment as 

compared to the PW2000 commercial-derivative sustainment price in the private 

sector. This section would also allow the Secretary to waive this limitation if the 

Secretary determines such waiver is in the interests of national security.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Clarification of Authority Relating to Provision of Installation-Support 

Services through Intergovernmental Support Agreements

This section would transfer and redesignate section 2336 of title 10, United 

States Code, to chapter 159 of such title. This section would also define an 

intergovernmental support agreement and provide other technical changes.

Section 352—Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges within United States 

Pacific Command Area of Responsibility

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding access to 

training ranges within U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility.

Section 353—Management of Conventional Ammunition Inventory

This section would designate an authoritative database on conventional 

ammunition and broaden the existing military service annual reporting 

requirements on conventional ammunition.

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

OVERVIEW

The Defense Strategic Guidance calls for a leaner, more adaptable force. 

The Department of Defense has determined it cannot support a standing force for 

large-scale prolonged stability operations but instead will maintain one that can 

quickly deter, defeat, and, if needed, rebuild capacity for unforeseen requirements. 

This means a smaller Active Duty force, with a Reserve Component capable of 

continuing to operate as an operational reserve to maintain strategic depth, which 

is reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. The budget included 

further reductions in the Active Component end strength in the Army, Marine 

Corps, and Air Force, while preserving the Navy at its current level. The committee 

notes the services plan for more drastic reductions in end strength and force 

structure in fiscal year 2016 absent a change to the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(BCA).

The Reserve Components will make minor reductions in fiscal year 2015; 

but just as the Active Component, the Reserves will be required to take further 

reductions over the 5-year fiscal defense plan, which also could be significantly 

142
steeper absent repeal of sequestration. As the Active Components reduce end 

strength, the committee encourages the services to ensure the proper force structure 

and resourcing is provided to the Reserve Components in order to preserve an 

operational reserve. The committee also recommends that as missions such as 

cyber security, space operations, and unmanned aerial systems continue grow, the 

services incorporate the Reserve Components into these force structure 

requirements to capitalize on the expertise of the Reserve Component members.

 The committee understands the situation the Army and Marine Corps face 

in this current budget environment, but remains concerned with the planned force 

reductions for the Army and Marine Corps, and with the Navy’s continued 

challenges manning the fleet while combat and contingency commitments continue. 

This continued stress on the force, coupled with potential further reductions as a 

result of the BCA’s discretionary caps, may have serious implications on the 

capacity and capability of the All-Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to 

meet the National Defense Strategy.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Active Duty 

personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 30, 2015: 

143
Section 401 

FY 2014

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendation

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Athorization

Army 520,000 490,000 490,000 0 -30,000

Navy 323,600 323,600 323,600 0 0

USMC 190,200 184,100 184,100 0 -6,100

Air Force 327,600 310,900 311,220 320 -16,380

DOD 1,361,400 1,308,600 1,308,600 0 -53,100

FY 2015 Change from

144
Section 402—Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels

This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end strengths for 

the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of September 30, 2015. The 

committee recommends 490,000 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the 

Army, 323,600 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 184,100 as 

the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 310,900 as the 

minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air Force.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Selected 

Reserve personnel, including the end strength for Reserves on Active Duty in 

support of the Reserves, as of September 30, 2015:

145
Section 411

FY 2014 FY 2015

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendation

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Authorized

Army National Guard 354,200 350,200 350,200 0 -4,000

Army Reserve 205,000 202,000 202,000 0 -3,000

Navy Reserve 59,100 57,300 57,300 0 -1,800

Marine Corps Reserve 39,600 39,200 39,200 0 -400

Air National Guard 105,400 105,000 105,000 0 -400

Air Force Reserve 70,400 67,100 67,100 0 -3,300

DOD Total 833,700 820,800 820,800 0 12,900

Coast Guard Reserve 9,000 7,000 7,000 0 -2,000

Change from

146
Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Reserves on 

Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of September 30, 2015:

147
Section 412

FY 2014

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendation

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Authorized

Army National Guard 32,060 31,385 31,385 0 -675

Army Reserve 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0

Navy Reserve 10,159 9,973 9,973 0 -186

Marine Corps Reserve 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0

Air National Guard 14,734 14,704 14,704 0 -30

Air Force Reserve 2,911 2,830 2,830 0 -81

DOD Total 78,386 77,414 77,414 0 -972

FY 2015 Change from

148
Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military 

technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2015:

149
Section 413

FY 2014

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Authorized

Army National Guard 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0

Army Reserve 8,395 7,895 7,895 0 -500

Air National Guard 21,875 21,792 21,792 0 -83

Air Force Reserve 10,429 9,789 9,789 0 -640

DOD Total 67,909 66,686 66,686 0 -1,223

FY 2015 Change from

150
Section 414—Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status 

Technicians

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the Reserve 

Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status technicians as of 

September 30, 2015:

151
Section 414

FY 2014

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendatio

n

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Authorized

Army National Guard 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0

Air National Guard 350 350 350 0 0

Army Reserve 595 595 595 0 0

Air Force Reserve 90 90 90 0 0

DOD Total 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0

FY 2015 Change from

152
Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on Active 

Duty for Operational Support

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve Component personnel who 

may be on Active Duty or full-time National Guard duty during fiscal year 2015 to 

provide operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count against 

the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 412 of this Act unless the 

duration on Active Duty exceeds the limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, 

United States Code.

153
Section 415

FY 2014

Service Authorized Request Committee 

Recommendation

FY 2015 

Request

FY 2014 

Authorized

Army National Guard 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0

Army Reserve 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0

Navy Reserve 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0

Marine Corps 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

FY 2015 Change from

154
SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel

This section would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the 

levels identified in the funding table in section 4401 of division D of this Act.

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

OVERVIEW

The committee continues to be concerned with the Department of Defense’s 

efforts to smartly manage the force. Therefore, the committee would provide 

authority to remove the limitation on the number of officers recommended for 

discharge in a given fiscal year in comparison to the number of officers discharged 

the preceding fiscal year and provides the military Secretaries the authority to 

establish specific objectives to best select warrant officers for early retirement. 

Additionally, the committee remains concerned during this drawdown that the 

services are able to retain the best qualified service members and extends the 

authority to conduct career flexibility programs for service members until 2019. 

In support of military members and their families, the committee would 

provide assistance to local educational agencies that are impacted by the enrollment 

of dependent children of military members and Department of Defense civilian 

employees. 

In the area of sexual assault prevention and response, the committee would 

direct several changes to refine the fundamental revisions made in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The 

committee would require that appropriateness of command climate be included in 

performance appraisals of commanding officers. The committee would further 

require the Judicial Proceedings Panel established under section 576 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to 

review and assess the use of mental health records by the defense during 

preliminary hearings and court-martial proceedings under the Uniformed Code of 

Military Justice and in civilian legal proceedings. 

In the area of suicide prevention, the committee would require the 

Department to formulate a standardized policy governing collection, reporting, and 

assessing of suicide data for Active Duty and Reserve Components members and 

their dependents. The Department has made great strides in the area of suicide 

prevention, and improvement of suicide data management will serve as a strong 

foundation for this ongoing endeavor. However, the committee is concerned that 

while it appears suicides among members of the general forces have declined, the 

rate of suicides by members of the Special Operations Forces has increased. 

Therefore, the committee would direct a review and assessment of the suicide 

155
prevention efforts for members of the Special Operations Forces and their 

dependents.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing

The committee is concerned that the Administration's proposal to modify 

the basic allowance for housing to increase the out of pocket costs for service 

members and their families up to five percent out of pocket, as well as eliminate the 

stipend for renter's insurance in the calculation for housing allowance may have 

unintended consequences that have not been fully explored. The Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission is currently reviewing 

compensation programs, including the basic allowance for housing, and its report is 

due on February 1, 2015. The committee recommends that the Department of 

Defense share with the Commission, the analysis, if any, that was conducted on the 

impact of increasing the basic allowance for housing will have on member retention, 

readiness and morale of the force. The Department should also share any analysis 

that was conducted on the impact to the housing privatization program, including 

any impact to recapitalization accounts, debt service, operation, maintenance and 

repair requirements and long-term operation of privatized projects. The committee 

looks forward to the results of the Commission, including any analysis on the 

impact of changes to the basic allowance for housing for service members. 

Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee

The committee applauds the efforts the Army has taken to correct 

deficiencies in the oversight, management, and operations of Arlington National 

Cemetery. The Army’s efforts to ensure the final resting place for our Nation’s 

veterans and their families represent and demonstrate the highest ideals of honor 

and commitment which is to be commended. The establishment of the Arlington 

National Cemetery Advisory Committee provides an independent viewpoint to 

ensure that interests of veterans and surviving family members are taken into 

account. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue efforts to 

ensure that the advisory committee maintains a diverse representation of all 

constituencies and the Armed Forces and that the membership is filled to the fullest 

extent possible.

Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House 

Committee on Armed Services on the status of the implementation of the sexual 

assault provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112-81); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112-239); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

156
(Public Law 113-66); and the initiatives announced in a memorandum by the 

Secretary of Defense on August 14, 2013. The briefing should include the extent to 

which the services have implemented policies, procedures, training, and education 

as required by Department of Defense policies, programs, and regulations. The 

briefing should be conducted not later than March 1, 2015.

Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard Recruiting Practices

The committee is concerned with the management and oversight of Army 

National Guard recruiting practices. The committee notes a series of issues over 

the past 5 to 8 years with recruiter and enlistment bonus irregularities, and the 

ongoing criminal investigation of the Guard Recruiter Assistance Program (GRAP). 

The committee is concerned that regulations and polices set forth by the Secretary 

of the Army and the National Guard Bureau are not being adhered to consistently 

across all of the States and territories. 

 The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a review of the Army and Army National Guard recruiting regulations, 

policies, and procedures to determine if the Army and Army National Guard have 

processes in place to ensure that these regulations and policies are being adhered to 

by recruiters in the States and territories. The review shall include, but not be 

limited to, the following: 

(1) An assessment of how the Army and Army National Guard ensure that 

eligibility criteria for enlistment are enforced in a selected number of States and the 

impact this may have on the recruiting mission;

(2) An assessment of the number of persons who enlist, complete basic and 

advanced individual training, and remain in the Army National Guard for their 

initial term of service;

(3) An assessment of the extent to which persons who have contracted with 

a specified enlistment bonus, but were not authorized to receive a bonus by policy or 

regulation; 

(4) An assessment of the average length of time between when a person 

enlists in the Army National Guard and the person completes the initial entry 

training required to be deployable; 

(5) An assessment of the contracting vehicles being used by the Army 

National Guard to support recruiters and how the Army National Guard ensures 

such contracting vehicles comply with Department of Defense, Army policies and 

regulations; and,

(6) Recommendations for the leadership of the Army and the National 

Guard Bureau to improve and enforce compliance of regulations and policies with 

respect to recruiting. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to report the results of the 

assessment to the congressional defense committees by June 1, 2015. 

Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army National Guard NonAvailability for Mobilization

157
The committee is concerned with the high percentage of soldiers in the 

Army Reserve and the Army National Guard that are not available for mobilization. 

The Army Reserves has approximately 25 percent of its force non-available for 

mobilization, with the majority due to medical non-availability. The Army National 

Guard has almost 30 percent of its force non-available for mobilization, with the two 

largest categories being medically non-available and those who have not completed 

entry level training. As the active Army reduces its end strength to potentially 

420,000 soldiers, the readiness and availability of the Reserve Component to 

maintain its operational focus becomes even more critical. While the Reserve 

Components have made significant contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom over the last 13 years, only about half of their medical 

non-available population has ever deployed. The committee is concerned with the 

efforts of the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard to manage the personnel 

readiness of their force. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard nonavailable population to:

(1) Determine the extent to which programs, policies, and regulations are 

being followed; 

(2) Assess the management of such forces to minimize the impact to unit 

and individual deployments; 

(3) Evaluate the process by which the Reserves and Guard are able to 

determine the extent and length of the non-availability of those who have a medical 

profile and when such individuals should be assessed for a medical board 

determination; 

(4) Assess whether the current process to assign individuals to units who 

have not completed their entry level training is the best course of action to man the 

Army National Guard; and

(5) Determine whether there are any systematic issues that result in a 

significant non-available population. 

The Comptroller General is required to submit a report containing the 

results of the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, not later than June 1, 2015. The committee requests the 

Comptroller General also provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives on the initial findings of the review by 

April 1, 2015.

Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense and Military 

Departments Professionalism and Ethics Programs

 The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for focusing on military 

ethics, character, and leadership within the Department of Defense. Recently, the 

Secretary established a senior adviser for military professionalism for the 

Department who will report directly to the Secretary on issues related to military 

158
ethics, character, and leadership. Considering the high-profile lapses involving 

senior leaders, the committee remains concerned about how this new position will 

be executed and the roles, responsibilities, and effectiveness of the military services’ 

ethics programs. The committee, therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to initiate a comprehensive review of the Department of Defense and 

military departments programs on professionalism, ethics, and integrity in the 

armed services for officers and enlisted service members. The Comptroller General 

should submit a report of the Comptroller's findings to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by not later than August 

31, 2015. Additionally, the committee requests the Comptroller brief the 

committees on preliminary observations by April 1, 2015. As part of the review, the 

Comptroller General should include an evaluation of military service assessment 

tools and report on the extent to which those tools capture and assess 

professionalism, ethics, and integrity issues. 

Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses

The committee notes the effort the military services have initiated to create 

greater flexibility for movement between the Active and Reserve Components, 

commonly referred to as continuum of service. The services have determined that 

this personnel initiative is key to allowing greater flexibility in the force. However, 

the committee notes that the current number of duty statuses for the Reserve 

Components is a hindrance to this initiative. The Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserve and the Commission on the Structure of the Air Force both 

recognized this as a barrier to fully implementing a continuum of service and 

recommended the Department of Defense reduce the number of duty statuses from 

35 to approximately 6. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

not later than January 1, 2015, a proposal that would reduce the duty status of the 

Reserve Components to no more than eight pay statutes to assist in creating greater 

flexibility for the Reserve Components to be more interoperable with the Active 

Components. 

Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards

The Secretary of Defense shall not enforce and shall evaluate the changes 

to hair standards and grooming policies for female service members, as those 

contained in paragraph 3-2 of Army Regulation 670-1, issued on March 31, 2014, 

and report to the congressional defense committees the results of the evaluation. 

The evaluation shall include the opinions of those who may have religious 

accommodation requirements and minorities serving in the Armed Forces. 

Diversity of the Armed Forces

159
The committee continues to support efforts by the services to ensure 

diversity among the force. The committee remains concerned that the efforts by the 

services to ensure that our Nation’s military is reflective of American society are 

being reduced due to the current budget environment. The committee understands 

the challenges that the services are facing, but urges the services to maintain, and 

where possible, increase their advertising within minority communities, to support 

their commitment to ensuring a strong diverse force. Recruitment advertising 

within minority communities is an important avenue toward building interest and 

understanding in serving our Nation in uniform. The committee urges the services 

and the Department of Defense to maintain a commitment to diversity recruiting 

and retention.

Medal of Honor Process

The committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Defense has directed a 

comprehensive review of military decorations and awards. After 13 years of 

combat, it is imperative that we ensure service members have been properly 

recognized for their sacrifices and actions given the changed combat environment. 

The committee urges the Secretary to pay particular attention to the Medal of 

Honor process to ensure that individuals nominated for this award have not been 

hindered by delayed submissions or lack of timely action. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense as part of the comprehensive military decoration and awards 

review, to review the nomination process, the valor requirements, and the amount 

of time taken from submission of a nomination to approval by the Secretary of 

Defense to enhance the medal awards process. The review should also specifically 

review the Medal of Honor process to ensure that the nomination process, valor 

requirements, and timeliness of the process do not unfairly penalize service 

members. The Secretary of Defense should submit the results of the review, along 

with the specific focus on the Medal of Honor process, to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 2015.

Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission

The committee recognizes the important capability of the Air National 

Guard and the Air Force Reserve Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) 

to assist the National Forest Service and State and local agencies fight forest fires. 

The committee believes that the National Guard should continue in its role as first 

responders to civil authorities, since the Guard is trained and ready to respond to 

natural disasters and emergencies regardless of State lines. The committee has 

become aware that, as a result of members who were killed while on a mission, the 

Department of Defense is reviewing a policy change dictating which authorities the 

Air National Guard should be activated under while in support of these missions. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 60 days prior to 

any change in policy, a review and assessment of the factors used to make a 

160
determination of the appropriate duty status for members of the Air National 

Guard under either title 10 or title 32; the benefits the member may be afforded 

under title 10 or title 32 status; the average response time under title 10 or title 32 

status; any degradation of the readiness of the MAFFS as a result of different duty 

statuses; and any other issues that were considered to make a determination on the 

status under which MAFFS is used to response to a natural disaster or emergency. 

In addition, any proposed policy change shall not take effect until after the end of 

the 30-day calendar period beginning on the date on which the Secretary provides 

notice of the proposed policy change to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Recognizing Military Chaplains

The committee recognizes the historical and present-day significance of the 

chaplaincies of the military departments. Since General George Washington and 

the First Continental Congress created the Chaplain Corps on July 29, 1775, 

military chaplains have offered spiritual leadership to service members.

Since the inception of the Chaplain Corps in 1775, over 25,000 chaplains 

have served as religious and spiritual leaders for 25 million soldiers and their 

families in every war in which America has engaged. Four hundred chaplains have 

paid the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives in service to this country; 7 

chaplains received the Medal of Honor; 27 received the Distinguished Service Cross; 

and many others received Purple Hearts, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars for Valor, and 

Combat Action Badges. 

The committee acknowledges that military chaplains exist “to advise and 

assist commanders in the discharge of their responsibilities to provide for the free 

exercise of religion in the context of military service as guaranteed by the 

Constitution, to assist commanders in managing Religious Affairs, and to serve as 

the principal advisors to commanders for all issues regarding the impact of religion 

on military operations.”

The committee commends the chaplaincies of the military departments and 

urges the Department of Defense to support chaplains in their efforts to serve and 

minister to our men and women in uniform.

Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice Punitive Article

The committee notes the requirement in section 1741 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) that requires 

the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives a report containing the recommendations 

of the Secretary regarding the need to amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States 

Code, to create an additional article to address violations of the policy regarding 

prohibited and inappropriate relationships between a service member who exercises 

authority or control over a prospective member of the Armed Forces undergoing 

161
entry-level processing or training. The deadline for the report is June 2014. The 

committee expects the Secretary to provide the report by the required due date.

Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain Guidance in Response 

to the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by April 1, 2015, on the results of a review to 

determine if current Department of Defense guidance regarding an individual, 

ecclesiastical endorsing agent, or religious organization's conviction or indictment of 

a terrorism-related offense or other offense threatening national security and their 

participation in the chaplaincy is sufficient to meet the recommendations of the 

Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood.

Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations

The committee recognizes the importance of youth and charitable 

organizations that provide opportunities for the young men and women of America 

and the partnerships fostered with the Department of Defense and the military 

services. These relationships provide important training opportunities for the 

services, especially the Reserves and the National Guard. Section 508 of title 32, 

United States Code, establishes eligible organizations, and provides the Secretary of 

Defense the ability to designate other youth and charitable organizations. The 

committee encourages the Secretary to consider designating any Student Cadet 

Corps, when requested, as an organization eligible for assistance from the National 

Guard.

Transition Assistance Program

The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s revamped Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP) to provide assistance to career ready military members 

transitioning to a new career or further education following military separation. 

The new Transition–Goals, Plans, Success (Transition–GPS) is an enhanced 

program established to assist members with their transition as the military draws 

down. Transition–GPS gives the Department the flexibility and authorities 

required to execute its role in providing information, counseling, tools, and training 

for service members to transition from the military. While the committee stands by 

the good work the Department has done through Transition–GPS, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to continuously improve and build the 

program. The committee supports the conclusions reached by the March 2014 

Government Accountability Office report, Transitioning Veterans: Improved 

Oversight Needed to Enhance Implementation of Transition Assistance Program 

(GAO-14-144), and is specifically concerned with any lack of ability for individual 

unit commanders to participate in TAP and continued weakness in outcome 

measures, making it difficult to attribute results to TAP. The committee therefore 

162
directs the Secretary of Defense to comply with the recommendations for executive 

action listed in the GAO report.

U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions

The committee recognizes the critical role of the U.S. Air Force Academy 

(USAFA) in educating and cultivating the next generation of leaders for the U.S. 

Air Force. The committee is aware that the Air Force Academy Superintendent, due 

to budget reductions, is intending to eliminate 10 academic majors and multiple 

permanent staff positions, to include 40 Academy Military Trainers (AMTs). This 

will result in a reduction of Academy Military Trainers to 1 per squadron of 

approximately 100 cadets. AMTs provide critical services to cadets, including 

counseling, mentorship, and professional training essential to the development of 

Air Force leaders. Additionally, AMTs foster a foundation of trust within the cadet 

squadrons which is critical to developing and inculcating the ethics and moral 

values required for service in the military, as well as ensuring the well-being of the 

cadets attending the Academy. The committee finds this reduction troubling as the 

average age of a cadet is younger than the average Air Force enlistee. The 

committee is concerned that a reduction of AMTs unnecessarily jeopardizes the 

culture in the cadet squadrons by reducing resources for a cadet’s professional 

development and personal well-being, which may lead to an increase in misconduct 

and sexual assaults. Prior to any reduction in staff at the Air Force Academy, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

January 1, 2015, an assessment justifying the need to cut permanent military staff 

in the cadet squadrons. The assessment should include the factors the Secretary 

used to make a determination for personnel cuts, how the Air Force Academy will 

ensure the professional development and personal well-being of cadets if these cuts 

are enacted, and any other determinations that were considered in the reduction of 

programs and degrees offered by Air Force Academy.

U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives

The committee recognizes the vital role of education in developing the next 

generation of leaders and subject matter experts within the U.S. Special Operations 

Command (USSOCOM). The committee notes the unique role of the Joint Special 

Operations University (JSOU) in developing Special Operations Forces (SOF) 

specific strategic and operational leadership within USSOCOM. The committee is 

aware of an expansion effort by the JSOU to include accreditation for bachelor and 

master’s degree programs. The committee also notes the increase in advanced 

civilian education initiatives USSOCOM has taken over the past 2 years by 

increasing attendance of officers at the Naval Post Graduate School, creating a 

special master's degree program through Kansas State University for officers 

attending the Command and General Staff College and sending officers to Johns 

Hopkins University to obtain a Master of Arts in Legislative Affairs. The 

163
committee understands the dynamic situations in which SOF operate at the 

tactical, operation, and strategic level and recognizes that there are requirements 

for higher education to increase opportunities for success. 

However, the committee is concerned with the validation of the 

requirement for JSOU to offer degrees, as well as the increased education 

requirements for officers that cannot be accomplished through the parent service. 

There are numerous degree-granting programs Department-wide, as well as 

partnership opportunities with civilian institutions which may meet mission 

requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense in 

coordination with the service secretaries to provide the congressional defense 

committees, not later than March 1, 2015, an assessment of the validity of the 

course and degree requirements at JSOU, including USSOCOM’s master's degree 

requirements for officers. The assessment of JSOU should include an analysis of 

current and proposed JSOU programs, including which programs can be 

accomplished at service schools or civilian institutions, and justification for JSOU to 

receive degree-granting authority. The assessment of USSOCOM’s master's degree 

requirements should include a review of the positions coded as required to hold a 

master's degree, the number of officers who are required to attend fully funded 

master's degree programs on an annual basis to meet the position requirements, 

and the historical promotion rates and command selection rates for SOF officers 

who hold master's degrees from fully funded programs and serve in these master's 

degree coded positions. The assessment should also include the costs associated 

with JSOU receiving degree-granting authority across the Future Years Defense 

Program.

Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel

The committee is aware that the Federal Aviation Administration has 

selected six Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) research and test sites to assess the 

integration of UAS in the Nation’s airspace. The committee notes that military 

trained UAS pilots and maintenance personnel have accumulated extensive 

experience operating UASs in a range of environments. With the emergence of UAS 

technology in the civilian sector, the UAS industry will need a highly trained 

workforce of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. The committee 

recognizes that the services are being forced to reduce their force structure, and 

UAS personnel may need to transition from the military to civilian communities. 

The Department of Defense has undertaken efforts to address the transition of 

service members in a number of career fields, such as nursing and information 

technology. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess 

the transition pathway for UAS personnel from military service to civilian 

employment as part of the Department’s ongoing transition pilot program.

Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to Increase Cyber Security 

Expertise

164
The committee notes the efforts the Department of Defense has taken to 

increase cyber security capability and expertise. The committee believes it is 

important to ensure the Department and military services are capitalizing on the 

cyber education capabilities in institutions of higher education to train the current 

cyber force, as well as produce future military cyber leaders. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Department of Defense and the military services to 

utilize the Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarship program to partner with the 

National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security Centers of 

Academic Excellence program and institutions of higher education, for cyber 

security to ensure the Department of Defense can access the requisite number of 

qualified officers into the cyber security field. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY GENERALLY

Section 501—Authority to Limit Consideration for Early Retirement by Selective 

Retirement Boards to Particular Warrant Officer Year Groups and Specialties

This section would provide the Secretaries of the military departments the 

authority to establish selection objectives for warrant officer specialties for Selective 

Retirement Boards (SRBs) convened pursuant to section 581 of title 10, United 

States Code. This authority is necessary to enable the services to retain the very 

best warrant officers in each warrant officer specialty and not exacerbate the 

shortage of warrant officers in under-strength and low-density warrant officer 

specialties, as forces are drawn down during fiscal years 2014 through 2017. 

Section 502—Relief from Limits on the Percentage of Officers Who May Be 

Recommended for Discharge during a Fiscal Year Using Enhanced Authority for 

Selective Early Discharges

 This section would amend section 638a of title 10, United States Code, to 

give relief from limits on the percentage of officers who may be recommended for 

discharge during a fiscal year using enhanced authority for selective early 

discharges. This section would remove the limitation on the number of officers 

recommended for discharge in a given fiscal year in comparison to the number of 

officers discharged the preceding fiscal year. Currently, the number of regular 

officers recommended for discharge cannot exceed 70 percent of the number of 

officers discharged from Active Duty the preceding fiscal year. 

Section 503—Repeal of Requirement for Submission to Congress of Annual Reports 

on Joint Officer Management and Promotion Policy Objectives for Joint Officers

165
This section would repeal section 667 and section 662(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, removing the requirement to submit an annual report to Congress 

concerning the Department of Defense Joint Officer Management Program.

Section 504—Options for Phase II of Joint Professional Military Education

This section would amend section 2154(a) of title 10, United States Code, to 

authorize a senior service level course of at least 10 months in duration designated 

and certified by the Secretary of Defense to award Joint Professional Military 

Education Level II credit.

Section 505—Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides Authorized for Officers of the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps

This section would amend section 981 of title 10, United States Code, to 

modify the current limitation on the number of enlisted aides authorized to support 

general and flag officers. The maximum number of enlisted aides would be modified 

to be the lesser of 300 or the number of enlisted aides calculated based on two times 

the number of generals or admirals and the number lieutenant generals or vice 

admirals on Active Duty the preceding fiscal year. Further, this section would 

require the Secretaries of the military departments to report annually to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the 

total number of enlisted aides assigned and authorized as aides for general and flag 

officers.

Section 506—Required Consideration of Certain Elements of Command Climate in 

Performance Appraisals of Commanding Officers

This section would require a Secretary of a military department to include 

information regarding command climate with regard to allegations of sexual assault 

and the response to the victim of sexual assault by other members of the command 

on the performance appraisal of a commanding officer. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List Following Nonselection 

for Promotion of Certain Health Professions Officers and First Lieutenants and 

Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate Degrees

This section would amend section 14701 of title 10, United States Code, to 

permit certain first lieutenants of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and 

lieutenants (junior grade) of the Navy, who have twice failed for selection for 

promotion to the next higher grade to be considered for continuation on the reserve 

active-status list. Further, the proposal would require the Secretaries of the 

military departments to retain health care professionals who have twice failed for 

166
promotion to the next higher grade, but who have not completed any service 

commitment incurred as a result of their participation in a health professions 

stipend program under section 16201 of title 10, United States Code, known in the 

Army as the Specialized Training Assistance Program. These two changes will 

allow the services to selectively continue officers qualified in critically short 

specialties required to provide medical support to the combatant commands.

Section 512—Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in Assignment of Directors 

and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guards

This section would amend section 10506(a) of title 10, United States Code, 

to include the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the selection and nomination 

process for the Director and Deputy Director of the Army National Guard and Air 

National Guard. 

Section 513—National Guard Civil and Defense Support Activities and Related 

Matters

This section would amend chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code, by 

adding a new section to authorize the use of the National Guard to provide 

assistance to support firefighting operations, missions, or activities, including aerial 

firefighting employment of the Modular Airborne Firefighting System.

SUBTITLE C—GENERAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES

Section 521—Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel Decisions 

Relating to Correction of Military Records

 This section would establish procedures for judicial review for any final 

decision regarding records correction made under sections 1034(g) or (h) and section 

1552 or 1554a of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the service member to 

exhaust administrative relief procedures before seeking judicial review for 

correction of military records or decisions granted by the boards for the correction of 

military records. Additionally, this section would require that service members be 

notified of their right to judicial review and of the statutory time limits associated 

with judicial review of correction board decisions.

Section 522—Additional Required Elements of Transition Assistance Program

This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, by 

requiring any member who plans to use educational assistance entitlements under 

title 38 to receive instruction on an overview of those entitlements, courses in postsecondary education appropriate for the member and compatible with the member’s 

goals, and how to finance the member's education. Implementation of this section 

would occur not later than April 1, 2016.

167
Section 523—Extension of Authority to Conduct Career Flexibility Programs

This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of a military 

department, until December 31, 2019, to carry out pilot programs under which 

officers and enlisted members of the Regular Component, under the jurisdiction of 

the Secretary concerned, may be inactivated from Active Duty in order to meet 

personal or professional needs and returned to Active Duty at the end of the period 

of inactivation. 

Section 524—Provision of Information to Members of the Armed Forces on Privacy 

Rights Relating to Receipt of Mental Health Services

This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to 

provide information regarding the privacy rights of a service member who is seeking 

and receiving mental health services. The Secretary would be required to provide 

this information to service members during initial and basic training, and to other 

members of the Armed Forces as determined by the Secretary of Defense.

Section 525—Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains to Close a 

Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the Traditions, Expressions, and 

Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith Group

This section would authorize a chaplain, if called upon to lead a prayer 

outside of a religious service, to close the prayer according to the traditions, 

expressions, and religious exercises of the endorsing faith group.

Section 526—Department of Defense Senior Advisor on Professionalism 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to communicate with 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

the mission, goals, and metrics for the Senior Advisor on Professionalism. This 

section would further require the Senior Advisor on Professionalism to conduct 

reviews of the current programs on professionalism of the Department of Defense 

and the military departments. Additionally, this section would require the Senior 

Advisor on Professionalism to submit recommendations to strengthen professional 

programs in the Department of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Section 527—Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of Women in the Armed 

Forces

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to direct the Secretary 

of each military service to validate the gender-neutral occupational standards used 

by the Armed Forces. Each Secretary would be required to work with an 

independent research entity to validate the standards. Further, this section would 

168
require each Secretary of a military department to ensure that properly designed 

and fitted combat equipment is available and distributed to female members of the 

Armed Forces. This section would require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of services’ Outreach and Recruitment Efforts gauged 

toward women representation in the officer corps to include current initiatives used 

by the Armed Forces to increase accessions of women into the officer corps, new 

recruiting efforts to increase accessions of women into military service academies 

and Reserve Officer Training Corps, and resources and funding required to increase 

military service academy accessions by women and report the findings to Congress 

by April 1, 2015.

SUBTITLE D—MILITARY JUSTICE, INCLUDING SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DOMESTIC 

VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

Section 531—Improved Department of Defense Information Reporting and 

Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents Involving Members of the Armed Forces

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, to develop a comprehensive management plan to 

address deficiencies in the reporting of incidents of domestic violence involving 

members of the Armed Forces.

Section 532—Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel Regarding Use of 

Mental Health Records by Defense during Preliminary Hearing and Court-Martial 

Proceedings

This section would require the Judicial Proceedings Panel established 

under section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112-239) to review and assess the use of mental health records by the 

defense during preliminary hearings and court-martial proceedings under the 

Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The panel would also be required to review the 

use of mental health records in civilian legal proceedings. 

Section 533—Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Related 

Military Justice Enhancements to Military Service Academies

This section would require the Secretary of the military department 

concerned to ensure the provisions of title XVII of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) apply to the United 

States Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the 

Coast Guard Academy.

Section 534—Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault Regarding Victims' 

Preference for Prosecution of Offense by Court-Martial or Civilian Court

169
This section would require the Secretary concerned to establish a procedure 

to ensure a victim of an alleged sexual-related offense is consulted regarding the 

victim's preference for prosecution authority by court-martial or a civilian court 

with jurisdiction over the offense.

Section 535—Enforcement of Crime Victims’ Rights Related to Protections Afforded 

by Certain Military Rules of Evidence

This section would authorize a victim of an offense under Section 806b of 

title 10, United States Code, to petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of 

mandamus to require the court-martial to comply with the Military Rule of 

Evidence 513 and 412, if the victim believes that a court-martial ruling violates the 

victim’s rights under such Rule.

Section 536—Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of Certain SexRelated Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces

This section would require at a minimum, dismissal or dishonorable 

discharge and confinement for 2 years for sex-related offenses under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice.

Section 537—Modification of Military Rules of Evidence Relating to Admissibility of 

General Military Character Toward Probability of Innocence

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to modify the Military 

Rules of Evidence to make clear that the general military character of an accused is 

not admissible for the purpose of showing the probability of innocence except when 

the trait of the military character of an accused is relevant to an element of an 

offense for which the accused has been charged and may only be used for specified 

military-specific offenses. 

Section 538—Confidential Review of Characterization of Terms of Discharge of

Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Victims of Sexual Offenses

This section would require the Secretaries of the military departments to 

establish a confidential process for victims of a sex-related offense to appeal, 

through boards for correction of military records, the characterization of discharge 

or separation of the individual from the Armed Forces.

Section 539—Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege Afforded Under the 

Military Rules of Evidence

This section would eliminate the constitutionally required exception to the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege which is afforded to the patient of a 

psychotherapist to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from 

170
disclosing, a confidential communication made between the patient and 

psychotherapist. 

SUBTITLE E—MILITARY FAMILY READINESS

Section 545—Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with Respect to 

Transitional Compensation for Dependents of Members Separated for Dependent 

Abuse

This section would provide for an earlier determination of dependent child 

status under section 1059(d)(4) of title 10, United States Code. Dependency would 

be determined as of the date the separation action is initiated, when a member is 

administratively separated for a dependent abuse offense. Under current law, an 

individual’s status as a dependent child is determined as of the date the member is 

actually separated.

Section 546—Improved Consistency in Data Collection and Reporting in Armed 

Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy for 

a standard method of collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide data involving 

members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, including Reserve 

Components. The Secretary would be required, within 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, to submit the policy to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Section 547—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are 

Members of the Armed Forces

This section would amend title II of the Service Members Civil Relief Act 

(50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that issued a temporary custody order based 

solely on the deployment or anticipated deployment of a service member to reinstate 

the custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the temporary order, 

unless the court finds reinstatement is not in the best interest of the child. This 

section would also prohibit a court from using deployment or the possibility of 

deployment as the sole factor when determining the best interest of a child.

SUBTITLE F—EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Section 551—Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural Exchange Activities at 

Military Service Academies

This section would amend sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a of title 10, 

United States Code, to allow attendance of foreign exchange personnel to the 

military service academies from 2 to 4 weeks.

171
Section 552—Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed Forces in Obtaining 

Post-Service Employment

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot 

program to enhance the efforts of the Department of Defense to provide job 

placement assistance and related employment services to eligible members of the 

Armed Forces to assist members in obtaining post-service employment and reduce 

the amount of unemployment compensation being paid by the Department of 

Defense. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report not later than January 15, 2019, to the appropriate congressional committees 

describing the results of the program and whether the programs achieved the 

results of assisting members in obtaining post-service employment, the cost per 

member, and reduced the amount of unemployment compensation for ex-service 

members. 

SUBTITLE G—DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

Section 561—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational Agencies That 

Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense 

Civilian Employees

This section would authorize $25.0 million for the continuation of the 

Department of Defense assistance to local educational agencies that are impacted 

by the enrollment of dependent children of military members and Department of 

Defense civilian employees. 

Section 562—Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens as Teachers in 

Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' School System

This section would allow the Department of Defense to hire a local national 

who teaches a host nation language course in the Department of Defense Overseas 

School System, if a citizen of the United States is not available. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

demonstrate the efforts undertaken to first find a United States citizen to teach the 

native language before hiring a non-United States citizen.

Section 563—Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council on Dependents' 

Education to Include Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

This section would expand the functions of the Advisory Council on 

Dependents' Education to include the domestic dependent elementary and 

secondary schools of the Department of Defense within the continental United 

States, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

172
Section 564—Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and Transition 

of Military Dependent Students

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide grant 

assistance to non-profit organizations that provide services to improve the academic 

achievement of military dependent students, including those non-profit 

organizations whose programs focus on increasing the civic responsibility of 

military dependent students and their understanding of the Federal Government 

through direct exposure to the Government.

Section 565—Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012

This section would amend section 563(c) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), to extend, by 2 years, 

the effective date of the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012. In addition, this 

section would amend Public Law 112-239 by including a method to calculate the 

taxable value of eligible Federal property that is within the boundaries of two or 

more local educational agencies. 

SUBTITLE H—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 571—Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian Employees of 

the Department of Defense Who Were Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired or 

Motivated by a Foreign Terrorist Organization

This section would amend the Purple Heart award to include members 

killed or wounded in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations 

since September 11, 2001. Additionally, this section would require a review of the 

November 5, 2009, attack at Ford Hood, Texas, to determine as to whether the 

death or wounding of any civilian employee of the Department of Defense or civilian 

contractor meets the eligibility criteria for the award of the Secretary of Defense 

Medal for the Defense of Freedom. 

Section 572—Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Army 

Combat Action Badge to a person who, while a member of the Army, participated in 

combat during which the person personally engaged, or was personally engaged by, 

the enemy at any time during the period beginning on December 7, 1941, and 

ending on September 18, 2001.

Section 573—Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to Medal of 

Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta

173
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on 

the Navy review, findings, and actions pertaining to the Medal of Honor nomination 

of Sergeant Rafael Peralta to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act.

SUBTITLE I—MISCELLANEOUS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section 581—Secretary of Defense Review and Report on Prevention of Suicide 

Among Members of United States Special Operations Forces

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, through the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to conduct a review of 

Department of Defense efforts regarding suicide prevention among members of the 

Special Operations Forces and their dependents. The review would include the 

feasibility of the application of current Department of Defense suicide prevention 

policy guidelines and prevention programs to Special Operations Forces, current 

Armed Forces and U.S. Special Operations Command strategies to reduce suicides 

among members of the Special Operations Forces and their dependents, the 

standards for responding to attempted or completed suicides, including guidance 

and training to assist commanders in addressing incidents of suicide, among other 

elements. The Secretary would be required to submit the report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 90 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Section 582—Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of Separation 

of Members of the Armed Forces Who Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault

This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of 

Defense to conduct a review to identify all members of the Armed Forces who, since 

January 1, 2002, were separated from the Armed Forces after making an 

unrestricted report of sexual assault. The review would seek to determine the 

circumstances of and the grounds for the separation and whether the separation 

was in retaliation or influenced by the unrestricted report. The Inspector General 

would then submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives concerning the results of the review within 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 583—Comptroller General Report Regarding Management of Personnel 

Records of Members of the National Guard

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to 

submit a report regarding the management of personnel records of members of the 

National Guard. The Comptroller General should consider the appropriate Federal 

174
role and responsibility in the management of these records, the extent to which the 

States have digitized the records, and the extent of State and Federal agreements 

for sharing and management of the records. The report shall be submitted to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 

later than April 1, 2015.

Section 584—Study on Gender Integration in Defense Operation Planning and 

Execution 

This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

conduct a study concerning the integration of gender into the planning and 

execution of foreign operations of the Armed Forces at all levels and to submit the 

study to the congressional defense committees not later than 270 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 585—Deadline for Submission of Report Containing Results of Review of 

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment 

Cases

 This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit the report 

required by section 1735 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66) to the Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives by June 1, 2015.

SUBTITLE J—OTHER MATTERS

Section 591—Inspection of Outpatient Residential Facilities Occupied by 

Recovering Service Members

This section would modify the current reporting requirement from an 

annual basis to at least once every 2 years.

Section 592—Working Group on Integrated Disability Evaluation System

This section establishes a Working Group to carry out a 3-year pilot 

program to evaluate and reform the Integrated Disability Evaluation System of the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of the 

pilot would be to increase process efficiencies, create a standardized form set, 

eliminate redundancies, improve existing process timelines of the Integrated 

Disability Evaluation System, increase service member satisfaction, and establish 

an information bridge between the E-benefits program and the MYIDES dashboard.

Section 593—Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise to Leave No Member 

of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in Afghanistan

175
This section would express the sense of Congress that the United States 

has a responsibility to continue to search for missing or captured members of the 

Armed Forces while transitioning from combat operations in Afghanistan.

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

OVERVIEW

The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation 

programs are central to maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer, combat-ready 

force. Accordingly, the committee supports a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal 

year 2015, in accordance with current law, in order for military pay raises to keep 

pace with the pay increases in the private sector, as measured by the Employment 

Cost Index. 

The committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary of 

Defense to utilize the services of an independent organization experienced in 

grocery retail analysis to assess the proposed changes to the defense commissary 

system. The committee is concerned about the efficacy of proposals to change the 

current pricing and business models for the operation of commissaries in order to 

accommodate proposed reductions to the commissary budget. The committee 

requires more information from the Department of Defense prior to making any 

changes to the underlying structure of the commissary, particularly given that prior 

studies commissioned by the Department of Defense have concluded that pricing 

adjustments and changes to stock assortments as proposed by the Department of 

Defense would not yield the savings or efficiencies to the system. Therefore, the 

committee recommends restoring $100 million in appropriated funds for the 

commissary to maintain current operations for fiscal year 2015. 

Additionally, the committee is concerned with the raft of compensation and 

benefit changes proposed in the President’s budget and the effects of the totality of 

such proposals on service members and their families, particularly junior enlisted 

personnel. The committee recognizes that the fiscal environment has changed and 

the Department continues to face greater pressure under sequestration-level budget 

caps, which are still in effect for fiscal year 2016 and beyond. The committee, 

nonetheless, believes that a more prudent approach to address compensation and 

retirement proposals would be to await the recommendations from the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to better understand the 

total impact proposed changes will have on efforts to maintain the high-quality, AllVolunteer Force. The Commission, established by Congress in response to a 

Department of Defense request, is required to provide a comprehensive approach to 

modernize and achieve fiscal sustainability of the compensation and retirement 

systems for the Uniformed Services by February 1, 2015. In the meantime, to 

sustain the current All-Volunteer Force, the committee continues to support 

authorities for a wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other 

compensation benefits for an additional year.

176
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in Rates of 

Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances

This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary of 

Defense to temporarily increase the rates of basic allowance for housing in areas 

impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel.

Section 602—No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for General and Flag 

Officers

This section would freeze the basic pay rate for commissioned officers in the 

pay grades of O-7 through O-10 during calendar year 2015.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

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

Reserve Forces

This section would extend the authority for the Selected Reserve 

reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain 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, income 

replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing extended and 

frequent mobilization for Active Duty service, and the authority to reimburse travel 

expenses for inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distance until 

December 31, 2015.

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

Health Care Professionals

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate 

accession program, repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for 

psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the incentive special pay 

for nurse anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals 

in critically short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, the 

accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 

critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental specialist 

officers in critically short wartime specialties until December 31, 2015.

177
Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear 

Officers

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for nuclearqualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2015.

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

Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities

This section would extend the general bonus authority for enlisted 

members, the general bonus authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive 

pay authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and bonus 

authorities, the special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities, 

hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or 

proficiency bonus, contracting bonus for Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 

cadets and midshipmen, and the retention bonus for members with critical military 

skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31, 2015.

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

37 Bonuses and Special Pays

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer retention 

bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the 

enlistment bonus for active members, the incentive pay for precommissioning 

program members pursuing foreign language proficiency, the accession bonus for 

new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military 

occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer 

between Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates until 

December 31, 2015.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION

Section 621—Authority to Enter into Contracts for the Provision of Relocation 

Services 

The section would allow the Secretary of Defense to authorize a base 

commander to enter into a contract with an appropriate organization to provide 

relocation services to members of the Armed Forces.

SUBTITLE D—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS 

AND OPERATIONS

178
Section 631—Authority of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities to Enter into 

Contracts with Other Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities to Provide and

Obtain Certain Goods and Services

This section would amend section 2492 of title 10, United States Code, to 

provide the Department of Defense authority to provide or obtain food services 

beneficial to the efficient management and operation of the dining facilities on 

military installations offering food services to service members.

The committee is providing the authority to the Department of Defense to 

authorize the Air Force’s current “Food Transformation Initiative.” However, the 

committee is concerned that the Air Force had initiated this program contrary to 

the limitations under section 2492 of title 10. The committee agrees with the 

Comptroller General’s decision that the legal interpretation of section 2942 by the 

Air Force and the subsequent decision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

support such an interpretation was wrong; and that the program did not meet 

either the spirit or the letter of the law. The committee cautions the services and 

the Secretary of Defense from initiating any additional programs that could be 

construed as an effort to pass appropriated funds through a non-appropriated fund 

instrumentality. In addition, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 

restrain the services from additional creative legal interpretations of section 2942 of 

title 10. The committee reiterates that the intent of the change to section 2942 is to 

allow the continuation of the food transformation program, and should not be 

interpreted to allow further innovative legal interpretations of the provision.

Section 632—Review of Management, Food, and Pricing Options for Defense 

Commissary System

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review, 

utilizing the services of an independent organization experienced in grocery retail 

analysis, of the defense commissary system. The results of the review shall be 

submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by February 1, 2015.

Section 633—Restriction on Implementing Any Department of Defense Policy to 

Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of Certain Items on Military Installations

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of 

the military departments from implementing any new policy that limits, restricts or 

bans the sale of any legal consumer product category sold in exchanges or 

commissaries as of January 1, 2014.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 641—Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed Forces Regarding Their 

Preferences for Military Pay and Benefits

179
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out an 

anonymous survey of random members of the Armed Forces regarding pay and 

benefits, including the value that members place on forms of compensation, relative 

to one another, including basic pay, allowances for housing, bonuses and special 

pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement pay.

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW

The committee is resolute in ensuring that the Military Health System 

remains a top priority for the Department of Defense during the post-conflict shift 

to readiness training and force reduction. The committee recognizes Department 

efforts in preventative medicine, clinical and translational research, public health 

initiatives, and pioneering the health care team model. It is imperative that these 

critical areas continue progressing with the same level of commitment in this 

changing landscape in order to sustain the medical readiness of our service 

members. The committee encourages the Department to maintain this 

commitment to solving the complex physical and psychological implications of 

wartime service for the foreseeable future.

The committee remains focused on making certain that the Department 

cost-saving measures are centered on achieving the most efficient Military Health 

System possible before significant cost-sharing burdens are placed on TRICARE 

beneficiaries. The current Department proposal to fundamentally alter the 

structure of TRICARE and increase associated fees is concerning in light of 

concurrently proposed reductions in compensation. The committee notes the 

Department efforts toward reorganization of the Military Health System, but 

remains unconvinced that current implementation efforts will result in the 

projected cost savings. To that end, the committee includes requests for a report to 

further clarify Defense Health Agency implementation plans and a review of 

Defense Health Agency implementation progress by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. The committee is also concerned that the Department’s plan to 

reduce or realign Military Treatment Facilities will further shift the health care 

burden to the purchased care sector and ultimately increase costs. 

The committee seeks to ensure continued access to care and adoption of 

best practices during the Military Health System reorganization. The committee 

requests reviews on TRICARE reimbursement to sole community hospitals, 

graduate medical education billets, and the reduction of TRICARE Prime service 

areas. Moreover, the committee directs the execution of a pilot program focused on 

the improvement of patient medication use and outcomes through use of commercial 

best practices.

The committee is encouraged by the current downtrend in the suicide rate 

of the Armed Forces and commends the Department’s diligence in addressing this 

tragic issue. However, although the overall trend is downward, there are certain 

180
communities of service members who remain at high risk. The committee strongly 

encourages the Department to continue training, research, and therapeutics to 

address psychological health and resilience.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Air Force Critical Care Training

The committee recognizes the efforts by the Air Force’s Critical Care 

Transport Teams (CCATT) to provide vital care during the transport of members of 

the armed services who are critically injured. The committee encourages the 

Department to continue supporting the Air Force Centers for the Sustainment of 

Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS), the training platforms for the CCATT. 

The C-STARS provide a unique and realistic environment for training Air Force 

personnel who treat critically injured members of the armed services. The 

committee supports the groundbreaking research and specialized training 

conducted at C-STARS, which has improved the survivability rate of critically 

wounded service members. The committee encourages the Department to continue 

investing is this crucial capability. 

Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury

The committee recognizes the Department of Defense for their efforts to 

research and document the use of canine therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder 

and traumatic brain injury. The committee understands that while still 

experimental, canine therapy has shown to be effective in treating the psychological 

symptoms of these conditions. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense to continue researching and providing canine therapy for psychological as 

well as other physical conditions affecting the members of the Armed Forces.

Collaboration on Trauma Research

Last year, the committee recognized that advancements in trauma care are 

the results of research conducted across the public-private spectrum by Federal, 

academic, and private institutions, and encouraged the Department of Defense to 

work with other Federal agencies and the private sector to establish a trauma 

clinical research repository to share and maximize critical trauma research data. 

The committee recognizes the significant advances that the services and the 

Department have made in trauma research and treatment on the battlefield that 

would be of great benefit to the civilian sector. The committee believes that such 

transition necessitates a whole-of-government approach that requires leadership 

beyond the Department of Defense. However, the committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to continue to work with other Federal, State, and local 

181
governments, as well as academic and private institutions to advance trauma 

research and treatment which has a direct impact on readiness of the force. 

Deployment Health for Women

The committee recognizes the unique work that the Army’s Women’s 

Health Task Force (WHTF) is doing to address the specific gender health needs of 

women in the military. The task force assessed and made recommendations on six 

areas of concern for women in a deployed environment. These include women's 

health education, barriers to seeking care, uniform and personal protective gear 

design, psychosocial effects of deployment, effects of deployment on children and 

families, and sexual harassment and assault response and prevention. Women’s 

deployment issues are not unique to this force, which is why the committee required 

a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of women-specific health services 

and treatment for female members of the Armed Forces in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).

The committee believes that the information, expertise and experience of 

the WHTF, as well as the assessment by the GAO, should be used as the basis to 

ensure that the specific gender health needs of women in all types of deployed 

environments are being met. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct an assessment on the specific gender health needs of women in a deployed 

environment to ensure standardization of education and training in women’s 

hygiene and gynecological management to enhance readiness for female members; 

ensure that women’s health issues are included in leadership training and 

educational programs; provide Clinical Practice Guidelines to establish a 

standardized level of care in a deployed environment; and ensure that all services 

have the ability to provide a minimum level of education and training to address the 

specific gender health needs of women in a deployed environment. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the results of the 

assessment and implementation of policies or programs necessary to meet the 

specific gender health needs of women in various deployed environments to the 

congressional defense committees by April 31, 2015. The assessment should also 

address the research gaps identified by the Women’s Health Research Interest 

Group, and what efforts have been undertaken to develop a repository of peerreviewed research articles related to health issues for female service member, 

particularly those in a deployed environment.

 

Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families

The committee recognizes that with early intervention a child diagnosed 

with autism spectrum disorder may make significant progress, potentially 

increasing language and social skills as well as mitigating the development of 

problematic behaviors. The committee encourages the Department to continue to 

182
assist military families with autistic children to ensure the availability of the full 

and expanding range of early evidence-based risk assessment and diagnostics, early 

intervention and treatment approaches.

Healthy Base Initiative

The committee recognizes the efforts by the Department of Defense to 

improve the physical and mental health of members of the Armed Forces through 

the Healthy Base Initiative. This program promotes the health and wellness of 

service members, families, and civilians through education on how to improve 

nutritional choices, increase physical activity, reduce obesity, and stop smoking. 

The committee encourages the Department to incorporate the latest in scientific 

research on topics such as the benefit of antioxidant-rich foods and the detrimental 

impact of smokeless tobacco products, into education strategies for the service 

members and medical personnel. The committee further encourages the 

Department to consider a review of continuing medical education training for 

content related to these public health initiatives. The committee supports these 

efforts to promote and develop healthy lifestyle choices that will positively affect the 

health and readiness of the Armed Forces and their families.

Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing

The committee recognizes the necessity of surveillance testing for certain 

infectious diseases, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus, to maintain the 

readiness of the Armed Forces. The committee understands that the medical 

community continues to advance innovative methods of detection for such diseases. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continuously review its 

infectious disease screening methodology in comparison with current medical 

practice guidelines to provide the most current advances in testing to ensure the 

readiness of military service members. 

Integrated Scheduling System

The committee is aware that the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted 

a competition for medical appointment scheduling systems in 2013 that required 

entrants to demonstrate their systems’ ability to achieve over 200 requirements and 

metrics with a focus on integration with the Veterans Health Information Systems 

and Technology Architecture Electronic Health Record system. The committee notes 

that the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 

simultaneously provide medical care to a small population that overlaps both health 

care systems. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department of Defense 

Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM) program office is 

currently working on an effort to replace its legacy health information system with 

183
a commercial solution that is modern and interoperable with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. As the DHMSM program office develops its requirements for a 

final solicitation, the committee expects the program office to keep the committee 

informed on the requirements for the new system, to include the feasibility of 

having a requirement for an integrated scheduling system that is interoperable 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare in 

Colorado Springs

The committee is aware that the Defense Health Agency has identified 

Colorado Springs, Colorado as the fastest growing Enhanced Multi-Service Market 

(EMSM) for healthcare in the country. As such, demand for healthcare may exceed 

the current capacity of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 

facilities in the region. Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 

Affairs-civilian partnerships that can serve both active duty service members, their 

families, and veterans have the potential to be an effective, cost-saving approach to 

enhancing access to and the quality of healthcare services provided by the 

Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the private sector. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with, the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze the potential benefits of a partnership in 

the Colorado Springs area in order to better address the growing need for 

healthcare services. This analysis should consider the challenges that arise from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense having different 

planning and budget timelines, authorizations and approval processes, personnel 

staffing authorities and requirements, pharmaceutical policies, clinical scheduling 

policies and procedures, management structure and performance evaluations, and 

provide solutions to address these challenge to best leverage the capabilities of the 

two Departments as well as the civilian community. The analysis should consider 

both the benefits and challenges seen in previous efforts to consolidate Department 

of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' facilities, as well as current joint 

Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs' healthcare projects. The 

Secretary of Defense should report the results of the analysis to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 120 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Joint Medical Kits

The committee recognizes the work of the service medical commands and 

personnel to improve combat casualty care and reduce combat mortality over the 

last decade, which has significantly reduced casualties in combat. The committee 

applauds the Defense Health Agency and its Defense Medical Materiel Program 

Office (DMMPO) for ongoing internal efforts and collaboration with industry to 

bolster combat casualty care, especially through enhancements in tactical medicine. 

The committee is particularly encouraged to learn of DMMPO’s pursuit of a Joint 

184
First Aid Kit, and supports the prompt fielding of a Joint First Aid Kit. The 

committee also supports efforts to assess the requirements for a Joint Combat 

Lifesaver Kit and Joint Vehicle Medical Kits. Joint kits would allow for 

commonality across services to promote safety and efficacy during joint operations.

Military and Academic Research Partnership

The committee recognizes that after over a decade of sustained combat, 

there have been many strides made toward providing service members the most 

current clinical medical treatment. However, the committee believes that it is 

important for both the military services and academia to collaborate toward a 

common goal of continuing to provide our service members the best medical 

treatment available. The use of data driven research by military and academic 

partnerships will foster innovative ways to study and monitor medical and health 

issues impacting readiness. 

The committee believes that along with a whole-of-government approach, it 

is critical to include academia in the effort to improve the readiness of our service 

members. The committee urges the Department of Defense to continue working 

with Federal, State, local, non-profit, and academic institutions to expand the 

network of support needed to promote advances in clinical medicine to improve the 

readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research

The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts in improving the 

prevention and treatment of breast cancer through research and clinical care. 

Section 737 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112-239) directed the Department to conduct a study on the incidence of breast 

cancer among members of the Armed Forces serving on Active Duty. The resulting 

report is to include data important to translating this research into clinical practice. 

The committee urges the Department to provide the results of this study in an 

expeditious manner so they may be used, in conjunction with other federally funded 

sources of research-based recommendations, to guide future Department of Defense 

health policy in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.

Military Health Care Team Model

The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces utilize a health care 

model that represents the full spectrum of health care professionals. The committee 

notes that this health care model includes physician assistants, nurse practitioners, 

and clinical nurse specialists which maximizes taxpayer dollars, especially now in 

an austere fiscal environment. This health care team model has been critical to the 

success of military medicine in the deployed setting, resulting in an unprecedented 

survival rate of service members in combat. In addition, the committee believes that 

the training these medical professionals receive creates rewarding employment 

185
opportunities that provide for a seamless transition from military service to the 

private sector when these service members transition back to civilian life. The 

committee continues to support the efforts of military medicine to improve quality 

of care and gain greater efficiencies in the system.

Military Innovations in Suicide Research

The committee commends the hard work of the Army Study to Assess Risk 

and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS). This study adds to a growing 

body of research that seeks to decrease suicide by improving the understanding of 

suicide risk factors as well as protective factors. The committee recognizes that the 

Department of Defense stands as a leader in the fight against suicide which affects 

not only service members and families, but an increasing number of the Nation’s 

youth. The tragic rate of military suicide has highlighted the complex and often 

poorly understood psychological factors that lead to suicidal behavior. The Army 

STARRS research to date is contributing to the understanding of the importance of 

resilience in enhancing skills such as problem-solving, impulse control, and proper 

coping mechanisms. The committee commends the Army for taking a proactive 

stance on addressing suicide among service members and their families, and looks 

forward to future Army STARRS research outcomes to help inform the Department 

of Defense in developing targeted strategies to build resilience in the members of 

the Armed Forces and improve the understanding of psychological health. 

Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health Agency

The Department of Defense has provided the committee with three 

submissions on its plans for implementation of the Defense Health Agency (DHA), 

which became operational on October 1, 2013. As the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) noted in its review of the first two DHA implementation plans, the 

Department’s submissions did not include critical information concerning the DHA’s 

staffing requirements, cost estimates, and performance measures. In its response to 

the GAO’s report, the Department stated that it would address many of these issues 

in its third submission to Congress. However, as the GAO noted in subsequent 

testimony, the Department’s third submission did not fully incorporate this 

information. In addition, the Department’s third submission did not include 

sufficient information concerning its education and training shared service, 

including a full explanation of its purpose and goals. As a full and complete 

implementation plan for the DHA is necessary to help ensure the Department 

achieves the goals of its reform of the Military Health System (MHS), 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 by January 31, 2015, 

containing the following information:

186
(1) Performance measures for each objective and shared service that are 

clear, quantifiable, objective, and include a baseline assessment of current 

performance, and if such information has not yet been developed, a timeline for 

developing and submitting such measures in the future; 

(2) An explanation of the potential sources of cost savings from the 

implementation of its shared services projects, including estimates of cost savings 

for each product line within the respective shared services;

(3) A baseline assessment of the current number of military, civilian, and 

contractor personnel currently working within the MHS headquarters and an 

estimate for DHA at full operating capability, including estimates of changes in 

contractor full-time equivalents; and

(4) An explanation of the purpose and goals of the medical education and 

training shared service with regard to its role in improving the cost efficiency of 

delivering training, including the challenges it will address, the practices it will put 

in place to address these challenges, and the resulting cost savings.

Review of Defense Health Agency Progress

After years of studies, reviews, and assessments of the governance 

structure of the Military Health System (MHS), the Department of Defense 

established the Defense Health Agency (DHA) on October 1, 2013. The DHA 

assumed responsibility for, among other things, enterprise-wide common tasks 

handled by the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force medical departments, known as 

shared services, as well as their common business and clinical processes. The 

changes to the design of the system along with enhanced accountability, will, 

according to the Department, enable continuous performance improvement and 

reduce the projected cost growth of the Defense Health Program. While the 

Department has reported significant progress in the establishment of this new 

agency, as well as efficiencies achieved, it remains unclear what specific 

improvements have been accomplished and if the Department remains on track to 

attain its savings and performance goals. Therefore, as this new agency reaches a 

year in existence, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the progress that the Department has made in achieving its goals 

within this year. More specifically, the review should include at a minimum a 

review of the Department’s progress in (1) achieving cost savings, (2) developing 

performance measures, and (3) determining accurate staffing levels. The 

Comptroller General should issue a final report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by September 30, 2015, 

and brief preliminary results to the committees by April 1, 2015.

Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community Hospitals

The committee recognizes the vital role of sole community hospitals (SCH) 

in providing high-quality health care for service members stationed at rural 

military installations. The committee is aware of recent TRICARE reimbursement 

187
policy changes for SCHs and would like to understand the impact of the change on 

access to care for service members and their families. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review TRICARE’s change 

in reimbursement rules for sole community hospitals. The review should include at 

a minimum:

 (1) The extent to which TRICARE’s change in reimbursement rules for 

SCH affects access to these facilities by service members and their families; 

(2) The extent that TRICARE’s change in reimbursement rules for SCH 

compares to the Medicare change in reimbursement rules for SCHs; and 

(3) The extent to which the Defense Health Agency is monitoring the effects 

of TRICARE reimbursement rules changes on SCH and the subsequent access to 

care for service members and dependents. 

The Comptroller General should submit the results of the review to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 

later than March 1, 2015.

Sleep Health

The committee recognizes that sleep disruption is a contributing risk factor 

to the onset and severity of major mental health problems such as depression, 

bipolar disorder, substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain 

injury, and suicide. 

The committee commends the Department for its initial steps to leverage 

investments by the National Institutes of Health in the development of the Pain 

Assessment Tool and Outcomes Registry for its use throughout the military health 

system. The committee recommends the continued implementation of the Sleep, 

Activity, and Nutrition program which works to ensure a strong and resilient 

military community. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an assessment of the prevalence of sleep and circadian disturbances among active 

military personnel and its relationship between mental health, traumatic brain 

injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain and fatigue, substance abuse, 

suicide, depression, cognitive function, and military performance and readiness.

Surgical Critical Care Institute

 The committee is aware of the important translational research conducted 

by the Surgical Critical Care Initiative. The Initiative, a partnership of Federal, 

academic, and non-governmental organizations, strives to improve the care of 

wounded warriors through the investigation and mitigation of the short- and longterm physiologic effects of catastrophic injuries. As a result of the unprecedented 

survival rate of combat troops with complex and extreme life-threatening injuries, 

the Initiative has applied the lessons learned from the care of these injuries to 

develop biomarkers and decisionmaking algorithms that can be applied to combatwounded and other critically ill surgical patients. The committee applauds the 

efforts of the Department of Defense toward continuing to advance the care of 

188
critical injuries which will improve lifesaving measures on future battlefields and 

translate to civilian trauma treatment.

US Family Health Plans

The committee is aware of the important role of the US Family Health 

Plans in providing quality health care, which consistently exceeds customer 

satisfaction expectations, to military beneficiaries. The committee notes that the 

Department of Defense strives to provide quality health care to its beneficiary 

population, which has grown significantly over the last decade. Given the budget 

challenges the Department is facing, it is important that all segments of the 

military health system make every effort to ensure that they are providing the most 

cost-effective quality services available. The committee recognizes the contributions 

provided by the US Family Health Plans to the health of service members and their 

families, particularly retirees. Therefore, the committee encourages the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to address the role of the 

US Family Health Plan during deliberations regarding the future military health 

benefit. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—TRICARE AND OTHER HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

Section 701—Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces

This section would amend section 1074m of title 10, United States Code, to 

require the Secretary of Defense to provide person-to-person mental health 

screenings once during each 180-day period in which a member is deployed.

Section 702—Clarification of Provision of Food to Former Members and Dependents 

Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical Treatment Facilities

This section would amend section 1078b of title 10, United States Code, to 

allow former members and their dependents to receive food and beverages at no cost 

for those who are receiving certain outpatient care in military medical treatment 

facilities.

SUBTITLE B—HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

Section 711—Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military 

Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities

This section would permit the Secretaries of the military departments to 

establish cooperative health care agreements between military installations and 

local and regional non-military health care entities.

189
Section 712—Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE 

Extra

This section would change the frequency of the reports of the reviews 

submitted to Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States regarding 

the processes, procedures, and analysis used by the Department of Defense to 

determine the adequacy of the number of health care providers who accept 

TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra. 

Section 713—Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of Graduate Medical Education 

Billets

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from transferring or 

eliminating a graduate medical education billet from a military medical treatment 

facility unless the Secretary conducts a review of at least 2 years of the 

implementation of the reform of the administration of the Military Health System, 

examines recruiting and retention of medical professionals with regard to the 

Department's graduate medical education programs, determines the assignment of 

such billets, and certifies to the congressional defense committees that any proposed 

transfer of a billet meets the needs of the military departments and patients.

Section 714—Review of Military Health System Modernization Study

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees on the military medical treatment facility 

modernization study directed by the Resource Management Decision of the 

Department of Defense MP-D-01. The report would include the study data used by 

the Secretary and the results of the study with regard to recommendations to 

restructure or realign military medical treatment facilities. Further, this section 

would require the Comptroller General of the United States, not later than 180 days 

after the Secretary submits the report required, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on the report submitted by the Secretary of 

Defense, to include an assessment of the study methodology and data used by the 

Secretary. The Secretary would be prohibited from realigning or restructuring a 

military medical treatment facility until 120 days following the date the 

Comptroller General is required to submit the report.

SUBTITLE C—REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS

Section 721—Extension of Authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund

This section would extend the authority for the Joint Department of 

Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund until 

September 30, 2016.

190
Section 722—Designation and Responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor for Armed 

Forces Retirement Home

This section would designate the Deputy Director of the Defense Health 

Agency to be the senior medical advisor for the Armed Forces Retirement Home to 

reflect a change in the oversight organizational structure subsequent to the 

establishment of the Defense Health Agency. It also requires the homes to be in 

compliance with national recognized health care standards.

Section 723—Research Regarding Alzheimer's Disease

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct research 

on Alzheimer’s disease.

Section 724—Acquisition Strategy for Health Care Professional Staffing Services

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop and 

implement an acquisition strategy for contracting health care professional services 

within military medical treatment facilities. The Secretary would be required to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 

2015, on the status of implementation of the strategy.

Section 725—Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management Under TRICARE 

Program

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot 

program for at least 2 years at not less than three locations to evaluate the 

feasibility and desirability of including medication therapy management as part of 

the TRICARE program. This program would be focused on improving patient 

medication use and outcomes using best commercial practices in medication therapy 

management and would quantify effectiveness by measuring patient medication use 

and outcomes as well as health care costs. The Secretary of Defense would be 

required to submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the congressional 

defense committees not later than 30 months after the program commences.

Section 726—Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas

This section would amend section 732 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as amended by section 

701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113–66), to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report on the status of the reduction of the availability of TRICARE 

Prime. The required report would include details regarding the impact to 

beneficiaries of the reduction of TRICARE Prime availability, including any 

191
increase in cost to beneficiaries and the estimated cost savings to the Department of 

Defense. 

Section 727—Comptroller General Report on Transition of Care for Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct an assessment of the transition of care for post-traumatic stress disorder 

and traumatic brain injury, to include changes to pharmaceutical treatment plans 

and the benefits and challenges of combining the formularies across the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Comptroller 

General would be required to submit a report on the assessment to the 

congressional defense committees and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate by April 1, 2015.

Section 728—Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments to Department of 

Defense

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 60 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act, to brief the congressional defense committees on 

the process used by the Defense Health Agency to collect payment from hospitals 

outside the Department of Defense. The briefing would include a list of each 

hospital that is more than 90 days in arrears in payment to the Secretary.

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

OVERVIEW

As part of the committee’s long-term institutional reform effort, the 

committee is examining opportunities to improve the Department of Defense 

acquisition system. Despite the significant improvements made in the Weapon 

Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and other recent 

acquisition reform legislation, the committee believes further improvements must 

be made to the Department’s business practices, particularly at a time when 

defense resources for developing and acquiring weapon systems, products, and 

services are increasingly constrained. In this broad oversight and legislative effort, 

the committee aims to identify and drive out disincentives that increase cost and 

schedule of major programs and delay delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. The 

committee believes that any lasting reforms related to defense acquisitions will not 

be successful without a solid partnership between both the House of 

Representatives and Senate committees of jurisdiction, the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, each of the military departments, and the defense industrial base. The 

192
committee looks forward to working with all stakeholders on this comprehensive 

effort.

In addition, the committee notes that an annual inventory of Department of 

Defense contracts for services is mandated by section 2330a(c) of title 10, United 

States Code (initially codified by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)). Although an inventory is being 

provided, the committee continues to be disappointed that the Department of 

Defense has not fully implemented the requirement and is failing to analyze the 

data or otherwise use the mandate for collection of data to inform decision-making. 

The committee remains convinced that, if properly conducted, the inventory would 

be an important tool to provide transparency in Government contracting and would 

also be a beneficial tool for decision-makers in planning, programming, and 

budgeting for the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to continue to not only improve data collection related to 

services contracting, but to also conduct analysis of that data to identify wasteful or 

excessive spending, duplication of efforts, opportunities to implement efficiencies, 

and areas of risk in the defense industrial base. Furthermore, to complement the 

committee’s effort to improve the processes by which the Department of Defense 

acquires weapon systems, the committee, elsewhere in this title, includes a 

provision that would direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

undertake a body of work to identify further opportunities to improve the 

Department's processes to acquire contracted services. 

In addition, elsewhere in this report the committee includes a provision 

that would support the intent of the Marine Corps to streamline procurement of, 

and its fielding strategy for, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) increment 1.1, 

and believes this program could potentially serve as an example for future major 

defense acquisition program reform. However, the committee notes this streamlined 

approach to ACV increment 1.1 is contingent on mature technology and validated, 

stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely monitor this

program under the auspices of the committee’s ongoing comprehensive reform 

effort. 

Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the processes that often 

keep the Department of Defense from operating efficiently, and unintentionally 

create barriers to meaningful small business participation in the defense industrial 

base, the committee has worked closely with the House Committee on Small 

Business and the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this 

bipartisan cooperation, the committee includes provisions in this title that would 

remove duplicative processes, erase meaningless distinctions between competing 

programs, leverage procurement best practices, and better use the programs 

already in place. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions

193
The committee notes that there may be substantial benefits to contracting 

for goods and services through reverse auction procedures. However, the committee 

is concerned that Department of Defense personnel, particularly those that are not 

formally designated within the acquisition workforce, may lack sufficient training 

and experience to fully realize these benefits. Without adequate training on the 

benefits and risks of utilizing reverse auction procedures as a purchasing method, 

acquisition personnel might miss opportunities to stipulate best-value 

determinations, encourage small business participation, or raise other non-price 

considerations.

Two studies by the Army Corps of Engineers have posited that reverse 

auctions for construction services do not provide savings to the Government and 

that they increase risk associated with such projects. While the Corps has 

discontinued the use of reverse auctions in this area, other agencies continue to use 

reverse auctions for construction services. A third study by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO-14-408) found that there was inadequate competition in 

nearly 40 percent of governmental acquisitions conducted using reverse auctions. 

The report recommended that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

take steps to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding agencies' use of 

reverse auctions and to issue government-wide guidance for maximizing 

competition and savings when using reverse auctions.

The committee is also concerned that reverse auction procedures and lowest 

price technically acceptable procurement methodologies which are aimed solely at 

making a purchase at the lowest price, may not be the best way to procure personal 

protective equipment and organizational clothing and individual equipment, such 

as body armor components, combat helmets, protective eyewear, fire resistant and 

cold weather clothing and footwear. Using price as the deciding factor in the 

procurement of such items may lead to products of an inferior quality for the 

warfighter, and have long-term deleterious effects on the industrial base and the 

willingness of private sector firms to develop products and services for the 

Department. The committee believes that there are contracting circumstances 

where best value should be considered a higher criteria than lowest price. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review the training and education provided 

to Department of Defense personnel regarding the use of reverse auction 

procurement methodologies, and to revise such training and education, as may be 

necessary, to ensure that Department personnel understand the benefits, risks, and 

appropriate applications of reverse auction procedures and lowest price and 

technically acceptable. The Under Secretary should report to the congressional 

defense committees, not later than March 2, 2015, on the findings of this review.

Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales on 

Industrial Base Sustainment

194
The committee is aware that Department of Defense officials have 

suggested foreign military sales (FMS) and direct commercial sales (DCS) as a 

means for the private defense industrial base to sustain operations in light of 

Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) mandated reductions in 

procurement spending. The committee is concerned that long lead time and current 

world events make FMS and DCS unreliable or financially infeasible for many 

vendors, restricting a significant a path towards sustainability and adding an 

unacceptable level of risk to critical sectors of the industrial base. The committee is 

further concerned that a perception of available FMS and DCS opportunities may 

impact service planning to sustain high risk sectors of the industrial base.

Therefore, the committee directs, within 180 days, the Secretary of Defense 

to brief the congressional defense committees on the levels of FMS and DCS 

factored into sustainment plans for the private defense industrial base for major 

acquisition programs. The briefing should include an analysis of whether these 

levels of FMS and DCS are anticipated to be met over the remaining years of the 

BCA budget caps; any sectors or major acquisition programs with limited access to 

FMS and DCS; and reason for limited access.

Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High Risk Sectors of the 

Defense Industrial Base

The committee is aware that reductions under the Budget Control Act of 

2011 (Public Law 112-25) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (division A of 

Public Law 113-67) will reduce procurement spending over the next several years, 

leaving some sectors of the national technical and industrial base with a limited 

number of viable suppliers. The committee is concerned that the scheduled end of 

some major acquisition programs, combined with enacted defense funding 

reductions could result in continued financial losses to several high-risk sectors, 

which could force consolidations, decisions to forego defense contracts, and facility 

closures.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to specifically 

examine the impacts of such budget reductions as part of the Department's sectorby-sector, tier-by-tier review of the defense industrial base and to ensure that the 

periodic assessments of the national technical and industrial base, required by 

section 2505 of title 10, United States Code, include consideration of these 

reductions. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, providing an analysis of sectors and tiers of the private 

industrial base found to be at highest risk and how the risk assessment has 

changed since enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2013; an assessment of which additional sectors and tiers that might 

be considered high risk as a result of those Acts; and steps necessary to protect 

those high risk sectors and tiers.

195
Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Processes for the 

Acquisition of Services

To complement the committee’s effort to improve the processes by which the 

Department of Defense acquires weapon systems, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a body of work to identify 

further opportunities to improve the Department's processes to acquire contracted 

services. 

Over the last decade, Congress has provided new tools and capabilities 

intended to improve the Department’s processes and oversight of services 

acquisitions. These include requiring the establishment of a management structure 

and review process for high-dollar services; designation of senior managers 

responsible for services contract approval and oversight within the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the 

military departments; and the mandating of an annual inventory of contracted 

services to assist in workforce planning and budgeting. 

The committee notes that the Department has undertaken several actions 

to improve its approach to acquiring services, most recently in the Department’s 

Better Buying Power initiatives. Nevertheless, in a series of reports issued over the 

past year, the Comptroller General found that the Department still did not know 

the current status of services acquisitions in terms of the volume or type of services 

being acquired, lacked reliable data on the projected spending for services, had not 

fully embraced total workforce management approaches, and had not fully 

leveraged its buying power through strategic sourcing. With services acquisition 

accounting for more than half of the Department’s contracting efforts, the 

committee believes that a holistic assessment of the myriad processes that play a 

role in acquiring services is needed if the Department is to fundamentally improve 

its efficiency and effectiveness. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to continue 

monitoring the Department's efforts in this area and to conduct a comprehensive 

assessment of the processes and procedures of the Department of Defense for the 

acquisition of services to identify opportunities to improve these processes and 

procedures. An initial report on the assessment should be provided to the 

congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2016, with follow-up 

efforts subsequently briefed to the committees as phases of the assessment are 

completed. At a minimum, the assessment should examine:

 (1) The requirements generation, budgeting, and contracting processes 

associated with the acquisition of services; 

(2) How such processes interface with the Department’s strategic human 

capital planning processes; 

(3) The Department’s efforts to identify and, as appropriate, enhance the 

skills and capabilities needed by the workforce to acquire and oversee contracted 

services; 

196
(4) The extent to which the Department is acquiring contracted services 

using strategic sourcing; and

(5) The extent to which the Department’s annual budget request and future 

budget projections for contracted services are based on current, accurate, and 

reliable data.

Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations on Contract Services 

Spending

The committee notes that a Government Accountability Office review found 

that the Department of Defense failed to adhere to the enacted limitations on 

contracted services in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112-81), exceeding the limitations by more than $1.0 billion in fiscal 

year 2012. Moreover, guidance for adherence to the extension of the limitations for 

fiscal year 2014 has yet to be issued. The committee is concerned that the 

Department does not have adequate policies, procedures, and controls in place to 

enforce limitations on the annual amounts expended on contracted services. 

The committee is also concerned that not all contracted services are being 

subjected to the spending limitations because of the exclusion of contracted services 

involving Economy Act transfers between and within Department of Defense 

components. Also, because of the disparity between the levels of contracted services 

captured in the Inventory of Contracts for Services, required under section 2330a of 

title 10, United States Code, and what the Department budgets for contracted 

services, the committee concludes that the Department does not deliberately plan 

for most contracted services. At the same time the Department exceeded its 

spending limitations on contracted services, the Department furloughed a majority 

of its civilian workforce and, in the case of many Department of Defense 

components, under-executed civilian spending.

 The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

report to the congressional defense committees on the Department’s compliance 

with section 808 of Public Law 112-81, as amended by section 802 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for each of the 

fiscal years the limitation has been in effect. The Comptroller General should 

submit an initial report by October 30, 2014, that covers fiscal years 2012-13. The 

final report should be submitted by September 30, 2015, and address the 

Department's compliance during fiscal year 2014. The final report should include 

an assessment of the efforts by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 

the Department's financial management and acquisition communities to implement 

effective control mechanisms for contracted services spending. Additionally, the 

Comptroller General's review should assess steps taken by defense components in 

executing the reductions to contractor performance of inherently governmental 

functions, closely associated with inherently governmental functions, and staff 

augmentation workload in accordance with the provisions of section 808 of Public 

Law 112-81.

197
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted Foundry and Supply 

Chain Risk Management Programs

The committee recognizes that trusted components, both hardware and 

software, are vital to ensure the security and integrity of defense systems. To that 

end, the Department of Defense established a Trusted Foundry program to ensure a 

dedicated supply of trusted microelectronics for highly sensitive defense 

applications, as well as a trusted supplier program to provide less advanced 

microelectronics that still require a high degree of trust. The committee also notes 

that section 254 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required the Department to develop a 

Trusted Defense Systems Strategy to ensure that those capabilities were aligned 

with the policy framework needed to enforce the use of those capabilities.

After 10 years of this capability and policy framework, the committee 

believes that it is important to review the Trusted Foundry program, the Trusted 

Suppliers certification program, and other supply chain risk management to 

determine their effectiveness and understand if updates or changes are necessary. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

review and submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives not later than February 1, 2015, on the Department's 

program related to trusted foundry, trusted suppliers, and other supply chain risk 

management activities to ensure that the program strategy, contracting vehicles, 

and execution are fully supported by clear policy guidance from the Department, 

that such guidance is being followed, and to make any recommendations for needed 

improvement. 

Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the Department of Defense

The committee is aware that the interim rulemaking process of the 

Department of Defense allows for the expedited promulgations of rules in certain 

cases, and that numerous factors lead the Department of Defense to issue interim 

rules in lieu of proposed rules. The committee notes that interim rules may be 

issued for a variety of reasons when cause can be shown that a standard public 

notice-and-comment period would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 

public interest. Such causes include responses to emergencies, expedient measures 

to avert threats to public health or safety, and the need to make minor technical or 

insubstantial changes to regulations. However, the committee is also aware that 

overreliance on the interim rulemaking process may limit industry participation 

because that process may not afford opportunities to consider industry comments 

before, or even after, the final rule takes effect. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to evaluate the Department’s rulemaking practices for promulgating 

acquisition regulations, and specifically the issuance of interim rules rather than 

the issuance of proposed rules. The evaluation should include: 

198
(1) A brief description of current rulemaking procedures, including relevant 

provisions for notice-and-comment;

(2) An assessment of the frequency with which the interim rulemaking 

process is used by the Department of Defense to promulgate acquisition regulations; 

(3) Descriptions of the most prevalent good cause justifications given by the 

Department for using rulemaking options other than the proposed rulemaking 

process; and 

(4) Any recommendations the Comptroller General may have for improving 

constructive communications between the Department and industry during the 

rulemaking process. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the House 

Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2015, on the results of this 

evaluation. 

Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base

As part of the ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative, the committee 

supports expeditious progress toward amending the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR) to revise Category I of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to 

describe more precisely the firearms and related articles warranting control on the

USML. Category I of the USML currently covers firearms (other than non-combat 

shotguns with barrel length of 18 inches or longer) with a caliber up to .50 inches, 

combat shotguns, close assault weapons systems, and related parts, components, 

and accessories. The committee understands that draft regulations to revise this 

Category were developed more than 2 years ago but have not been further advanced 

through the Federal rule-making process. The committee also notes that under the 

Export Control Reform Initiative, only firearms that are inherently military and 

otherwise warrant control on the USML, such as those that possess parameters or 

characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the 

United States, should continue to be subject to ITAR. Those items that do not 

warrant USML control would shift to the more flexible licensing authorities of the 

Department of Commerce under this reform initiative. The committee is concerned 

that current export controls on firearms may be adversely affecting U.S. businesses, 

including suppliers of the Department of Defense, by giving foreign companies a 

competitive advantage over U.S. firms. Therefore, the committee supports review by 

the committee of jurisdiction of the current $1.0 million congressional notification 

threshold for exports of USML-controlled firearms. 

Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud Computing Acquisition 

and Brokerage Policies

The committee is aware that there are significant cloud computing 

resources in the commercial sector that have resulted in reduced data center 

infrastructure and support personnel, leading to cost savings and efficiency for 

users of these services. The committee acknowledged that reality, as evidenced by 

199
the language in section 2867 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) that called for a strategy for transitioning to cloud 

computing, including the utilization of cloud computing services generally available 

within the private sector. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense could benefit from 

that trend, but is concerned that the guidance for leveraging commercial cloud 

services is being developed too slowly. The committee believes that an outside 

review of the Department's guidance and planning for cloud computing capabilities, 

including both in-house and private sector, would be valuable. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an independent assessment of 

the Department's policies and guidance for cloud computing capabilities and provide 

a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by September 30, 2015. This assessment should include the 

following:

(1) Whether industry and government best practices are embodied in 

Department of Defense policies and guidance;

(2) Whether cloud brokerage procedures are clearly articulated, commonly 

understood by service providers, and unbiased with respect to the use of in-house 

government-provided cloud services;

(3) Whether security protocols for commercial cloud products and services 

are clearly articulated; 

(4) Whether guidance exists for integration of commercial cloud capabilities 

into the architectural plans for the Joint Information Environment; and

(5) Whether the ongoing commercial cloud pilots are being evaluated for 

cost, performance, and security against standardized, consistent, and objective 

measures of effectiveness that are adequately aligned with current guidance. 

Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards of Production

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense depends on 

multiple unique materials for the manufacture and operation of equipment. 

Without such materials, high-performance hulls and airframes, advanced targeting 

and sensor equipment, electronic and computing devices, and many other important 

pieces of warfighter equipment cannot be produced. The committee notes that many 

of these materials, such as beryllium, have unique characteristics and require 

specialized processing facilities. The committee is concerned that certain 

regulations adopted by other countries are problematic and should not be adopted 

by the United States. Specifically, the committee is concerned that negotiated 

standards of production for some of these materials could lead to a loss of capacity 

in the U.S. defense industrial base. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to monitor all proposed regulatory changes, to identify those 

that could potentially interrupt the supply of materials critical to national security, 

and to notify the United States Trade Representative of any concern in a timely 

manner. 

200
Operational Contract Support

The committee notes that many of the contracting failures noted by the 

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the 

Government Accountability Office, and others, were due to weaknesses in planning, 

execution, and oversight of Operational Contract Support (OCS) activities. A March 

2011 Defense Science Board Task Force report, titled "Improvements to Services 

Contracting," specifically highlighted OCS as a “special case” that needs immediate 

and focused attention given the important role of contractors in supporting military 

operations. 

 The committee applauds efforts by the Joint Staff, the geographic 

combatant commanders, and the military departments to improve planning, 

execution, and oversight of OCS activities. The committee is aware that the 

Department of Defense conducted a joint OCS exercise in January 2014 designed to 

prepare uniformed and civilian OCS professionals to deploy and support any 

contingency, humanitarian, or operational mission. Not only did the exercise 

provide individual and collective training related to OCS activities, but it also 

served as a platform to evaluate and to refine proposed revisions to Joint 

Publication 4-10, which establishes Department of Defense doctrine for planning, 

conducting, and assessing OCS integration and contractor management functions in 

support of joint operations. The committee also applauds the Department’s 

inclusion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the exercise as a way to 

promote efforts to improve interagency coordination and cooperation in future 

contingency operations.

While the committee is pleased with the Department's efforts to improve 

OCS planning, execution, and oversight, and supports its efforts to conduct annual 

joint exercises related to OCS, the committee is concerned that such exercises have 

yet to be formally included in the Department's budget submission. Instead of 

expressly including funding for OCS exercises in the budget, it appears that the 

Department resources these exercises with funding from the Defense Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The committee recognizes that the 

DAWDF was created to ensure "the acquisition workforce has the capacity, in both 

personnel and skills, needed to properly perform its mission, provide appropriate 

oversight of contractor performance, and ensure that the Department receives the 

best value for the expenditure of public resources." However, the committee is 

concerned that the use of DAWDF funds to support these exercises will perpetuate 

the notion that OCS is a contracting issue and could discourage the participation of 

personnel, outside of the contracting community, who are essential to performing 

OCS planning and management functions. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that future OCS education, training, 

and exercises are sufficiently resourced in a manner that integrates OCS 

awareness, education, and training into the professional development of the entire 

201
civilian and military workforce. To further integrate military, civilian, and 

contractor personnel into an effective total force, the committee also encourages the 

Department to include contract support scenarios into select operational exercises.

Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review

The committee remains concerned about the Department of Defense's 

ability to mitigate the risks associated with its dependence on foreign-sourced rare 

earth elements. A February 2014 Department of Defense report titled 

"Diversification of Supply and Reclamation Activities Related to Rare Earth 

Elements," received by the committee pursuant to the committee report (H. Rept. 

113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014, stated that the Department's mitigation strategy for foreign-sourced rare 

earth elements used in Department of Defense weapon systems includes 

"diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and reclamation of waste." 

However, a separate February 2014 report from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

for Research, Development and Acquisition on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also 

required by H. Rept. 113-102, discussed the lack of feasibility of implementing such 

a mitigation strategy for the JSF.

The committee is aware that the development of many modern systems, 

including the JSF and the AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar, rely on 

rare earth magnets, and it has come to the committee's attention that there are 

cases where these magnets are being supplied by foreign companies. The committee 

finds the Department's use of national security waivers to enable continued reliance 

on these foreign-origin magnets, to specifically include samarium-cobalt magnets, 

troubling, and it notes such concern elsewhere in this report. The committee is 

concerned that in relying on foreign companies for supply of these magnets, the 

Department may unknowingly impart knowledge of design parameters, 

performance requirements, and test procedures for parts or components in 

advanced U.S. military equipment. The committee is also concerned that the recent 

discovery of Chinese-origin rare earth magnets in the JSF supply chain occurred 

only as a result of compliance requirements related to the prohibition on foreign 

sourcing of other elements such as titanium, steel, and zirconium. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Defense Contract 

Management Agency to conduct an examination of the sourcing of rare earth 

elements in Acquisition Category (ACAT) I programs not later than February 1, 

2015. In doing so, the Director should determine whether an ACAT I program 

contains rare earth elements that are necessary to the functionality of that 

program. If so, the Director should determine the country of origin of the elements. 

If the Director has reason to believe that rare earth elements in an ACAT I program 

were manufactured by a foreign entity, then the Director should immediately 

inform the program manager in writing, and provide a report of the findings to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2015. The report may be 

provided in classified form.

202
Regional Commercialization Activities

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense continues to be 

challenged in commercializing and transitioning technology developed through 

federally funded research and development. The Department has a number of tools 

at its disposal to support these activities, such as the Commercialization Readiness 

Program, the Manufacturing Technology Program, and the Mentor-Protege 

program, but few are focused on tapping into the regional innovation centers across 

the Nation.

The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research has funded 

some initiatives that support the regional technology commercialization ecosystem. 

For example, the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research 

provides some administrative support and subject matter expertise for small and 

emerging businesses in diverse fields such as agriculture, renewable energy, and 

health information systems. Also, the Hawaii Technology Development Venture is a 

project supporting Hawaii-based technology businesses, as well as current and 

future Department of Navy and Department of Defense programs. 

In addition, the committee notes that section 252 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) allowed the Secretary 

of Defense to use the research and engineering network of the Department of 

Defense to support the regional advanced technology clusters established by the 

Secretary of Commerce to encourage the development of technologies for national 

security and homeland defense challenges. The committee sees such activities as 

useful means to leverage State and local technology investments, and encourages 

the Department to find similar mechanisms for supporting the Nation's industrial 

base for emerging technologies.

Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause

The committee is aware of recent cases where the Secretary of Defense has 

waived the legal requirement to buy specialty metals from American sources, 

pursuant to the national security waiver clause in subsection (k) of section 2533b, 

title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the national security 

waiver should be used only to provide flexibility to the Department of Defense when 

there is imminent threat of harm to U.S. service members or national security 

interests, not in lieu of the other exceptions provided in the clause. The committee is 

concerned that recent use of the waiver has not been aligned with this intent, 

therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2014, on the 

Department’s use of the national security waiver clause in section 2533b of title 10, 

United States Code. The report should include:

(1) Documentation of all national security waivers issued by the 

Department since 2008; 

(2) The procedures used by the Department to determine whether a 

national security waiver should be issued;

203
(3) The procedures used by the Department to determine whether a supply 

deficiency is best addressed through the national security waiver or through the 

availability exception;

(4) The procedures used by the Department to monitor contractor 

compliance;

(5) The procedures used by the Department to determine whether 

noncompliance by contractors and subcontractors is “knowing or willful” (10 U.S.C. 

2533b(k)(3)); and 

(6) The procedures used by the Department to determine whether further 

action by the Department is necessary to prevent the recurrence of the supply chain 

issue that led to noncompliance and the subsequent issuance of a national security 

waiver. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES,

AND LIMITATIONS

Section 801—Extension to United States Transportation Command of Authorities 

Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy

This section would amend section 831(i)(1) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to add United States 

Transportation Command to the list of covered combatant commands. 

Section 802—Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced Component 

Development or Prototype Units

This section would extend existing statutory authority under subsection 

(b)(4) of section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111-84; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) until September 30, 2019. This authority 

provides the Department of Defense a “bridge” between the science and technology 

portion of a contract awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s Broad 

Agency Announcement authority, and the award of a contract under a new 

acquisition for advanced component development or production.

Section 803—Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects

This section would amend section 845(a)(1) of Public Law 103-160 (10 

U.S.C. 2371 note) to broaden the definition for the types of efforts for which other 

transactions authority might be used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency.

204
Section 804—Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount Available for 

Contract Services

This section would extend for 1 year the cap on the aggregate annual 

amount spent on contracts for services through fiscal year 2015.

SUBTITLE B—INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS

Section 811—Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test Program for 

Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans

This section would modify and extend the test program for negotiation of 

comprehensive small business subcontracting plans authorized by section 402 of the 

Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1990 

(Public Law 101-574) and last amended by section 866 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).

The committee notes that the test program was authorized to allow 

contracting activities in the military departments and the defense agencies to 

undertake one or more demonstration projects to determine whether the negotiation 

and administration of comprehensive subcontracting plans would reduce 

administrative burdens on contracts while enhancing opportunities for small 

business concerns. However, after nearly 24 years since the original authorization 

of the program, the test program has yet to provide evidence that it meets the 

original stated goal of the program in the committee report (H. Rept. 101-331) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 

1991: “to be more advantageous to both the government and to small and small 

disadvantaged businesses,” and “to expand available participation in a broader 

range of subcontracting opportunities, especially in the technical area.” 

Therefore, this section would include additional requirements to ensure 

that the test program collects the data necessary to assess its effectiveness and to 

standardize its requirements with other subcontracting programs: 

(1) The test program would be expanded to apply to all of the small 

business subcontracting goals, as the committee believes that the program was not 

intended to ignore additional subcontracting programs of the Federal Government;

(2) The threshold for participation in the program would be raised from $5.0 

million to $100.0 million because the test program was intended to apply to 

contractors with a substantial presence in defense acquisition, and all current 

participants exceed this threshold;

(3) Companies participating in the test program would be required to report 

data by North American Industrial Classification System codes, by major defense 

acquisition program, by military department, and by service contract exceeding 

$100.0 million; and

(4) The requirements for data on the costs avoided as a result of the 

program would be expanded.

205
As with other subcontracting programs required by the Small Businesses 

Act, this section would stipulate that a failure of a participant to make a good-faith 

effort to comply with the program will be used as a factor in past performance 

evaluations. 

Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the 

Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate, not later than September 

20, 2015, with an assessment of the program order to inform any future decision to 

reauthorize the program. 

 

Section 812—Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses

This section would amend section 657 of title 15, United States Code, by 

consolidating the verification and appeals processes for Service-Disabled VeteranOwned Small Business (SDVOSB) programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and the Small Business Administration (SBA), and by moving the processes and 

resources of the SDVOSB verification programs at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to the SBA. This section would also unify the definitions of SDVOSB in 

section 632 of title 15, United States Code, and section 8127(l) of title 38, United 

States Code, and would amend section 8127(f) of title 38, United States Code, to 

require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a memorandum of agreement 

with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration specifying the 

manner in which the Secretary shall notify the Administrator as to an individual's 

status as a veteran or a veteran with a service-connected disability. These changes 

should allow more efficient and transparent verification of small businesses 

requesting SDVOSB status.

Section 813—Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and Consolidated Contracts

This section would amend section 644 of title 15, United States Code, by 

requiring the Small Business Administration to work with other agencies to create 

and implement a data quality improvement plan to promote greater accuracy, 

transparency, and accountability in the reporting of contract bundling and 

consolidation. The committee recognizes that properly labeling a contract as 

bundled or consolidated is important to small business competition, as the process 

of contract labeling triggers a series of reviews and mitigation steps that promote 

opportunities for small business. Therefore, this section would also require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to initiate a study, not later than October 

1, 2018, to examine the effectiveness of the required data quality improvement plan 

and report the findings of the study to the Committee on Small Business of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and 

206
Entrepreneurship of the Senate not later than 12 months after initiation of the 

study.

Section 814—Authority to Provide Education to Small Businesses on Certain 

Requirements of Arms Export Control Act

This section would amend section 21(c)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 648(c)(1)) by including a requirement that applicants receiving grants 

pursuant to that section shall also assist small businesses by providing, where 

appropriate, education on the requirements applicable to small businesses under 

the regulations issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (chapter 39 of title 

22, United States Code) and on compliance with those requirements. This section 

would also amend section 2418 of title 10, United States Code, by expanding the 

Procurement Technical Assistance Program to assist small business concerns with 

education related to export controls. 

Section 815—Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered Contracts

This section would express a sense of Congress that reverse auctions, when 

used appropriately, may improve the Federal Government's procurement of 

commercially available goods and services by increasing competition, reducing 

prices, and improving opportunities for small businesses. However, the committee is 

concerned that, if not used appropriately, reverse auctions can harm small 

businesses, reduce competition, and render higher purchase prices. 

The committee remains concerned that the use of reverse auctions to 

procure services, such as design and construction services, or goods such as items of 

personal protective equipment and specific organizational clothing and equipment, 

may not serve the interests of the warfighter or the taxpayer. Therefore, this section 

would also amend the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631) to prohibit the use of

reverse auctions for procurement of certain goods and services if the contract is 

awarded using a Small Business Act procurement authority. It would also limit the 

use of reverse auctions in cases where only one offer was received or where offerors 

do not have the ability to submit revised bids throughout the course of the auction. 

The section further clarifies that the desire to use a reverse auction does not obviate 

Federal agencies from the obligation to use a Small Business Act procurement 

authority. 

Section 816—SBA Surety Bond Guarantee

This section would amend section 411(c)(1) of the Small Business 

Investment Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-699) by raising the guarantee rate on the 

Small Business Administration's preferred security bond program from 70 percent 

to 90 percent. This should enable greater competition for government contracts by 

small business construction contractors, thereby reducing prices for the taxpayer. 

207
Data provided by the Small Business Administration to the House Committee on 

Small Business indicates that this change can be made at no cost to the taxpayer. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 821—Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force Information Technology 

Contracting

This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

conduct a review of the Air Force Network-Centric Solutions II (NETCENTS II) 

contract and provide a certification to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives that the NETCENTS II contract is 

effective in delivering information technology capabilities for the joint force.

Section 822—Airlift Service

This section would amend chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, by 

inserting a new section that would require transportation of passenger or property 

by Civil Reserve Air Fleet-eligible aircraft obtained by the Secretary of Defense or 

the Secretary of a military department through a contract for airlift service to be 

provided only by a covered air carrier.

Section 823—Compliance with Requirements for Senior Department of Defense 

Officials Seeking Employment with Defense Contractors

This section would amend section 847 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to require the 

Secretary of Defense to designate an official of the Department of Defense to ensure 

compliance with the requirements of that section and would require that, not later 

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, such official shall submit 

to the congressional defense committees a report on the Department’s efforts to 

ensure compliance with the requirements of section 847.

Section 824—Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use best value 

tradeoff source selection methods to the maximum extent practicable when 

procuring an item of personal protective equipment or critical safety items. 

Personal protective equipment items include, but are not limited to, body armor 

components, combat helmets, combat protective eyewear, environmental and fire 

resistant clothing, footwear, organizational clothing and individual equipment, and 

other items as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

Section 825—Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating Executive Order No. 

11246

208
This section would prohibit funding authorized to be appropriated by this 

Act or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be used to enter 

into any contract with any entity if such contract would violate Executive Order No. 

11246 (relating to non-retaliation for disclosure of compensation information), as 

amended by the announcement of the President on April 8, 2014.

Section 826—Requirement for Policies and Standard Checklist in Procurement of 

Services 

This section would amend section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, by 

requiring the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to implement 

a standard checklist to be used for new contract approval for services or exercising 

an option under an existing contract for services. The checklist shall be modeled on 

the polices and checklist relating to services contract approval form (dated August 

2012) established and in use by the Department of the Army. Finally, this section 

would require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report on the implementation of the standard 

checklist for each of fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND 

MANAGEMENT

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Headquarters Reductions

The committee is aware that in July 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed 

a 20 percent reduction in the major headquarters budgets of the Department of 

Defense, and announced plans to implement a series of management efficiencies 

and overhead reductions within the Department. In December 2013, the Secretary 

then announced several organizational changes and personnel reductions within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and stated that, "every dollar that we save 

by reducing the size of our headquarters and back-office operations is a dollar that 

can be invested in warfighting capabilities and readiness." However, the committee 

notes that announcements on organizational changes and personnel reductions 

across the Department's other major headquarters organizations have not yet been 

made. 

The committee has observed extensive growth in the Department's major 

headquarters over the past decade. In a 2013 review, the Comptroller General of the 

United States reported that the size of the headquarters staff of the geographic 

combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), had grown 

by 50 percent over the past decade. In an ongoing review for the committee, the 

Comptroller General has found even larger growth at CENTCOM, noting its

support to military operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 

209
Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as the functional combatant commands, 

the service secretariats and service staffs, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense. The Comptroller General further observed a lack of discipline 

in setting and validating requirements for individual headquarters, and a lack of 

visibility into the total resources allocated across organizations for similar functions 

and missions. The growth in bureaucracy at the Department is also being examined 

by the Defense Business Board in the context of its review of best business practices 

in human capital management. 

While the committee welcomes the Department's efforts to implement

management efficiencies and overhead reductions, it is concerned that the 

Department may seek to implement such changes and across-the-board personnel 

reductions without the benefit of a comprehensive assessment of mission and 

functional requirements, critical capability and skillset requirements, and cost 

drivers. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would direct 

the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to combine combatant command backoffice functions in order to achieve greater efficiencies. 

The committee appreciates the Comptroller General's reviews and believes 

that further assessment of the data collected by the Comptroller General may better 

inform the Department, as it continues efforts to generate cost savings through

organizational changes and personnel reductions, and the committee as it continues 

to oversee such efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 

perform an in-depth review in order to identify:

(1) Any trends in personnel and other resources being devoted to selected 

functional areas within and across related organizations; 

(2) To what extent the Department of Defense and the military services 

have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative 

functions; 

(3) Whether efforts to date constitute a systematic and comprehensive 

approach; and 

(4) Any additional steps the Department could take to realize additional 

savings. 

The organizations that should be considered in this cross-cutting review 

should include, but not be limited to, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretariats and staff, the geographic and 

functional combatant commands and their service component commands, and the 

defense agencies and field activities. The committee directs the Comptroller 

General to submit one or more reports, as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller 

General and agreed to with the committee, by April 30, 2015, to the Committee on 

Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and Evaluation Processes and 

Activities

210
The committee remains concerned over the regularity at which an increase 

in time and funding is required to develop and field new weapon systems. To help 

inform the committee’s understanding of how operational test and evaluation 

processes and activities may unnecessarily increase schedule and cost of major 

defense acquisition programs, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the operational test and evaluation processes and activities 

of the Department of Defense and to inform the congressional defense committees of 

the results of that review not later than March 15, 2015. The review should, at a 

minimum, examine: 

 (1) The processes the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 

uses to select programs for oversight and the number and types of programs covered 

since October 1, 2009; 

(2) The nature and extent of oversight DOT&E conducted or is conducting 

on these programs;

(3) The extent to which the requirements of subsection 2339(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, are applied in such a manner that imposes additional 

operational requirements on programs overseen by DOT&E or necessitates testing 

of operational requirements not previously validated by the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council or a military service;

(4) The benefits of DOT&E oversight on these programs, to include 

enhancements of program performance, reliability, and capability; 

(5) Cost or schedule delays in the operational test phases of these programs 

and the resulting cost and schedule delays incurred by these programs as a result of 

oversight processes and activities of DOT&E; and

(6) The specific DOT&E criteria, for example, measures of effectiveness and 

analysis, and process to measure effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of 

programs.

Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office

The committee believes that an independent organization within the 

Department of Defense to develop and coordinate the unmanned air, land, and sea 

capabilities of the United States may provide greater unity of effort, better meet 

military requirements, minimize duplication, and maximize the allocation of limited 

resources for unmanned systems within the Department.

Such an independent organization would aim to improve policy and 

oversight of unmanned systems across the Department; coordinate acquisition and 

research, development, technology, and engineering efforts for unmanned systems; 

make investment and budget recommendations for unmanned systems; and make 

recommendations on integrating unmanned systems with existing operational 

concepts and determining new concepts.

The director of such office would serve as the principal advisor to both the 

Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense on matters relating to 

211
unmanned systems and as the Department's principal liaison to other Federal 

agencies, the defense industry, and centers of research on such matters.

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense to brief the House 

Armed Services Committee not later than August 1, 2014, on the advisability of 

establishing such an independent organization.

Global Response Force

The committee believes the Global Response Force (GRF), currently 

maintained within the Army's 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina, is essential to the nation’s ability to swiftly respond to crises and 

unforeseen events, and to rapidly project military power in support of U.S. national 

interests. As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to the 

committee on April 3, 2014, a robust and agile GRF capability is needed to "move 

more quickly, because events unfold more quickly in this world than they ever have 

before and we have [to] be able to get there fast."

However, the committee notes that the GRF is dependent on assets and 

support provided by the joint force, and thus its mission effectiveness and capacity 

are limited when such assets and support are not equally prioritized by other 

services or elements of the Department of Defense. The committee encourages the 

Department to look more holistically at the GRF to identify requirements, assess 

gaps in capabilities and seams across the services, and allocate sufficient resources. 

It also encourages the Department to place greater emphasis on joint planning, 

operations, and training to ensure an effective, integrated GRF capability is 

maintained in accordance with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Force 

2020 construct. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

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

the Navy and Marine Corps

This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the title of its secretary 

to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. This section would formally 

recognize the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the 

Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as an equal partner with the 

Navy.

Section 902—Additional Responsibility for Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation

212
This section would amend section 139 of title 10, United States Code, by 

including a new subsection that would require the Director of Operational Test 

Evaluation to consider the potential for increases in program cost estimates or 

delays in schedule estimates in the implementation of policies, procedures, and 

activities related to operational test and evaluation, and to take appropriate action 

to ensure that the conduct of operational test and evaluation activities do not 

unnecessarily impede program schedules or increase program costs. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to conduct a review of the operational test and evaluation 

processes and activities of the Department of Defense and to report the results of 

that review to the congressional defense committees not later than March 15, 2015. 

Section 903—Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment

This section would establish the position of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment. The position would be appointed by the 

President, by and with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The committee 

recognizes that the responsibilities of this organization already exist within the 

Department of Defense, reporting to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. The creation of this Assistant Secretary of Defense 

position shall ensure no net growth in personnel or resources for the organization, 

and shall not be exempt from any directed headquarters reductions.

Section 904—Requirement for Congressional Briefing before Divesting of Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service Functions

This section would prohibit the transfer of financial management functions 

out of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) until the Secretary of 

Defense privdes a briefing to the congressional defense committees on a transfer 

plan and certifies the transfer would reduce costs, increase efficiencies, maintain 

the timeline for auditability of financial statements, and maintain the roles and 

missions of DFAS.

Section 905—Combatant Command Efficiency Plan

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to 

combine the back office functions of two or more combatant commands and to 

submit a report on the plan to the congressional defense committees within 120 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would define the term 

"back office functions" as those including, but not limited to, the administrative and 

support functions of a headquarters of a combatant command. This section would 

also limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs Of Staff, provides the briefing on combatant command headquarters 

personnel and resource requirements that was directed in the committee report (H. 

213
Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014.

The committee believes a focus by the Department of Defense on 

consolidating or eliminating organizations and personnel that perform similar 

functions and missions, such as administrative and support functions, can 

contribute to cost savings and efficiencies within the Department. 

Section 906—Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic Combatant Commands to 

Four by Fiscal Year 2020

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a nonbinding plan to reduce the number of geographic combatant commands to no more 

than four by the end of fiscal year 2020 and submit a report to Congress within 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the plan, the feasibility and risks 

of the plan, and any recommendations to implement the plan the Secretary 

considers appropriate.

Section 907—Office of Net Assessment

This section would establish the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a new 

section in chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, that includes a requirement for 

the Secretary of Defense to establish a separate, dedicated program element for 

ONA in the annual budget materials submitted to Congress. This section would also 

include a statement of policy that the office be maintained as an independent 

organization within the Department of Defense responsible for developing and 

coordinating net assessments of the military capabilities and potential of the United 

States in comparison with the military capabilities and potential of other countries 

or groups of countries, so as to identify emerging or future threats or opportunities 

for the United States.

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense plans to realign ONA 

under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. While the committee 

supports the Secretary's objective to have ONA's long-range comparative 

assessments inform and influence the Department's overall strategy and policy, it 

remains concerned that such a realignment may ultimately impact the freedom and 

flexibility of the office to examine long-range challenges and non-policy specific 

matters that may not always be in sync with the priorities and responsibilities of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Furthermore, the committee remains 

unconvinced that such a realignment would produce any meaningful cost savings or 

efficiencies that the Secretary hopes to achieve. 

This section would therefore preserve the independence of the office, ensure 

that the head of the office reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, and create 

greater visibility into its budget. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends 

an increase in funds for the office. 

214
Section 908—Amendments Relating to Organization and Management of the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense

This section would incorporate a proposal from the Department of Defense 

to make several amendments to title 10, United States Code, relating to the 

organization and

management of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Section 909—Periodic Review of Department of Defense Management Headquarters

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan and 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act to implement a periodic review and analysis of the 

Department of Defense personnel requirements for management headquarters and 

submit the required plan to the congressional defense committees. The section 

would also modify the status report requirements in section 904(d)(2) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

SUBTITLE B—TOTAL FORCE MANAGEMENT

Section 911—Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce Plan Relating to Senior 

Management, Functional, and Technical Workforce of the Department of Defense

This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United States Code, to 

modify the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to prepare a biennial Strategic 

Workforce Plan so as to cover "the senior management workforce" of the 

Department of Defense rather than the "senior management, functional, and 

technical workforce (including scientists and engineers)."

Section 912—Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General Report on Inventory

This section would amend section 803(c) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), as amended by section 

951(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113–66), by striking ‘‘2013, 2014, and 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘and 2013’’. The effect of 

this amendment would be to repeal the requirement for the Comptroller General of 

the United States to report on efforts by the Department of Defense to compile and 

review the Department's inventory of contract services within 270 days after such 

inventory has been submitted to Congress. While the Comptroller General's work in 

this area has been beneficial, the committee notes that there are other existing 

mandates for reviews and reporting requirements regarding how the Department's 

inventory of contract services is used to inform workforce and budget decisions. 

Section 913—Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based on Determinations 

of Cost-Efficiency

215
This section would require that when assigning a new Department of 

Defense work requirement to military or civilian personnel, or to a contractor, the 

assignment shall be made based on a determination of which workforce can perform 

the work in the most cost-efficient manner except in cases where the new 

requirement is inherently governmental, closely associated with inherently 

governmental functions, critical, or required by law to be performed by military 

personnel or civilian personnel.

Section 914—Prohibition on Conversion of Functions Performed by Civilian or 

Contractor Personnel to Performance by Military Personnel

This section would clarify when military personnel can be used to perform 

functions that are currently being performed by civilian or contractor personnel and 

would codify relevant Department of Defense instruction and policy.

Section 915—Notification of Compliance with Section Relating to Procurement of 

Services 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure compliance 

with existing law regarding appropriate manpower performance and provide 

written notification of compliance to the congressional defense committees. This 

section would also require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct 

a review of such a notification and report to the congressional defense committees 

within 120 days after the date of the provision of such a notification.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 921—Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement of Costs of Activities 

for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for 

Security Studies

This section would amend section 941(b)(1) of the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (10 U.S.C. 184) by extending for 5 

years, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the reimbursement of costs 

for certain nongovernmental personnel at the Department of Defense Regional 

Centers for Security Studies.

Section 923—Authority to Require Employees of the Department of Defense and 

Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to Occupy Quarters on a 

Rental Basis while Performing Official Travel

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to direct the use of 

adequate Government quarters, or the use of Government-leased quarters or 

lodging arranged through a Government program, by civilian employees and 

Uniformed Service members, while performing official travel. Section 5911(e) of title 

216
5, United States Code, currently states that an agency head may not require an 

employee or member of a Uniformed Service to occupy quarters on a rental basis 

unless the agency head determines that necessary service cannot be rendered or 

that Government property cannot adequately be protected otherwise. This change 

to title 5 is intended to provide travel cost savings and other benefits to the 

Department of Defense, without significantly reducing the quality and security of 

lodging for civilian employees and service members performing official travel.

Section 924—Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for Privately Owned 

Automobiles of Government Employees and Members of the Uniformed Services

This section would establish a rate that provides adequate compensation for 

employees who perform temporary duty travel. It would apply to all Federal 

Government employees and members of the Uniformed Services traveling on behalf 

of the Federal Government in a privately owned automobile.

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014

The committee recognizes the United States presence and mission in the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan after December 31, 2014, has yet to be announced. 

The committee notes that the production of poppy and the resultant drug trade 

continue to increase and pose a threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan. 

In recent years, Afghanistan has produced approximately 90 percent of the world's 

poppy crop, and the level of profit from these crops continues to rise. These profits 

directly fund the terrorist activities of Al Qaeda and other dangerous groups that 

threaten both Afghanistan and the United States. The October 2013 Department of 

Defense Post-2014 Counternarcotics Strategy for Afghanistan and the Region states 

that, "Post-2014, it is imperative that the Department continue to work with interagency and international partners to disrupt the flow of illicit drug money to 

terrorists and insurgents, and reduce the corrosive and corruptive impact of illicit

drug money on regional stability."

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to include the 

combating illicit narcotics and illicit trafficking mission in its post-2014 

Afghanistan presence and mission requirements. The committee believes the 

Department's mission to combat narcotics in Afghanistan is an enduring mission 

that must be continued with our international partners to sustain security and 

stability in Afghanistan.

217
National Guard Counterdrug Programs

The committee acknowledges the significant role the National Guard plays 

in combating illicit narcotics within the homeland. The demand for narcotics in the 

United States continues to fund transnational criminal organizations globally. The 

drug trade breeds instability on the Nation's border and throughout the country. 

Through a variety of programs to include education, training, and analysis, the 

National Guard provides necessary support to countering drugs and their threat to 

national security. 

In a fiscally constrained environment, prioritizing limited resources is 

essential. Therefore, the committee encourages the National Guard to prioritize its 

counterdrug programs to maximize the use of limited funds. The committee is 

aware that the National Guard uses a threat-based resource model to determine the 

highest at-risk States and regions of the United States for which to focus resources. 

The committee believes the National Guard should leverage this model to prioritize 

its counterdrug programs and resources. The committee also encourages the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 

to continue evaluating how to best use limited counterdrug resources to more 

effectively combat illicit narcotics within the homeland. 

U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing

The committee continues to be discouraged by asset resourcing in U.S. 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). In particular, the committee is concerned that 

a shortfall in maritime, aerial, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) assets in the region hampers SOUTHCOM's ability to combat the illicit 

networking of drugs, weapons, humans, and money, and affects security and 

stability along the southern border of the United States. 

While the Office of National Drug Control Policy's whole-of-government 

goal is to remove 40 percent of narcotics transiting to the United States through 

SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility (AOR) by fiscal year 2015, the committee notes 

that this goal is unlikely to be met, in large part because resources allocated to the 

region to address this goal are continuing to diminish. In testimony before the 

committee in February 2014, the commander of SOUTHCOM expressed his concern 

about U.S. asset shortfalls in the region to meet the command's assigned missions 

derived from this whole-of-government goal, among others. Specifically, the 

commander testified that SOUTHCOM requires a 16.0 ship presence to support the 

command's assigned missions. In contrast, the commander estimates that, in fiscal 

year 2015, SOUTHCOM will maintain a sporadic 3.0 ship presence. Similarly, the 

commander of SOUTHCOM, before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 

March 2014, estimated that in fiscal year 2015, the command will satisfy only 5 

percent of its ISR requirements associated with combating transnational organized 

crime.

The committee recognizes that the cost of combating illicit drug and other 

networks is exponentially lower, and the associated violence levels minimal, outside 

218
the United States as compared to inside the Nation. Therefore, in order to more 

effectively interdict narcotics and combat other illicit networks and transnational 

criminal organizations in the region, the Department of Defense must prioritize the 

detection and monitoring mission in SOUTHCOM. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by February 1, 2015, on the Department's updated strategy to 

combat illicit drug networks, other illicit networks, and transnational criminal 

organizations, in the SOUTHCOM AOR. The strategy should include an 

identification of requirements, assessment of capability gaps and shortfalls, 

assessment of assets and resources necessary to address the gaps and shortfalls, 

and plan for allocating those assets and resources. Lastly, the strategy should 

include an assessment of and cost estimate for alternative platforms, including 

maritime and aerial platforms, that could also satisfy the command's detection and 

monitoring requirements. 

OTHER MATTERS

Army Force Structure

The committee believes the Army's current requirement to further reduce 

planned end strength and force structure by fiscal year 2019 is a direct consequence 

of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The committee notes the 

Army’s current plan would reduce the Active Component end strength from a 

wartime high of 570,000 soldiers to 450,000 soldiers with a potential further 

reduction to 420,000 soldiers absent repeal of sequestration-level budget caps in 

fiscal year 2016. 

As a result, the committee understands the Army is also reducing active 

brigade combat teams from 45 to 32 and divesting almost 700 aircraft, as well as 

eliminating 3 combat aviation brigades. The Army’s plan would also reduce Army 

National Guard end strength from 358,000 soldiers to 335,000 soldiers with a 

potential further reduction to 315,000 soldiers absent repeal of sequestration-level 

budget caps. The committee understands the Army National Guard would be 

required to divest its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, effectively transferring 

these assets to the Active Component, as well as divest its OH-58 Kiowa Warriors 

Scout Reconnaissance helicopters. However, the committee understands the Army 

National Guard would receive 111 UH-60 Black Hawk L and M model utility 

helicopters from the Active Component to improve the Guard’s capabilities to 

perform title 32 crisis response and defense support to civil authority missions. 

Therefore, the committee expects that those units that transfer AH-64 Apache 

attack helicopters to the active Army will receive priority for modernized Black 

Hawks which should be at a minimum in the UH-60 Black Hawk L model utility 

helicopter configuration.

In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of the Army and Chief of 

Staff of the Army officially stated their concerns regarding the potential inability of 

219
the U.S. Army to meet the requirements of the current National Military Strategy 

and execute operational plans absent a repeal of sequestration-level budget caps in 

fiscal year 2016. The committee remains concerned by this testimony and believes 

that in order to mitigate the increased strategic risk generated by the Budget 

Control Act of 2011, the Army is being forced to reduce end strength to preserve 

near-term readiness through the Future Years Defense Program. The committee is 

concerned with the planned reductions and realignments the Army has proposed, 

specifically the greater reductions in Active Component end strength and brigade 

combat teams, as well as the proposed aviation realignment of combat aviation 

aircraft. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that 

would require a Comptroller General of the United States review of the methods the 

Army and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation used to determine the future force structure of the Army, to include the 

appropriate mix between Active, Guard, and Reserve Component forces. The 

committee also recommends increases in funding for procurement and operation 

and maintenance accounts to accelerate the conversions of UH-60A to UH-60L 

Black Hawk helicopters, and also recommends additional funding to procure six 

additional UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address Army National Guard 

modernization shortfalls. Finally, the committee recommends additional funding 

for operation and maintenance readiness accounts to increase overall training 

opportunities and increase depot-level maintenance in the Army National Guard.

Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts

The committee recognizes the challenges posed to the Department of 

Defense in identifying and mitigating the presence of counterfeit parts in its supply 

chain. Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112-81) was an important step in establishing policy, guidance, and 

compliance reporting to move the Department forward in addressing the detection 

and mitigation of counterfeit parts, including microelectronics. The committee 

believes that it is important to take stock of the actions that have been taken to 

date and to evaluate their effectiveness. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to the House Committee 

on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, assessing the approaches currently taken 

to mitigate counterfeit parts in the supply system. The briefing should include the 

following:

(1) A cost benefit assessment of current compliance and technology 

measures for mitigating counterfeit parts, including microelectronics, in the supply 

chain, and requirements for deoxyribonucleic acid authentication marking. This 

assessment should include costs associated with program implementation and the 

scope of components that are being addressed by these measures;

220
(2) An assessment of the costs and benefits of expanding these measures to 

additional classes of technology, which have been deemed at high risk for 

counterfeiting;

(3) An analysis of the quantity of alerts and problem advisories reporting 

counterfeit electronic parts in the Government Industry Data Exchange Program 

since January 2011 that were a result of the use of the measures described in item 

(1) above; and

(4) A description and analysis of the Department of Defense's efforts to 

collaborate and coordinate with the defense industrial base on the development of 

standards associated with the prevention, detection, and responses to the threat of 

counterfeit electronic parts in the military supply system.

Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop and demonstrate cargo 

unmanned aerial systems to support logistics, sustainment, and re-supply missions 

in intra-theater operations where the use of high-value manned aircraft or ground 

convoys to resupply troops is uneconomical, dangerous or accomplished with 

difficulty. The committee is also aware that since December 2011, the Department 

of Defense has been conducting a Military User Assessment (MUA) of unmanned 

cargo helicopters for supply missions in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and 

that this MUA was the result of a merit based competitive selection. However, the 

committee is concerned that a Department of Defense program of record and 

associated funding has not been established to transition this advanced 

demonstration program into a fielded program of record. Therefore, the committee 

encourages the Department to implement a program of record for this unmanned 

cargo helicopter system as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget submission. In 

addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the 

House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, on its plans to 

potentially create cargo unmanned aerial systems programs of record.

Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Antiterrorism and Force 

Protection Efforts

The committee recognizes that there have been an increasing number of 

insider attacks on U.S. military bases in recent years. In November of 2009, 13 

people were killed and 43 others wounded when a soldier opened fire at Fort Hood, 

Texas. The committee notes that following this shooting at Fort Hood, the 

Secretary of Defense established the Department of Defense Independent Review 

Related to Fort Hood. The review board presented its findings and 

recommendations to the Secretary of Defense in January 2010. In completing its 

review, the review board limited the depth of its study in certain areas, including 

force protection roles and responsibilities and threat assessment programs, based 

on the Secretary of Defense’s stated intent to have the military departments 

conduct in-depth follow-on reviews. However, the committee is concerned that more 

221
incidents have occurred since this incident, including a shooting at the Washington 

Navy Yard in September of 2013, as well as a second shooting at Fort Hood in April 

of 2014. 

The committee recognizes that insider attacks, such as these, pose a 

different challenge to Department of Defense's traditional antiterrorism and force 

protection efforts that address external threats. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of 

the inside-the-wire, antiterrorism and force protection efforts of the Department of 

Defense, and submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 

30, 2015. The review should address the following areas:

(1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has implemented the 

recommendations identified in the Department’s Independent Review Related to 

Fort Hood; 

(2) The status of the follow-on studies to be completed by the military 

departments and to what extent have any recommendations from these studies 

been implemented; 

(3) Additional actions taken by individual installations, and the extent to 

which these efforts have been shared with other installations; and

(4) The extent to which the Department’s current antiterrorism and force 

protection policies, guidance, and standards address insider threats.

Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction

The committee remains concerned about the threats posed by weapons of 

mass destruction (WMD) to the safety and security of the United States. Efforts to 

track and counter WMDs exist within a significant number of Federal agencies. 

The committee recognizes that counter-WMD missions outside of U.S. borders 

reside within the purview of the Department of Defense. However within U.S. 

borders, these missions fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

The committee notes that as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense 

Review, the combating WMD strategy of the Department of Defense is to eliminate 

WMD threats prior to entering the United States; however, the committee 

recognizes that this may not always be possible. The committee is concerned about 

the eventuality wherein a WMD device crosses these jurisdictional boundaries, in 

particular, in regards to the coordination efforts between the Department of 

Defense and local, state, and Federal authorities. The committee believes that in 

the case of such an occurrence, the cooperation between the Department of Defense 

and other Government agencies should be absolute in order to guarantee the 

elimination of WMD threats. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2014, on 

the coordination efforts between the Department of Defense, the intelligence 

community, and local, state, and Federal authorities for tracking and combating 

weapons of mass destruction entering the United States. The briefing should 

222
include details on the authority structures in place within the Department of 

Defense to facilitate the coordination efforts, as well as examples of how these 

structures would operate in a realistic threat scenario.

Cross-Service Wargaming Capability

The committee recognizes that the information and insights gained from 

wargaming are uniquely valuable for investigating processes, organizing ideas, 

exploring issues, explaining implications and identifying questions. Historically, 

wargames have been instrumental in driving doctrinal and technological change, 

such as those conducted by the Naval War College during the interwar period 

leading up to World War II, which contributed to advances in amphibious warfare 

and utilization of carrier aviation. The committee believes that the Department of 

Defense should continue to invest in a robust cross-service advanced wargaming 

capacity to inform Department strategy and doctrine in a fiscally constrained 

environment.

Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and Conventional Munitions 

Assistance Program

The committee notes that the budget request contained $5.8 million for the 

Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program within 

operation and maintenance, Defense-wide. Elsewhere in this Act, a related section 

would modify the reporting requirements and definitions contained in section 407 of 

title 10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian demining assistance and 

stockpiled conventional munitions assistance. The goal of the HMA program is to 

reduce the adverse effects of land mines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) 

on noncombatants while advancing geographic combatant commander theater 

campaign plans and national security objectives. The committee is aware that the 

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) office within the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency (DTRA), which has worked in conjunction with the HMA program, has been 

discontinued and will no longer be available to assist the Department of Defense 

with the removal of conventional weapons, and physical security and stockpile 

management of at-risk abandoned stockpiles of dangerous explosive ordnance, small 

arms and light weapons, and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The 

committee notes the excellent work that DTRA's SALW office has done throughout 

the years in support of geographic combatant commander requirements. The 

committee understands that some of the technical support previously provided by 

DTRA's SALW office may be provided by the Department of Defense Humanitarian 

Demining Training Center (HDTC) and may be in addition to amounts available 

under section 407 of title 10, United States Code, for such expenses. While the 

committee is supportive of this role for the HDTC, the committee remains concerned 

about a potential gap in providing technical assistance for the elimination of 

abandoned or at-risk stockpiles of conventional weapons, including MANPADS, 

223
which pose a grave threat to United States national security interests, particularly 

through Africa and the Middle East. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine 

Action program to engage with international partners and allies when practical, 

including allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to ensure a 

coordinated and holistic approach to achieve geographic combatant commander 

security needs. As such, the committee recommends $10.8 million, an increase of 

$5.0 million, to ensure sufficient resources to address these concerns, for 

conventional weapons assistance including MANPADS. 

Department of Defense Installation Security

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense conducted internal 

and independent reviews of the security programs, policies, and procedures 

regarding security at military installations following the tragic shooting at the 

Washington Navy Yard. The committee notes that while these reviews include 

findings and recommendations related to the physical access control process, 

physical security infrastructure capabilities, and force protection, the Secretary of 

Defense’s memorandum dated March 18, 2014, only approved the implementation of 

four recommendations, specifically to “implement continued evaluation”, “establish 

a DOD [Department of Defense] Insider Threat Management Analysis Center,” 

“centralize authority, accountability, and programmatic integration under a single 

Principal Staff Assistant,” and “resource and expedite deployment of the Identity 

Management Enterprise Services Architecture.” 

While the committee believes these are important steps to improve the 

security of military installations, the committee is concerned that not enough 

emphasis has been placed on improving the programs, policies, procedures, and 

infrastructure supporting the physical security of installations. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House 

Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2014, that addresses the following:

(1) An update on the Defense Installation Access Controls Joint Capability 

Technology Demonstration, and whether an opportunity exists to leverage 

commercially available tools into its architecture;

(2) The frequency of installation anti-terrorism plans and local 

vulnerability assessments, and the process for mitigating or accepting identified 

risks;

(3) Trends or identified shortfalls in equipment, personnel, training, or 

infrastructure that directly support the physical security of military facilities and 

installations and have been validated by Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability 

Assessments;

(4) Any changes that may be necessary to the physical security and antiterrorism/force protection policies and procedures for vehicles and personnel 

entering military installations and facilities; and

224
(5) Any authority gaps that may require legislation to strengthen the 

physical security of military installations and facilities. 

Economic Warfare Policy

The committee continues to be concerned by the possibility of adversaries 

utilizing economic warfare as a means to undermine U.S. military advantages. As 

noted in the committee report (H. Rept 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, "[t]he committee is concerned that our 

adversaries understand this dependency, and are developing means to attack our 

military strength by attacking our economy."

In making those observations, the committee noted the findings of a 2009 

report from the Irregular Warfare Support Program titled “Economic Warfare: 

Risks and Responses,” which offered some plausible scenarios about how economic 

warfare might be used against the United States. That report also made a number 

of recommendations which have yet to be given serious attention by the Department 

of Defense or the national security establishment, including:

(1) Recognize that protecting the American economy and industrial 

capability is a top defense priority that should be properly funded and supported; 

(2) Thoroughly research the hypothesis of economic warfare described from 

an economic defense perspective; and

(3) Create a specialized threat finance unit to develop and implement 

appropriate countermeasures to emerging economic warfare threats.

Since that report was released, the committee has become increasingly 

aware of the potentialities that cyber-enabled technologies add to these economic 

and financial threats. For example, the large-scale theft of intellectual property in 

sectors of strategic importance to the United States poses a direct challenge to U.S. 

technological superiority, but also a long-term economic pressure as we are forced to 

develop countermeasures against our own stolen defense technologies and 

potentially lose market advantage in some non-military technology sectors. The 

presence of large swaths of the financial sector without an adequate monitoring 

framework that could be exploited by terrorist or nation-state, such as dark trading 

pools, credit default swaps, sovereign wealth funds, naked short selling, or 

algorithmic trading, may be a significant blind spot for the United States.

Given the pervasive nature of these threats, and the apparent lack of clear 

policy guidance or organization to address these issues, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the 

House of Representatives by August 1, 2015, on the Department’s assessment of 

these activities. The report should include:

(1) Articulation of what sorts of activities amount to economic warfare upon 

the United States;

(2) Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Department of 

Defense in providing indications and warning of, or protection against, acts of 

economic warfare;

225
(3) The current status of authorities and command structure related to 

economic warfare; and

(4) Recommendations for improving the Department's capabilities, 

authorities, or command structure, as well as improving its coordination and 

support for interagency partners in dealing with economic warfare threats.

Force Structure Assessment

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy conducted a Force 

Structure Assessment in 2012 that determined the proposed composition of Navy 

surface and subsurface vessels. This latest Force Structure Assessment determined 

that an overall Navy fleet of 306 ships would be necessary to support the overall 

defense strategy. Since the release of the 2012 Force Structure Assessment, the 

Secretary of Defense released the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review which 

determined, in part, the requirement for 11 aircraft carriers and 92 large surface 

combatants. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to update 

the most recent Force Structure Assessment and to submit it to the congressional 

defense committees by March 1, 2015.

Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account

The General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office, 

or GAO) noted in a 1986 report (NSIAD-86-173) that the purpose of the Foreign 

Currency Fluctuation, Defense (FCF,D) account is to provide a mechanism for 

stabilizing the portion of operation and maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel 

funding used for purchasing foreign goods and services. The FCF,D provides funds 

to O&M when foreign exchange rates are unfavorable (when losses occur) and 

receives funds from O&M when the rates are favorable (when gains occur). This 

ensures, as GAO stated, that "any given O&M appropriation for the purchase of 

foreign goods and services will purchase the budgeted amount of goods and services, 

regardless of the gains and losses of the dollar caused by currency fluctuations." 

Based on the rationale for the genesis of the FCF,D account, the committee believes 

that when foreign currency rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the 

current balance of funds in the FCF,D account should be considered.

When the FCF,D account has a balance close to or at the cap of $970.0 

million, the committee believes the budgeted rates should be adjusted to generate 

losses within the account, thereby drawing down the FCF,D account balance. This 

would reduce the O&M budget requirement for foreign goods and services, allowing 

excess funds to be allocated to other readiness programs without changing the 

budget topline. However, as the FCF,D account realizes a net gain, these gains 

remain in O&M and are used for purposes not originally requested in the annual 

budget submission to Congress. Without visibility on these transactions through a 

reprogramming request, the committee cannot determine whether funds remaining 

in the FCF,D account are being used to reduce current readiness shortfalls. The 

committee notes that based on current foreign currency rates for fiscal year 2014, 

226
GAO estimates that the O&M accounts will realize a net gain of $154.7 million 

through the FCF,D, and the Military Personnel accounts will realize a net gain of 

$197.3 million.

The committee understands the difference between foreign currency and 

unobligated balances. Unobligated balances from O&M and Military Personnel 

appropriations that have expired for less than 2 years can be moved into the 

account to re-establish the FCF,D balance. The committee notes that from 

November 2012 to November 2013, unobligated balances for fiscal year 2012 O&M 

funding increased by more than $860.0 million. These funds, if left unobligated, 

should be transferred to the FCF,D account, and future foreign currency rates 

adjusted to reduce the balance and increase funding to readiness.

The committee recommends the Department of Defense take into 

consideration the current balance within the FCF,D account when determining 

foreign currency levels in upcoming budget submissions. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends both a reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2015 as 

shown in section 4301 of this Act and a reduction in the Military Personnel budget 

for fiscal year 2015 as shown in section 4401 of this Act, and realigns those funds to 

support higher priority defense requirements throughout the Department.

Information Management Systems for Response Forces

The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau Weapons of Mass 

Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) currently field a system called the 

CST Information Management System, to provide a common operating picture, 

promote information-sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency situation, 

and support the CST mission of assisting and advising first responders and 

facilitating communications with other Federal resources. The committee is also 

aware that in the National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear 

(CBRN) Response Enterprise, there are also other capabilities such as the Unified 

Command Suite and the Joint Incident Command Suite. Because each of these tools 

support different echelons of command with different but related capabilities, it is 

vital that there be a comprehensive strategy for how to rationalize the current suite 

of tools, and move forward with a common, interoperable, enterprise information 

management solution.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2015, on a 

comprehensive strategy for developing and fielding an information management 

architecture for the Department's CBRN Response Enterprise. This strategy should 

define the information architecture needs for the CBRN Response Enterprise as 

well as its plans to achieve enterprise-wide data interoperability for all operating 

elements within the Response Enterprise.

Inspector General's Report on Over-Classification of National Security Information

227
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015, on the status and 

implementation of the recommendations found in the Department of Defense Office 

of the Inspector General’s report, "DOD Evaluation of Over-Classification of 

National Security Information" (DODIG-2013-142). The Secretary's report should 

include specific actions taken to implement the recommendations contained in the 

report and timeframes for implementing the remaining recommendations.

Internet Governance

The committee is aware of a recent proposal by the Department of 

Commerce to start the process of transferring the remaining Department of 

Commerce-managed Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the 

global multi-stakeholder community. The committee is also aware that such a 

transition is supported by the Administration, many in industry, and the 

international community. 

The committee urges caution in such discussions to understand the full 

ramifications of any transition of responsibility, since the United States has played 

an important role in overseeing the stability of the Internet. As noted in recent 

testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 

"Any pledge, commitment, or oath made by the current ICANN [Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] leadership is not binding unless 

there is some accountability mechanism in place to back up that promise. Until 

now, the United States has served that role. If the U.S. Government is no longer 

providing that stability, an alternative mechanism is needed to ensure that ICANN 

is held accountable to the public interest." Additionally, as this testimony points 

out, "U.S. oversight has served as a deterrent to stakeholders, including certain 

foreign countries, who might otherwise choose to interfere with ICANN’s operations 

or manipulate the Domain Name Servers for political purposes. For example, a 

country may want to censor a top-level domain name or have ICANN impose certain 

restrictions on domain name registries or registrars."

Because of the Department of Defense's equities in a secure and 

transparent Internet governance system, the committee believes it is important to 

ensure that any new Internet governance construct includes protections for the 

legacy .mil domains and maintains the associated Internet protocol numbers. 

Furthermore, the committee believes that any negotiations that occur should 

include verifiable measures for maintaining a separation between the policymaking 

and technical operation of root-zone management functions and that such 

protections should be a red line in interagency discussions and U.S. Government 

positions.

Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and Capabilities

The committee recognizes that illicit financial networks are critical 

enablers to destabilizing networks and transnational criminal organizations, 

228
including terrorist, narco-traffickers, human smugglers, proliferators and actors 

seeking to avoid sanctions. The Department of Defense invested heavily in the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to create counter threat 

finance capabilities to detect and combat such illicit activity. With the draw-down in 

Afghanistan and the pivot to Asia, the committee is concerned that the Department 

might begin to divest itself of such counter threat finance capabilities in favor of 

traditional military capabilities. However, the committee believes such capabilities 

will continue to be of value to combat threats to our national security, including 

state actors avoiding sanctions or maintain black market economic activities. The 

committee also believes such capabilities can be useful in supporting surveillance 

and indications and warning for national economic threats, such as attempts to 

perpetrate economic warfare or sabotage. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives by February 15, 2015, on an inventory 

and sustainment plan for Department of Defense counter-threat finance programs 

and capabilities.

Military Auxiliary Radio System

The committee continues to support the Military Auxiliary Radio System 

(MARS), a Department of Defense-sponsored auxiliary organization of volunteer 

amateur radio operators who provide contingency communications support to the 

Department of Defense and U.S. Government operations. In addition to providing 

an important back-up to conventional communications that is potentially vulnerable 

to disruption or degradation, MARS can play a vital role in helping to ensure 

continuity of Government and continuity of operations in the event of a natural or 

man-made disaster. Given these advantages of MARS, the committee is concerned 

by the Department’s lack of action in fully utilizing this capability. In the 

committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee encouraged the Department 

to clarify and maintain policy oversight of MARS within the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and to update Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4650.02 

entitled “Mars Auxiliary Radio System (MARS)” with respect to the 

disestablishment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks 

and Information Integration. The committee notes, however, that these actions 

have not yet occurred.

The committee is aware of efforts to revise and update DODI 4650.02, 

which establishes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for MARS. However, the 

revision is not yet complete. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to ensure that any rewrite of the DODI 4650.02 effectively integrates 

MARS into the Department of Defense’s emergency communications plan; 

consolidates MARS operations through appointment of an individual MARS 

manager to ensure standardization of operating policies and procedures among the 

three MARS branches within the Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine Corps; and 

229
directs the service secretaries and geographic combatant commanders to integrate 

MARS more fully into their operational planning and activities. In addition, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the Committee on Armed 

Services of the House of Representatives by August 30, 2014, on the status of the 

revision of DODI 4650.02.

Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies

The committee notes the Defense Science Board (DSB) released a report in 

January 2014 titled, "Assessment of Nuclear Monitoring and Verification 

Technologies." The Board took a comprehensive approach to evaluating the current 

U.S. Government framework for monitoring nuclear proliferation. It provided 

recommendations to improve existing tools and capabilities, and identified new 

approaches to traditional monitoring means. The committee notes the report's 

conclusion that "monitoring for proliferation should be a top national security 

objective, but one for which the nation is not yet organized or fully equipped to 

address."

The DSB report included recommendations for the Department of Defense, 

the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Council. 

The report identified the need for a common picture of the growing nuclear 

proliferation threat. The DSB report recommended addressing the threat through 

coordinated funding and authorities; improving the U.S. Government tools to 

monitor, detect and assess the problem; and improving the national testing 

capability by allowing U.S. Government agencies to experiment and adopt best 

practices and technologies. 

The committee recognizes the importance and benefits of implementing the 

DSB report recommendations, including but not limited to addressing the lack of 

coordinated funding and authorities across all the agencies. The committee believes 

the integration and alignment of funding, authorities, and efforts is key to 

improving monitoring and detection capabilities within a comprehensive national 

framework. The committee is encouraged that the Administration has begun to

address the DSB recommendations and understands that the Administration is 

conducting an assessment of progress made thus far and remaining gaps to inform 

the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The committee expects both the Department of 

Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration to keep the committee 

informed of each agency's respective progress in the aforementioned areas to ensure 

that sufficient focus and investments are made to improve monitoring and 

verification tools, capabilities, and approaches to address future proliferation 

threats.

Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification Material

Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit with the annual 

230
budget request, a consolidated budget display that describes and justifies all 

programs and activities in the appropriations accounts for operation and 

maintenance as well as research, development, test, and evaluation that are 

associated with the development and procurement of personnel protective 

equipment. The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense has failed to 

comply with this requirement.

The committee remains concerned that after 12 years of war and billions of 

dollars spent to develop, produce, and field the best available individual personnel 

protection equipment, such as body armor and helmets, the Department of Defense 

should not lose momentum in its search for better protection at lower weight and 

lower cost for individual soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. The committee 

continues to believe that one of the important lessons of Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that research, development, and 

acquisition (RDA) of improved ballistic protection for military personnel must 

anticipate, not react, to likely threats. In this regard, the committee remains 

determined to have sufficient visibility to allow for comprehensive oversight of the 

Department's RDA efforts as reflected in the annual budget request accompanied by 

spending estimates projected over the subsequent 5-year time frame or Future 

Years Defense Program.

Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships

In March 2014, the Navy proposed to reduce its operational force structure 

of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and amphibious dock landing ships (LSD). The Navy 

plans to take 14 ships out of their normal deployment rotations and place them in 

long-term phased modernization and maintenance to extend the expected service 

life of the ships. According to the Navy, this plan will allow it to retain the 11 

cruisers and 3 amphibious ships through the 2030s and into the 2040s. 

The committee is concerned about the Navy’s plan to reduce its battle force 

structure by 14 ships, especially in light of shortfalls in the force structure 

necessary to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy. 

Additionally, the committee notes that while the Navy places Military Sealift 

Command ships in reduced operating status, or ROS, on a regular basis, surface 

combatant and amphibious ships are more complex and their crews need more 

training before they can be certified as being ready for deployment and major 

combat operations. Further, the Navy states it has not reactivated any surface 

combatant ships from long-term protective storage since the 1980s.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, on the 

extent to which the Navy has identified:

 (1) The potential costs and cost savings associated with the Navy’s phased 

modernization plan for the 11 cruisers and 3 LSDs; 

 (2) The operational benefits and risks associated with this long-term plan; 

and

231
 (3) The costs, savings, benefits, and risks of any alternate plans that were 

considered before putting forth the Navy's current plan.

Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military Education Concerning Nuclear 

Deterrence Operations and Policy

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee stated its views on 

the importance of nuclear deterrence education in the U.S. armed services. The 

committee referenced the 2008 Schlesinger report on Nuclear Weapons 

Management, specifically, the phase-two report findings that included several 

recommendations, including the following recommendation concerning professional 

military education of military officers: 

“The Secretary of Defense should direct a comprehensive review of the 

curricula of all academies, service schools, and senior-level professional military 

education institutions and provide recommendations for strengthening the 

understanding of deterrence theory, strategy and policy on the part of military 

leaders through revised or new courses, research, and analysis....”

In January 2014, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum aimed at 

addressing multiple personnel failures in both training and doctrine that 

jeopardized the nuclear deterrence mission, including widespread cheating on tests 

and other gross negligence on the part of nuclear officers. The committee is 

encouraged by the Secretary’s announcement of several proactive measures to begin 

addressing personnel failures within the nuclear enterprise and looks forward to 

receiving the Secretary’s recommendations following an independent review.

In light of the Schlesinger report from 2008, which highlights shortcomings 

of nuclear deterrence education in the armed services, as well as the Secretary's 

memo from January 2014, which acknowledges operational and training 

deficiencies among our nuclear officers, the committee recognizes the urgent need 

for corrective actions. Absent a complete sea-change within the armed services on 

the importance of nuclear deterrence, embarrassing performance mistakes will 

continue to occur. Therefore, the committee believes the Secretary should 

take appropriate steps to refocus the military member education to ensure it is 

adequately covering, across-the-board, the essentials of nuclear deterrence policy 

and operations (including such concepts as strategic stability and escalation 

control), including at the National Defense University, the military senior service 

colleges, and the CAPSTONE General and Flag Officer Course.

Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas

The committee notes that the Air Force has completed the report 

"Reconstituting Air Force Weapons Storage Areas" as requested in the committee 

report (S. Rept. 113-44) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014. In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it currently does 

not have a funded project to reconstitute a second Weapons Storage Area (WSA) for 

232
Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs). Additionally, the report states that the Air 

Force's WSA modernization plan, the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative, is 

in the preliminary stages, and indicates that it should be finalized in time to be 

programmed in fiscal year 2016. 

The committee is disappointed that the report did not include an analysis of 

the requirements and costs of reconstituting a second nuclear WSA capability for 

ALCMs and the potential benefits or savings of shortening the recapitalization 

timeframe as requested in S. Rept. 113-44. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to include the following information in the finalized plan 

for the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative: 

(1) A business-case analysis of the requirements and costs for reconstituting 

a second WSA for ALCMs;

(2) An analysis of potential cost-savings and benefits achieved through a 

shortened recapitalization timeframe;

(3) An analysis of potential cost-saving and benefits of advances in physical 

and security surveillance technologies; and 

(4) A validation of requirements.

Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force Recommendations 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112-239) established the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force to 

evaluate the Total Force force structure of the Active, Guard, and Reserve 

Components of the Department of the Air Force.

The committee is grateful for the time, effort, dedication, and expertise of 

all the commissioners and their staff that was applied to the development of the 

commission’s report, despite the burdensome and arcane interpretation and 

application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) to the 

commission's deliberations. The committee thanks the commissioners and staff for 

their many years of distinguished service in key leadership positions of the national 

security apparatus.

The commission was charged with reviewing six distinct areas of the Air 

Force Total Force: (1) current and anticipated requirements of combatant 

commanders; (2) personnel and mission balance between all components of the 

Total Force; (3) capacity and capability of the Total Force for addressing Homeland 

Defense and Disaster Assistance requirements; (4) regular Air Force ability to 

provide capability and capacity to the Reserve Components; (5) operational tempo of 

Total Force components; and (6) the affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, 

capability, and readiness of the Total Force enterprise to meet national security 

requirements. 

 The commission derived 42 distinct recommendations for the President, 

Congress, and the Department of Defense to consider. The committee notes that 

during House-Senate conference deliberations on Public Law 112-239, it was 

acknowledged that the commission’s report would not likely inform the President's 

233
budget submission for fiscal year 2015 because of Department of Defense budget 

process timelines, the date for submission of the commission's report, and late 

enactment of Public Law 112-239, which established the commission. The conferees 

expected the report to be used to inform the Department’s fiscal year 2016 budget 

submission to the Congress in calendar year 2015. 

Air Force leadership testimony this year and recent discussions and 

briefings with Air Force officials indicate that Department of Defense officials are 

evaluating the commission's 42 recommendations to determine whether or not they 

could be viably institutionalized into the Air Force’s Total Force enterprise. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with 

the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees not later than February 2, 2015, that includes the following:

(1) Assesses all 42 recommendations of the commission’s report; 

(2) Establishes an official regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and 

National Guard Bureau position on each recommendation;

(3) Articulates which of the 42 recommendations are incorporated into the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request and fiscal year 2016 Future Years 

Defense Program for the Department of Defense;

(4) Describes the method, measures of effectiveness, and metrics 

established for evaluating each recommendation incorporated into the budget 

request; 

(5) Articulates the interim or final disposition of each recommendation, and 

associated rationale, that is not integrated into the fiscal year 2016 budget request;

(6) Includes dissenting views or opinions of any Air Force Total Force 

component leadership associated with the evaluation and disposition of any 

recommendation of the commission’s report; and

(7) Any additional information that the Secretary of the Air Force or the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau desire to include in the report.

Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against Electromagnetic Pulse

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense maintains a 

military standard for protection of ground-based systems and facilities performing 

critical and time-urgent command, control, communications, computer, and 

intelligence missions from high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP). This 

military standard, known as MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2, details the performance, 

acceptance test, and verification test requirements for identified systems, as well as 

HEMP-unique acceptance and verification test techniques.

The committee is concerned that in the nearly 16 years since this standard 

was last updated, technology may have progressed in ways that have out-paced the 

ability of the standard to ensure protection of designated systems. For example, on 

the offensive side, the capability exists now to buy commercial-off-the-shelf, nonnuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generators to provide EMP effects without the 

need for nuclear devices. On the defensive side, the higher reliance on commercial 

234
information technology hardware, and the interconnection of such systems, results 

in a more complex interaction between specific systems that must be characterized 

to understand the propagation of EMP effects.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2 to determine if the standards are in need of 

updating based on the current and future projected threats, and whether the 

Department needs to revise the frequency for revisiting testing against these 

standards to ensure changes or updates to systems and facilities have not opened 

up new vulnerabilities. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to provide 

a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by 

June 1, 2015, on the results of this review. 

Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United States

The committee is concerned that gaps may exist within the current 

legislative and regulatory authorities for assessing the potential security impact of 

certain real property transactions involving the Federal Government and foreigncontrolled entities within the United States. As a result of some recent 

transactions, entities controlled by foreign interests have acquired access to onshore 

and offshore properties within proximity of Department of Defense facilities, 

ranges, and sensitive operating areas. 

The committee is concerned that such access and the proximities of 

associated properties could combine to negatively affect military readiness and 

national security. The committee notes that other government agencies are not 

required to coordinate with the Department of Defense to assess the potential 

effects of selling or leasing Federal property to foreign-controlled entities seeking to 

operate in the vicinity of military operating areas or installations. The committee 

also notes that the current processes that examine foreign investment in the United 

States do not cover all categories of transactions or projects having the potential to 

adversely affect Department of Defense capabilities and technologies, to include the 

possible exposure of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with other relevant Federal 

departments and agencies as appropriate, to conduct an assessment of the current 

statutory and regulatory framework governing real property transactions involving 

the Federal Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United States as 

they relate to military readiness and national security. The review should address:

(1) The processes by which the Department of Defense and the military 

services assess national security risks posed by foreign investments in Federal 

properties or facilities within proximity of Department of Defense operating areas 

or installations; 

(2) Actions that may be taken by the Department of Defense to mitigate 

such risks; 

(3) The manner in which the Department of Defense coordinates efforts 

with other Federal agencies to monitor proposed real property transactions 

235
involving the Federal Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United 

States; and

(4) Procedures by which the Secretary of Defense could communicate 

concerns to other Federal departments and agencies regarding a proposed real 

property transaction with a foreign-controlled entity due to proximity to 

Department of Defense facilities, ranges, or operating areas. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than January 5, 2015, on the findings of 

the review and on any recommendations that the Secretary may have for improving 

the current statutory and regulatory framework for monitoring real property 

transactions involving the Federal Government and foreign-controlled entities 

within the United States for possible national security implications. Within 90 days 

after the date of submission, the Comptroller General of the United States should 

conduct a sufficiency review of the report submitted by the Secretary and report the 

results of that review to the congressional defense committees.

Spectrum Operations Centers

The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic Command operates the Joint 

Electronic Warfare Center (JEWC) at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. An 

important aspect of the JEWC is its role in connecting electronic warfare (EW) 

resources to the warfighter, and the committee believes that the JEWC provides 

critical operational EW support to the combatant commands, including combat 

operations support, opposing force EW during operational training exercises, Joint 

and North Atlantic Treaty Organization EW reprogramming, joint capabilities 

technology demonstration support and modeling analysis and simulation. 

The committee believes that the capabilities of the JEWC could be 

enhanced by having connections with sister organizations within each of the 

military services to act as spectrum coordination centers that would coordinate 

service-specific resources and needs into the planning and operations of the 

individual service training, exercises, and operations. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military 

departments, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 

June 1, 2015, that describes the use case for such spectrum operations centers, as 

well as a business-case analysis for designating or developing organizations to act in 

such a role. The briefing should examine the relative costs and benefits of 

leveraging existing organizations, as well as how such an organization could 

support full-scope electromagnetic operations, including EW, spectrum 

management, and cyberspace operations.

Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination

The committee is aware that as a result of direction received in the 2010 

Quadrennial Defense Review, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) established 

the Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination (SJFHQ-E) in 2012 with the 

236
purpose of planning, training for, and executing command and control functions 

during weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination missions. However, the 

committee believes that the planning and training mission of the SJFHQ-E appears 

to have significant overlap with the STRATCOM Center for Combating WMD (SCCWMD), which performs a similar function for the larger mission space of combating 

WMD. The committee is also aware that prior to the formation of the SJFHQ-E, the 

command and control functions for elimination missions were performed through 

the establishment of a Joint Task Force for Elimination (JTF-E), which was only 

established if and when it was deemed necessary based on the scope of the 

elimination mission. In addition, the committee notes that in its formation, the 

SJFHQ-E assumed the tasks, missions, and operations of the Joint Elimination 

Coordination Element (JECE) which previously functioned as the core of any JTF-E 

upon its formation. 

The committee believes that combating and eliminating WMD is of the 

utmost importance for national security. However, the committee also believes that 

in the current austere fiscal climate, the additional cost and bureaucracy associated 

with a standing headquarters must provide necessary, differentiable capability. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House 

Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2014, on the added benefit of the 

SJFHQ-E. The briefing should discuss unique value added by the formation of a 

standing headquarters, and compare the current capabilities and associated costs of 

the SJFHQ-E with those capabilities that existed previously among the SCC-WMD 

and the existing JECE.

Transfer of Coast Guard HC-130H Aircraft to the Air Force for U.S. Forest Service 

Equipment Modifications

Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66) addressed the transfer of Department of Defense and U.S. 

Coast Guard aircraft to other U.S. Government departments for wildfire 

suppression and other purposes.

The committee notes that discussions among the Department of the Air 

Force, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of the Army, and the U.S. Forest Service have 

been extremely collaborative and productive as they relate to the complexity of 

transferring aircraft to and between each of the organizations. The committee was 

informed through briefings with officials from these agencies that there was 

ambiguity associated with the word "transfer" in section 1098(a) related to the 

exchange of aircraft between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Air Force. According to 

the General Counsel of the Air Force, the word "transfer" in section 1098(a) would 

require the U.S. Coast Guard to convey title, engineering services, and technical 

authority of the HC-130H to the Air Force, which the committee understands is a 

cumbersome and paperwork-intensive process to perform for the short period of 

time that the Air Force would possess the aircraft for modifications and depot-level 

maintenance prescribed in section 1098(a). Furthermore, it was explained to the 

237
committee that the Air Force performs depot-level maintenance and modifications 

of HC-130H aircraft on behalf of the Coast Guard without having to convey title, 

engineering services, and technical authority officially to the Air Force. Lastly, and 

most concerning to the committee, is that if the U.S. Coast Guard had to officially 

convey title, engineering services, and technical authority to the Air Force using the 

strict interpretation of the word "transfer," these actions would significantly delay 

the Air Force from performing the required depot-level maintenance and 

firefighting modifications required by section 1098(a), and thus delay providing 

much needed firefighting capacity improvements to the U.S. Forest Service. The 

committee did not intend the articulated interpretation of the word "transfer" to 

impede implementation of section 1098(a) for exchange of aircraft between the U.S. 

Coast Guard and the Air Force. 

Therefore, the committee supports the current execution plan of the Air 

Force, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Forest Service as briefed to the committee in 

February 2014 for modifying and providing firefighting capable HC-130H aircraft to 

the U.S. Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. The committee also 

expects the Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard to interpret the word "transfer" in 

section 1098(a) broadly as to mean not conveying title, engineering services, and 

technical authority of HC-130H aircraft from the U.S. Coast Guard to the Air Force 

in execution and compliance with section 1098(a).

U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and Tactical Control of All 

Department of Defense Executive Airlift Aircraft

The committee notes that the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command 

(CUSTC) is the distribution process owner for the Department of Defense. 

However, CUSTC is responsible for the operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical 

control of only Department of the Air Force executive airlift and special airlift 

mission (EA/SAM) aircraft. The committee notes that Department of the Navy and 

the Department of the Army EA/SAM aircraft are excluded from CUSTC's control, 

and are not apportioned or allocated to meet CUSTC EA/SAM airlift requirements 

or airlift requirements of any other organization other than the service that owns 

and operates the EA/SAM aircraft. The committee believes this is an inefficient 

concept of operations in meeting EA/SAM airlift requirements of the Department of 

Defense. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Transportation 

Command to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than February 2, 2015, that assesses the feasibility, capability, viability, 

effectiveness, and efficiency of the CUSTC assuming the role and responsibility of 

operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical control of all Department of Defense 

EA/SAM aircraft to meet EA/SAM airlift requirements of the Department of 

Defense. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

238
SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make transfers 

between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 2015 in division A of this Act. 

This section would limit the total amount transferred under this authority to $4.0 

billion. This section would also require prompt notification to Congress of each 

transfer made.

Section 1002—Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General Audits of Certain 

Financial Statements

This section would strike subsection (d) of section 1008 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) to permit an 

increase in the number of auditors available to provide independent reviews of 

audit practices throughout the Department of Defense, thus helping the 

Department streamline its efforts to ensure proper financial management. To 

comply with the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan to be audit 

ready by 2017, the Department of Defense requires a sufficient number of auditors 

within the Office of the Inspector General to provide independent audit reviews 

throughout the Department. 

Section 1003—Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear Security 

Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization and Naval Reactors

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to 

transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear weapons and naval reactor programs of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) if the amount authorized to 

be appropriated or otherwise made available for the weapons activities of the NNSA 

is less than $8.7 billion (the amount specified for fiscal year 2015 in the report 

required by section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111-84)).

Section 1004—Management of Defense Information Technology Systems

This section would amend section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to 

expand certification requirements, investment review processing and enterprise 

architecture requirements from defense business systems to all defense information 

technology systems.

SUBTITLE B—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

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

Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia

239
This section would extend, by 1 year, support to the unified counterdrug 

and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia originally authorized 

by section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and most recently amended by section 1011 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

Section 1012—Three-Year Extension of Authority of Department of Defense to 

Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities of Other Governmental 

Agencies 

This section would extend, by 3 years, the authority of the Department of 

Defense to provide additional support for counter-drug activities of other 

governmental agencies originally authorized by section 1004 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), and most 

recently amended by section 1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).

Section 1013—Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds in the Drug 

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide Account on the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 

Relations of the Senate

The section would amend section 1009(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to add the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 

Relations of the Senate as recipients of a biannual report on the use of funds in the 

drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide account.

Section 1014—National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities

This section would amend section 112 of title 32, United States Code, 

adding the operations and activities provided by the National Guard Counter-drug 

Training Centers within the United States for Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement to the items for which the Secretary of Defense may provide funds to 

the governor of a state who submits to the Secretary a state drug interdiction and 

counter-drug activities plan.

Section 1015—Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central America

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Department of 

Defense should continue to support programs that combat illicit networking in the 

United Mexican States and Central America.

SUBTITLE C—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

240
Section 1021—Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel for Purposes of the 

Annual Plan and Certification Relating to Budgeting for Construction of Naval 

Vessels

This section would define the term "combatant and support vessel" that is 

used to support Department of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan.

Section 1022—National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund

This section would create a National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to 

manage the obligation and expenditures for the advanced procurement or 

construction of nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines.

Section 1023—Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified Aviator or Naval Flight 

Officer Be in Command of an Inactivated Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Before 

Decommissioning 

This section would authorize an exception to section 5942(a) of title 10, 

United States Code, and allow a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be commanded 

by a non-aviation officer during an inactivation period that leads to the permanent 

decommissioning and disposal of such an aircraft carrier.

Section 1024—Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until Commencement of 

Planning of Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. George Washington

This section would limit the expenditure of funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 

2015 until the Secretary of Defense obligates funds to commence the planning and 

long lead time material procurement associated with the refueling and complex 

overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN-73).

Section 1025—Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary of the Sinking of the 

U.S.S. Thresher 

This section would express the sense of Congress in recognition of the 

anniversary of the sinking of the USS Thresher. 

Section 1026—Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of Ticonderoga 

Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships

This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds authorized 

to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the 

retirement, inactivation, or storage of Ticonderoga -class cruisers and Whidbey 

Island-class amphibious ships. This section would also require the modernization of 

two Ticonderoga -class cruisers to begin in fiscal year 2015.

241
SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM

Section 1031—Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for Combating Terrorism

This section would extend the authority through fiscal year 2015 for the 

Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person providing information or 

nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or Government personnel of 

allied forces participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces 

conducted outside the United States against international terrorism or providing 

such information or assistance that is beneficial to force protection associated with 

such an operation.

Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify Facilities in the 

United States to House Detainees Transferred from United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the 

funds available to the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the 

date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, to modify or 

construct any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house 

any detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the 

purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control 

of the Department of Defense.

Section 1033—Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of 

Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be 

appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be used 

during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 

December 31, 2015, to transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States, its territories, or 

possessions. 

SUBTITLE E—MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES AND LIMITATIONS

Section 1041—Modification of Department of Defense Authority for Humanitarian 

Demining Assistance and Stockpiled Conventional Munitions Assistance Programs

This section would modify the reporting requirements and definitions 

contained in section 407 of title 10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian 

demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance. Elsewhere 

in this report, the committee expresses concern that the Department of Defense 

Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program has insufficient resources for HMA and 

conventional munitions assistance programs. 

242
Section 1042—Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law Students and Persons 

Studying to be Paralegals

This section would amend section 1588 of title 10, United States Code, to 

authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to institute unpaid internship 

and externship programs for law students. 

Section 1043—Expansion of Authority for Secretary of Defense to Use the 

Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate for Transportation Services Provided 

to Certain Non-Department of Defense Entities

This section would amend section 2642 of title 10, United States Code, 

which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use the Department of Defense 

reimbursement rate for transportation services provided to certain non-Department 

of Defense entities. That authority allows the Department to provide transportation 

services covered by that section at the same rate that the transportation element in 

Department of Defense charges Department of Defense units for similar services. 

Section 1044—Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of Military Installations by Civil 

Reserve Air Fleet Contractors

This section would repeal section 9513 of title 10, United States Code, 

relating to the use of military installations by commercial air carriers doing 

business with the Department of Defense. Under this program, the Secretary of the 

Air Force was authorized for Air Force installations, or in coordination with the 

Secretary of the other military services for other than Air Force military 

installations, to enter into contracts with air carriers authorizing the use of 

designated installations as a weather alternative, as a technical stop not involving 

the enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo, or, in the case of an installation 

within the United States, for other commercial purposes but was never utilized. 

Section 1045—Certification and Limitation on Availability of Funds for Aviation 

Foreign Internal Defense Program

This section would prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command from 

obligating any funds available for fiscal year 2015 for the Aviation Foreign Internal 

Defense Program until the Secretary of Defense provides a certification to the 

congressional defense committees that validates program requirements.

Section 1046—Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating to Sensitive Military 

Operations

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of 

the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for fiscal 

year 2015 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations 

243
and Low Intensity Conflict until the congressional defense committees receive the 

procedures required by section 130f(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, and the 

report required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

Sections 1041 and 1043 of Public Law 113-66 are critical to the 

congressional defense committees' oversight of targeted lethal and capture 

operations conducted by the armed forces. The committee is troubled that the 

Department has missed the statutory deadlines for submitting these materials. 

Section 1047—Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift Aircraft to Support the 

Airlift Movement Requirements of the United States Transportation Command

This section would allow the use of Russian-flagged airlift aircraft to 

support airlift movement requirements of U.S. Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM) only after the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command certifies 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, for each manifested cargo mission, that utilizing Russian-flagged 

airlift aircraft is the only means available to TRANSCOM to execute that particular 

manifested cargo delivery mission.

Section 1048—Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base 

until Completion of Assessments by Secretary of Defense and General Accounting 

Office

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing 

force structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores, Portugal, until the following occur: 

the Secretary of Defense concludes a European Infrastructure Consolidation 

Assessment and briefs the congressional defense committees as to the results; and 

the Comptroller General of the United States reviews such assessment and 

conducts an independent assessment of possible operational capabilities of Lajes Air 

Force Base. 

Section 1049—Limitation on Removal of C-130 Aircraft

This section would restrict the ability of the Secretary of the Air Force to 

remove a C-130 aircraft from a unit of the regular or reserve components of the Air 

Force that is tasked with the modular airborne fire fighting system mission, or from 

a unit that is formally associated with a unit that is tasked with such mission, until 

the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional 

defense committees that such mission will not be negatively affected by the removal 

of such aircraft.

Section 1050—Conditions on Army National Guard and Active Army Force 

Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General Report

244
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the 

Army, during fiscal year 2015, from reducing the end strength for active duty 

personnel of the Army below 490,000; reducing the end strength for Selected 

Reserve personnel of the Army National Guard below 350,000; or transferring AH64 attack helicopters from the Army National Guard to the regular Army. 

This section would also require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess and validate the methods the Army and the Department of Defense 

Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation used to determine the future 

force structure of the Army, to include the appropriate mix between Active, Guard, 

and Reserve Component forces and submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees not later than March 1, 2015. 

 Elsewhere in this Act, the committee describes its larger concerns 

regarding the Army's end strength and force structure reductions. As a result of 

these concerns, the committee also recommends increases in funding for 

procurement and operation and maintenance accounts to accelerate the conversions 

of UH-60A to UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, and additional funding to procure 

six additional UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address Army National Guard 

modernization shortfalls. Finally, the committee recommends additional funding 

for operation and maintenance readiness accounts to increase overall training 

opportunities and increase depot-level maintenance in the Army National Guard.

SUBTITLE F—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Section 1061—Protection of Defense Mission-Critical Infrastructure from 

Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a certification 

to the congressional defense committees that defense mission-critical infrastructure 

requiring electromagnetic pulse protection that receives power supply from 

commercial or other non-military sources, is protected from the adverse effects of 

man-made or naturally occurring electromagnetic pulse and high-powered 

microwave weapons. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is dependent on 

commercial power to supply most of its needs and understands that such 

commercial power could be susceptible to disruption or degradation from 

electromagnetic pulse or high-powered microwave events. The committee believes 

that much of the Department's defense mission-critical infrastructure includes 

planning and mitigation measures against such threats, but remains concerned that 

some critical capabilities may not have been included in previous reviews. The 

committee intends to determine if there is reason for further concern, but recognizes 

that remediation activities will have to be resourced by other organizations outside 

of the Department of Defense. 

Section 1062—Response of the Department of Defense to Compromises of Classified 

Information 

245
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees within 60 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act on actions taken by the Secretary regarding significant 

compromises of classified information. The report shall include a description of any 

changes to Department of Defense policies or guidance relating to significant 

compromises of classified information, an overview of mitigation efforts, a 

description of the resources dedicated to efforts relating to such compromises, a 

description of the Secretary's plan to continue evaluating and mitigating any 

damages, and a general description and estimate of the cost associated with 

mitigating such compromises. This section would also require updates to the initial 

report on a semiannual basis during calendar years 2015-18.

Section 1063—Report and Briefing to Congress on Procurement and Inspection of 

Armored Commercial Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to Transport Civilian Employees 

of Department of Defense

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report and 

detailed briefing on the Department of Defense's policies and procedures for 

procuring and inspecting armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles for 

transporting civilian employees of the Department.

Section 1064—Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the Department of Defense

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to commission an 

independent assessment of the joint analytic capabilities of the Department of 

Defense to support strategy, plans, and force development, and their link to 

resource decisions. This section would further require the independent entity 

selected for the conduct of the assessment to provide a report on the assessment to 

the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 

require the Secretary to transmit the report to the congressional defense 

committees not later than 90 days after the date of the Secretary's receipt of the 

report. 

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1071—Technical and Clerical Amendments

This section would make a number of technical and clerical amendments of 

a non-substantive nature to existing law.

Section 1072—Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property for Border Security 

Activities

This section would amend section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, 

"Excess personal property: sale or donation for law enforcement activities" to 

246
include border security activities and consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security when a transfer relates to the Department of Homeland Security.

The committee believes border security activities of the Department of 

Homeland Security should be considered alongside counterdrug and 

counterterrorism activities when determining the sale or donation of excess 

personal property for law enforcement activities.

Section 1073—Revision to Statute of Limitations for Aviation Insurance Claims

This section would amend section 44309 of title 49, United States Code, by 

clarifying that the claimant for civil actions must present a claim to the Secretary of 

Transportation and have it denied before instituting a civil action against the 

United States. Additionally, this section would clarify that an insurance claim 

must be made within two years of the loss, or for an insurance claim made by a 

person with whom the insured has no privity of contract, the earlier of either 60 

days after final judgment by a court or 6 years after the date of the loss. 

Section 1074—Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a pilot 

program to utilize Human Terrain System assets in the U.S. Pacific Command area 

of responsibility to support Phase 0 shaping operations and to support the theater 

security cooperation plans of the geographic combatant commander.

Section 1075—Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National Airspace

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to enter into a 

memorandum of understanding with a non-Department of Defense entity that is 

engaged in the test range program authorized under section 332(c) of the Federal 

Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-

95). Such entity would be allowed access to non-regulatory special use airspace if 

such access is used by the entity as part of such test range program and does not 

interfere with the activities of the Secretary or otherwise interrupt or delay 

missions or training of the Department of Defense.

Section 1076—Sense of Congress on the Life and Achievements of Dr. James R. 

Schlesinger 

The section would express the sense of Congress on the life and 

achievements of Dr. James R. Schlesinger, who served the country as the Director, 

Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy. 

Section 1077—Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review

247
This section would amend section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to 

reform the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by modifying the review and 

reporting elements, modifying the role of the National Defense Panel (NDP), and 

requiring a new Quadrennial National Security Threats and Trends Report 

(QNSTTR).

This section would replace the QDR with a Defense Strategy Review (DSR), 

which would be required on a 4-year cycle. As expressed elsewhere in this report, 

the committee believes that the strategy review undertaken by the Department of 

Defense has, over time, strayed further from the intent of Congress, and the 2014 

QDR, in particular, missed an opportunity to reshape the longer-term direction of 

the Nation’s forces, their missions and capabilities, and needed resources. 

Therefore, the modified review and reporting elements contained in this 

section are intended to better address the fundamental components of a strategy 

over the near-, mid-, and far-term time horizons, and would include:

(1) The assumed U.S. national security interests and strategic environment;

(2) The prioritized missions of the Armed Forces;

(3) The force structure, capabilities, presence, readiness, personnel 

composition and skillsets, organizational structures, and resources that are needed 

to fulfill the missions;

(4) An assessment of gaps, shortfalls, and risks; 

(5) The assumed roles and capabilities provided by other U.S. Government 

agencies and by allies and partners; and

(6) A sensitivity analysis to understand the relationships and specific 

tradeoffs between missions, risks, and resources. 

This section would also require two reviews of the strategic environment 

that would precede the DSR and thus inform it. The first review, the QNSTTR, 

would be required of the Department of Defense and consist of the Department’s 

assessment of U.S. national security interests and threats and trends that could 

affect those interests in the near-, mid-, and far-term. The second review would be 

required of the NDP, which would be established prior to the DSR, and consist of an 

independent assessment of the strategic environment and require the NDP to 

provide recommendations on the strategic issues that should be examined in the 

DSR. 

The NDP would further be required to assess the report on the DSR upon 

its completion, thus largely maintaining the duties it is currently prescribed in 

section 118 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 1078—Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to resubmit a report on the Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR) 2014 that was submitted, as required by section 118(d) of 

title 10, United States Code, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives not later than October 1, 2014. 

248
In the resubmitted report, the Secretary would be required to include: an 

articulation of a defense program for the next 20 years; an identification of the 

budget plan that would be required to provide sufficient resources to execute 

successfully the full range of missions called for in that national defense strategy at 

a low-to-moderate level of risk, and any additional resources required to achieve 

such a level of risk; and recommendations that are not constrained to comply with 

and are fully independent of the budget submitted to Congress by the President 

pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. This section would limit 

authorized fiscal year 2015 funds for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy until the report is resubmitted to Congress. 

While the committee appreciates the work that went into the 2014 QDR, it 

remains concerned that these reviews have grown less compliant with the law and 

strayed further from the intent of Congress. The committee believes the QDR 

should provide a mechanism for setting the priorities of the Department of Defense, 

shaping the force, guiding capabilities and resources, and adjusting the 

organization to respond to changes in the strategic environment. In addition, it 

should assist Congress in better understanding the relationships and tradeoffs 

between missions, risks, and resources, particularly in light of geopolitical changes 

and domestic developments in the last few years.

The committee believes the 2014 QDR missed a major opportunity to bring 

together key national security stakeholders and strategic thinkers in the 

Department to reshape the longer-term direction of the Nation’s forces, their 

missions and capabilities, and needed resources. Instead, inconsistent with the 

QDR review and report requirements in sections 118(a) and (b) of title 10, United 

States Code, the 2014 QDR focused largely on the planned force structure 

associated with the 5 year Future Years Defense Program, and it contained a 

strategy that assumes increased risk to the force, without specifying the resources 

required to execute the strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk. 

The committee believes that much of the information to be included in the 

re-submitted report was produced over the course of the review and could be 

provided to the committee in a reasonable amount of time. 

Section 1079—Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices

This section would express the sense of the Congress on the need to remain 

dedicated to retaining knowledge, technological expertise, as well as the lessons 

learned from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom regarding 

counter-improvised explosive device tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Section 1080—Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and Readiness Posture of 

United States Military in Europe

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act a plan that identifies the capabilities and capacities required 

249
by the U.S. Armed Forces to counter or mitigate conventional, unconventional, or 

subversive activities of the Russian Federation and to meet operational plan 

requirements for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Article 5 response. This 

section would also require the Secretary to identify any readiness deficiencies of 

U.S. Armed Forces in the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command and 

recommend actions, resources, and timelines to correct any deficiencies. 

Section 1081—Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs Incurred by 

the Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside the United States

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to determine and 

disclose the transportation costs incurred by the Department of Defense for certain 

congressional trips outside the United States.

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital Funds

Working capital fund (WCF) employees are financed through sales revenue 

rather than direct appropriations. These unique civilian Federal employees work 

on the basis of no-year money, and the committee is concerned that the Department 

of Defense, when including WCF employees in the fiscal year 2013 furloughs of 

Department of Defense civilians, failed to offer sufficient justification of savings or 

an adequate legal argument to override statutes prohibiting management of these 

employees on any basis other than funded workload. Based on testimony of the 

military services and information gathered from facilities throughout the country, it 

is clear to the committee that the readiness consequences of furloughing working 

capital fund employees were grave. Furloughs at the Nation’s organic industrial 

facilities cost the government money by raising overhead costs or causing transfer of 

work to more expensive venues, disrupted the supply chain, affected mission-critical 

work, and delayed the return of key weapon systems to the warfighter for training 

and operations. Further, these furloughs wreaked havoc on the private lives and 

morale of tens of thousands of Federal employees and created long-term 

consequences for the Department when electricians, engineers, and highly skilled 

depot artisans, among others, resigned, citing financial hardship.

The committee finds this ineffective approach to managing overall 

shortfalls in the operation and maintenance account unacceptable because of the 

short- and long-term consequences. Working capital funds are required to “break 

even,” and the loss in productivity, workforce availability, and capability from 

unnecessary furloughs endangers the viability of the funds and increases the cost to 

the Department, customers, and the taxpayer by increasing overhead and rates. 

The committee believes that in the event of any type of furlough of civilian 

250
employees, WCF employees should be managed consistent with guidance issued for 

operations of the Department during a lapse in appropriations.

Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees Performing Maintenance on 

the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan

The committee notes that it has not received the report required by section 

1105 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(Public Law 111-383) regarding overtime pay for Department of the Navy 

employees who are maintaining the Navy’s forward deployed nuclear aircraft 

carrier in Japan. The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Navy, due to 

extenuating circumstances associated with the closure of Building 197 at the 

Washington Navy Yard, did not deliver the required report on use and cost of the 

authorized overtime pay, and recommendations regarding extension of the 

authority, to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) until midMarch of this year, more than 5 months late. Late delivery by the Navy precluded 

OPM from achieving its subsequent reporting deadline of March 31, 2014. While 

agreeing in substance with extending overtime pay for Department of the Navy 

employees who are maintaining the Navy’s forward deployed nuclear aircraft 

carrier in Japan, the committee is reluctant to do so without benefit of the report 

from OPM. The committee urges the Director of OPM to facilitate completion of the 

report as soon as possible to ensure timely and appropriate compensation for these 

civilian employees who are critical to the readiness of U.S. naval forces.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101—One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual Limitation on 

Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees 

Working Overseas

This section would extend, for 1 year, the authority to waive the limitations 

on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a Federal civilian employee who 

performs certain work in an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of 

U.S. Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of 

U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military operation, or in response to an 

emergency declared by the President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate 

of salary payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3, United States 

Code. 

Section 1102—One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant Allowances, 

Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone

This section would extend by 1 year the temporary discretionary authority 

to Federal agencies to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to 

251
those provided to members of the foreign service to an agency’s civilian employees 

on official duty in a combat zone. 

Section 1103—Revision to List of Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories

This section would amend the list of Science and Technology Reinvention 

Laboratories in section 1105(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to include the Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and the Space and Missile Defense Command 

Technical Center.

Section 1104—Permanent Authority for Experimental Personnel Program for 

Scientific and Technical Personnel

This section would remove the sunset date and annual reporting 

requirement for section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). 

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

has used this alternative personnel hiring authority to great effect since its 

inception. Furthermore, the committee believes that given the limited scope of this 

authority, the fact that there have been no reports of misuse or abuse in 15 years, 

and the fact that it does not authorize any new civilian billets for the Department of 

Defense, this authority should be made permanent. The committee believes that 

such unique hiring authorities will be important tools for the technical community 

in the Department to recruit, hire, and retain the Nation's top scientific and 

engineering talent.

Section 1105—Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions at Department of 

Defense Research and Engineering Facilities

This section would modify section 1107 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to provide direct hiring 

authority to the laboratory director of specified laboratories for undergraduate and 

certain graduate students enrolled in the scientific, technical, engineering, or 

mathematics programs at institutions of higher education on a temporary or term 

basis.

Section 1106—Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection Board Decisions 

Relating to Whistleblowers

This section would extend by 3 years a pilot provision of the Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act (Public Law 101-12) to allow whistleblowers to appeal 

cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board to any circuit court of appeals with 

jurisdiction rather than being restricted to the Federal circuit.

252
TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

OVERVIEW

The committee’s continued oversight of national security matters relating 

to foreign nations and the lessons learned from that oversight, as well as the 

demands of current events, has translated into four legislative focus areas in this 

title: continued military commitment to, and U.S. presence in, the Islamic Republic 

of Afghanistan; strengthening security force assistance, particularly to those 

nations that have chosen to partner with the United States to combat terrorism; 

bolstering U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to deter aggression; and addressing 

emerging and evolving threats in an increasingly uncertain global security 

environment. 

First, the committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan security, 

governance, and society have come as a result of the immense sacrifices made by 

U.S. and coalition forces and the Afghan people. The committee continues to believe 

that the United States has a vital national security interest in Afghanistan, and 

that Al Qaeda and its affiliates must be denied safe havens in Afghanistan and 

elsewhere to launch attacks against the United States and its allies. The committee, 

therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

mission known as Operation Resolute Support, and it urges the President to 

announce a residual U.S. presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate U.S. 

commitment, reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and coalition 

partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and presence in Afghanistan. The 

committee remains optimistic that a new Afghan president will sign the Bilateral 

Security Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which would serve 

as a framework for a post-2014 NATO-Afghanistan status of forces agreement. 

As the United States transitions to Operation Resolute Support, the 

committee expects the Administration to communicate a clear understanding of the 

missions, authorities, plans, and resources necessary to support Operation Resolute 

Support. The committee has carefully reviewed the authorities for which it 

recommends extension such as the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

and reimbursement of coalition nations for support provided to U.S. military 

operations. The committee would require a revised “Report on Progress Toward 

Security and Stability in Afghanistan Under Operation Resolute Support” to inform 

its understanding of the post-2014 security and economic environment in 

Afghanistan, and a plan for sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) 

through fiscal year 2018. Additionally, the committee continues to leverage 

important oversight tools, such as the Department of Defense Inspector General, to 

ensure Department of Defense funds for Afghanistan are properly managed to 

protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee also recognizes the service 

performed by many Afghans in support of U.S. military efforts, and it would 

authorize additional special immigrant visas for Afghans who were employed by or 

on behalf of the U.S. Government in Afghanistan.

253
Second, the committee continues to support Department efforts to carry out 

security force assistance and military-to-military interactions throughout the world 

by providing authorities for interactions that support U.S. national security 

interests particularly with those nations that have chosen to partner with the 

United States to combat terrorism. The committee would extend the Global Security 

Contingency Fund (GSCF), and provide an authority that would allow for foreign 

liaison officers to be temporarily assigned to the headquarters of a combatant 

command, component command, or subordinate operational command. 

The committee also would provide an authority to the Department of 

Defense relating to the acquisition of products and services produced in Djibouti in 

recognition of the Government of Djibouti's continued support of the U.S. base at 

Camp Lemonnier, which is critical to U.S. national security efforts in the region. 

However, the committee also believes that the U.S. Government must improve its 

whole-of-government engagement of strategic partners such as Djibouti. 

Third, the committee would take several steps in this Act aimed at 

bolstering U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to deter aggression. The committee 

condemns the recent aggressive actions undertaken by the Government of the 

Russian Federation in Ukraine, which include its illegal occupation of Crimea, 

deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the Ukrainian border, and 

its infiltration and destabilization of eastern Ukraine. The committee therefore 

would limit U.S.-Russia military contact and cooperation and limit the use of funds 

for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security Administration activities 

with Russia. The NATO alliance remains a cornerstone of international security, 

and the committee would seek to further strengthen the alliance and reassure U.S. 

allies and partners in Europe through measures such as requiring a comprehensive 

strategic framework for security force assistance to European and Eurasian forces 

and providing additional funds for the Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for 

Peace program.

The committee also remains concerned about the continued nuclear and 

missile developments in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as well as the 

military developments in the People’s Republic of China, including its provocative 

maritime claims. The committee conducted an Asia-Pacific oversight series, focusing 

largely on the implications of the Administration’s rebalance to Asia on U.S. defense 

policy, posture, capabilities, and investments. Many of the Asia-Pacific-related 

provisions contained in this Act reflect the findings and recommendations that 

emerged from the oversight series. 

Fourth, the committee maintains strong oversight of Department of 

Defense efforts to address emerging and evolving threats to U.S. vital national 

security interests around the world. The committee applauds the successes of the 

United States military in its global pursuit of Al Qaeda. However, the committee 

remains concerned that Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and associated 

forces are evolving and growing in certain geographic areas due to safe havens that 

have emerged in locations such as Libya, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the 

Republic of Iraq. The committee addresses these issues by extending the authority 

254
to support special operations to combat terrorism and by requiring the President to 

provide a report on the national security planning guidance to deny safe havens to 

Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates. Also, the committee recognizes the 

additional requirements for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) associated with 

“New Normal” and therefore would require a report on the force posture and 

structure required of AFRICOM to meet the ‘‘New Normal’’ requirements in its area 

of responsibility.

The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to prepare and 

posture itself for other threats. The committee believes that the United States 

should continue to maintain a robust forward presence in the region of the Arabian 

Gulf to support those allies and partners in order to deter the Islamic Republic of 

Iran. The committee further believes that any comprehensive deal on Iran’s nuclear 

program should address past and present issues of concern with the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and should require Iran to cease enrichment of 

uranium, address ballistic missile and conventional military systems, and stop 

support for international terrorism. Additionally, the committee believes that the 

United States should continue to put significant pressure on Iran’s network of 

organizations that conduct malign activities in the Arabian Gulf region, and around 

the globe, even while the United States engages in negotiations with Iran relating 

to its nuclear program. 

Lastly, the committee remains deeply concerned about the implications of 

budget cuts and force reductions on the ability of the United States to meet the 

global demand for forces across the combatant commands. AFRICOM and U.S. 

Southern Command, in particular, lack key enabler capabilities such as 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. Although U.S. Pacific 

Command has benefitted from the Administration’s rebalance to Asia, it is still 

anticipated to lack the full time presence of a carrier. These shortfalls not only 

hamper the combatant commanders’ ability to meet their requirements, but they 

also affect the United States’ ability to provide robust presence to deter potential 

adversaries and to reassure allies and partners and, ultimately, affect perceptions 

of U.S. commitment to these regions. While the committee has taken several steps 

in this Act to address these concerns, it recognizes that doing so will become 

increasingly difficult as funding becomes increasing scarce. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International Traffic in Arms Regulations 

Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Commerce, Science and 

255
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

of the House of Representatives, not later than August 1, 2013, that responds to 

certain questions concerning reports of the illegal transfer of Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) developed technology. 

The committee is troubled that the stated agencies have thus far been 

unable to respond to those questions. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense to investigate whether MDA 

technology was transferred to NASA other than by the Department's policies and 

procedures for the protection of classified and International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) 

controlled technology; whether classified technology was involved; whether it was 

retransferred beyond the control of the U.S. Government and, if so, whether any 

damage to the security of the United States resulted by that transfer; and who had 

access to that technology, including foreign nationals. The Inspector General is 

further directed to provide a preliminary report to the House Committee on Armed 

Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 

Representatives not later than November 31, 2014. In the event a final report is 

not complete by November 31, 2014, the Inspector General should brief the initial 

findings to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives. The committee expects 

NASA to provide unfettered access to MDA technology and related documents, 

personnel, and any other matters requested by the Inspector General of the 

Department of Defense. The Inspector General should immediately report to the 

committees any non-compliance or impairment with this direction. 

In the event the Inspector General finds that such transfer(s) did occur, the 

committee directs the Inspector General to review the Department's compliance 

with its transfer policy and procedures department-wide and to provide an interim 

report to the House Committee on Armed Services on its plan to undertake this 

review not later than November 1, 2015.

Aggression by the Russian Federation

The committee notes with concern the recent actions undertaken by the 

Government of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The committee believes that 

both the overt and covert actions taken by the Russian military and Government to 

seize and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and threaten further military 

action against the Government of Ukraine, are clearly meant to coerce the 

Government and people of Ukraine into adopting policies and an orientation 

centered on Russia and away from Europe and the West.

The committee supports the military steps taken by the Administration to 

reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe. The 

deployment of additional U.S. troops to the territory of the easternmost NATO 

members, steps taken to increase the air policing and airborne warning missions, 

and the deployment of additional ships to the Black Sea are all useful and necessary 

steps. The committee further notes with approval the non-lethal military aid the 

256
Administration has provided to Ukraine to date. However, in both areas, the 

committee believes that more can be done and will likely be required in the future. 

The committee is concerned that Russia’s actions in Ukraine, coming only a 

few years after similar, albeit less sophisticated, actions were taken against 

Georgia, represent the Russian Government's policy for dealing with neighboring 

states that do not follow its preferred orientation. Combined with announced 

increases in Russian defense spending, such a policy would be very concerning for 

Russia’s neighbors, including former Soviet states that are now members of NATO.

The committee encourages the Administration to consider additional steps 

that could be taken to reassure allies and dissuade Russia from further actions 

designed to coerce its neighbors. The committee notes that cooperation between 

Russia and the United States has benefited both countries in the past and that 

Russian economic growth in the last two decades came largely as a result of 

Russia’s economic relationship with Europe. 

The committee also believes the Administration should consider further 

sanctions that, coupled with an effective information strategy, make clear to 

Russia’s people that prosperity and peace are the result of cooperation with 

neighboring countries rather than threatening those neighbors. The committee 

further encourages the Commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) to 

consider additional exercises with European and NATO allies to increase readiness 

and military preparedness. Finally, the committee believes that the EUCOM 

Commander and the full Administration should continue to conduct engagement 

with and provide assistance to Ukraine. Such assistance could include, but not be 

limited to, additional non-lethal military assistance, cooperation on cyber defense, 

and strategic information sharing.

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends two provisions in title 10, 

seven provisions in title 12, one provision in title 13, and two provisions in title 31 

that are related to Russia, including expressing a sense of Congress on Russian 

aggression, requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to enhance the 

presence, capabilities, and readiness posture of the U.S. military in Europe, and 

establishing limitations on fiscal year 2015 funds for cooperation and activities with 

the Russian Federation until Congress has received certain certifications. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee also recommends $34.4 million, an increase 

of $10.0 million above the budget request, for the Warsaw Initiative 

Fund/Partnership for Peace. 

Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential Inconsistencies

Given ongoing concerns with the Russian Federation's compliance with its 

arms control obligations to the United States, the committee believes it is 

imperative that Congress stay well-apprised of the results of arms control 

inspections conducted by the United States in Russia. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to provide, 

during fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of fiscal year 2014, semi-annual briefings 

257
to the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on U.S. arms control inspections in Russia 

and their results. The first such briefing should be provided by June 30, 2014, and 

subsequent briefings should be conducted semi-annually during fiscal year 2015.

The committee further directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to 

provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed 

Services Committee by July 31, 2014, on Department of Defense information 

regarding U.S. arms control agreements with Russia and any potential 

inconsistencies, circumventions, or violations regarding Russia's compliance with 

such agreements.

Conflict in Syria

The committee remains concerned about the conflict in Syria, which has 

now entered its fourth year. President Bashar al-Assad has waged a ruthless 

campaign against the Syrian people to include: flagrant human rights violations; 

extrajudicial killings; use of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction 

against civilians, including children; and interference with the provision of medical 

aid and humanitarian assistance.

The human toll in this conflict continues to rise dramatically. To date, over 

140,000 Syrians have been killed, including at least 10,000 children, according to 

United Nation's estimates. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) estimates that 9.3 million Syrians are in need of 

humanitarian assistance, 6.5 million Syrians are internally displaced, and 2.4 

million Syrian refugees are in neighboring countries. 

The Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, in testimony before 

the committee on February 11, 2014, highlighted the growing regional instability in 

the vicinity of Syria, stemming from the ever-increasing violence due to the conflict 

in Syria and the refugee outflows that continue to spill over Syria’s borders into the 

Republic of Turkey, the Lebanese Republic, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the 

Republic of Iraq, and the State of Israel. The committee notes the impact of the 

Syrian conflict on Jordan, in particular, and will continue to consider ways in which 

it can support Jordan's ability to maintain border security and stability, as the 

committee did in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66).

The committee remains concerned about the effect of outside influences in 

Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran has sent into Syria the Iranian Revolutionary 

Guard-Quds forces, Shia militias from Iraq, Hezbollah, and other advisers to 

maintain its client, the Assad regime, and in some cases, to actively fight the Syrian 

opposition on behalf of the Assad regime. The committee is further concerned by the 

growth of Al Qaeda-linked or Al Qaeda inspired elements in the Syrian civil war, 

especially, although not exclusively, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) 

258
and the Al Nusra Front. Both of these groups share ideologies with Al Qaeda and 

have attracted many foreign fighters, increasing the chances that radicalized 

adherents could return to the United States, Europe, or other countries and conduct 

attacks. 

The committee supports the attempt to remove Assad’s chemical weapons, 

but is disappointed by the continual delays and missed deadlines by the Assad 

regime to transfer the precursor chemicals. Such delays and missed deadlines sow 

doubt that the destruction of Assad's chemical precursors and chemical weaponsmaking capability will be achieved, consistent with the deal that was reached. The 

committee notes that this deal does not address the biological weapons program 

that the Assad regime continues to maintain.

The committee believes the United States must act to protect the Nation's 

interests and those of U.S. allies and partners in the region, and should leverage all 

tools of national power to achieve such interests. The committee is aware that the 

Department of Defense and the U.S. Central Command continue to conduct prudent 

planning to support any Presidential policy decision to address the conflict in Syria 

or stability in the region. The committee encourages the Department of Defense, 

and the Administration more broadly, to continue to look at realistic options to 

support U.S. allies in the region and to help further regional stability. The 

committee also believes that the United States and U.S. allies in Europe and the 

Middle East must do more in a cooperative and coordinated manner to track and 

address the foreign fighter threat. Finally, the committee reserves judgment on any 

plan to train and equip select elements of the Syrian opposition until it understands 

the details of such plan or proposed authority, including how it fits into a broader 

strategy and policy. However, the committee does believe that such an effort merits 

prudent planning and consideration in order to understand how it would help bring 

about an end to the Syrian civil war, the civilian strife caused by the war, and the 

threat of international terrorism posed by some of the participants in that war.

Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with International Partners

The committee notes that the Department of Defense plays a role in the 

U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region. The Department of Defense 

November 2013 Arctic Strategy states the Department's desired end-state for the 

Arctic is "a secure and stable region where U.S. national interests are safeguarded 

... and nations work cooperatively to address challenges." The strategy also states 

that "relationships with allies and partners are important enablers of cooperation in 

meeting security and defense commitments," and that these relationships "play an 

important role in conflict prevention, and if prevention and deterrence fail, in 

coordinating an international response to security and defense challenges." The 

committee recognizes the Department's Arctic strategy places a significant focus on 

collaboration with partners in the region, including the pursuit of increased 

multilateral collaboration with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies 

and partners, to leverage the most appropriate capabilities to meet the 

259
Department's desired end-state. The committee encourages the Department to 

continue fostering this collaboration with international partners, including NATO, 

and to keep the committee informed of its efforts. 

Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense Systems and Interoperability 

with Friendly and Allied States

The committee believes that international cooperation in air and missile 

defense will continue to grow as the threat grows in sophistication and numbers, 

and as defense budgets for the U.S. and friendly and allied states continue to 

decline. Further, the committee believes that through interoperability, the United 

States and its allies can realize the benefits of force multiplication and economies of 

scale. 

Conversely, the committee is concerned that the Department of Defense, 

the Department of State, and related U.S. Government agencies are not 

appropriately postured to fully promote the benefits of interoperable air and missile 

defense capabilities between the United States and friendly and allied countries. 

The committee is aware that, in many cases, policies related to data sharing and 

protection of sensitive and classified information are unclear. The committee is 

aware of examples where undeveloped policies and incomplete processes related to 

coproduction have stymied foreign military sales of these capabilities. Likewise, the 

committee has seen examples in which foreign states better position their 

indigenous capabilities in tenders and competitions, when superior U.S. capabilities 

have been offered but lack the clear support of the U.S. Government, across the 

Federal Government. 

The committee believes that the multiplicity of agencies involved in these 

matters (specifically the Department of Defense (including the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency; the Defense Technology Security Administration; the Missile 

Defense Agency; the military services; the Tri-Service Committee; the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy; and others), the Department of State, the 

Department of Commerce, and others) does not provide the focus and efficiency 

required to fully take advantage of the opportunities available to the United States 

by the interest of friendly and allied states in U.S. air and missile defense 

technology. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

to evaluate and provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 

December 1, 2014, on the current structure for foreign military sales of air and 

missile defense technology to friendly and allied states, associated obstacles or 

barriers, and recommend steps to improve the structure to make it more nimble, 

responsive, and to better position U.S. military technology in foreign tenders and 

competitions. 

The committee further directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 

consultation with the geographic combatant commanders and the Commander, U.S. 

Strategic Command, to conduct an analysis and provide a briefing to the House 

260
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2015, on the potential, in specific 

examples and recommendations, for foreign military sales of U.S. air and missile 

defenses to friendly and allied states to enhance interoperability and data sharing 

to better share the operational burden of defending against regional missile threats. 

Lastly, the committee directs the Director, Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 

November 15, 2014, on the intent of the United States, through the Department of 

Defense, to sell defense articles, equipment, and services related to U.S. air and 

missile defense technology under consideration and the potential for economies of 

scale. 

Global Security Contingency Fund

The budget request contained $30.0 million for the Global Security 

Contingency Fund (GSCF).

The GSCF was established as a joint authority for both the Department of 

Defense and the Department of State in section 1207 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Section 1207(g) of 

Public Law 112-81 further required both departments to fund GSCF activities, by 

specifically requiring that the Secretary of State contributes not less than 20 

percent of the total amount required for an activity, and the Secretary of Defense 

contribute not more than 80 percent. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget request contained the 

Department of Defense request for $30.0 million for GSCF, but contained no funds 

requested by the Department of State. The committee remains concerned about the 

disproportionate contribution of the Department of Defense to the GSCF. The 

committee notes section 1207(f) of Public Law 112-81 provides transfer authority for 

the Department of Defense for up to $200.0 million and encourages the Department 

of Defense to use the transfer authority in order to fund future proposed programs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $30.0 million, 

for the GSCF. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would 

extend the GSCF for 1 year and broaden the types of authorized assistance to 

include small-scale construction, and informs the Department that it may consider 

not renewing the GSCF authority after it expires at the end of fiscal year 2016.

Missile Defense Cooperation with Japan

The committee continues to support the significant level of missile defense 

cooperation with the Government of Japan. Included in this cooperation is the codevelopment of the Standard Missile 3 block IIA missile interceptor. Japan is one of 

only a handful of countries with the requisite technical expertise and with whom 

the United States has the level of trust required to partner on the development of 

significant military technology such as a missile interceptor. 

The committee is also profoundly appreciative of the continuing activity to 

deploy a second Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance-model 2 radar unit 

261
in Japan. When the radar is available later this year, it will make a significant 

difference to regional missile defense and the homeland missile defense of the 

United States. The committee is aware that these two deployments bind together 

the security of the United States and Japan, and do not come without additional 

risks to Japanese security. The committee believes this is a measure of the security 

alliance between the two nations. 

The committee commends the announcement of the Secretary of Defense on 

April 6, 2014, to forward deploy to Japan an additional two United States Navy 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships by 2017. The committee supports this 

decision, as well as Japan's decision to obtain two more Aegis ballistic missile 

defense ships for its own defense forces. 

The committee believes this cooperation is the bedrock of regional security 

and will support additional missile defense cooperation in the years ahead. 

Missile Defense Cooperation with the Republic of Korea

The committee is aware that the Republic of Korea has three naval cruisers 

equipped with Aegis tracking software possessing some ballistic missile defense 

sensor capability and plans to increase the number of equipped warships by three. 

The committee is also aware that South Korea has not currently obtained sea-based 

ballistic missile interceptors. The committee is aware of discussions between the 

U.S. and South Korea to facilitate the first exports of this technology in the near 

future and is supportive of these discussions. 

The committee is also aware that South Korea is interested in obtaining the 

Standard Missile 6 interceptor, and that it is considering the Standard Missile 3 

missile interceptor as well. The committee believes these could be valuable to 

South Korea's security and could further deepen bilateral defense cooperation 

between the two nations. 

The committee is also aware that South Korea has announced plans to 

implement a Korean Air and Missile Defense system to counter regional threats. 

The committee believes regional security and bilateral ties would be strengthened if 

South Korea obtained U.S. technology for this system, which would enable fully 

interoperable capabilities in the event of a threat to either country. The committee 

would be concerned that other technology sold by other countries may not possess 

this highly desirable force multiplication for South Korea's security and nor would 

strengthen the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. 

The committee continues to support South Korea's procurement of the 

Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical interceptor and its evaluation of the PATRIOT 

Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) and the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement 

interceptor.

Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in Afghanistan

The committee is aware that there may be limitations in the ability of U.S. 

forces to access all parts of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to monitor ongoing 

262
Department of Defense construction activities after December 31, 2014. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the 

Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, not later than 

December 15, 2014, on plans to monitor such activities after December 31, 2014. 

National Guard State Partnership Program

The committee reiterates its support for the National Guard State 

Partnership Program (SPP), which has focused on improving long-term 

international stability through unique cooperative partnerships between 53 U.S. 

states and territories and 74 foreign partner countries. SPP activities support 

partner capacity building in a wide-range of areas including humanitarian 

assistance, emergency management, consequence management, emergency 

communications, disaster relief, counter-trafficking, and counter-proliferation. 

The committees notes that section 1205 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), which authorized the 

SPP, required an annual report on SPP activities. In this annual report, the first of 

which is due by January 31, 2015, the National Guard is required to include a 

summary of expenditures to conduct SPP activities, including annual costs and a 

breakdown of such expenditures by geographic combatant command. The 

committee continues to encourage the National Guard to provide greater 

transparency and detail on the costs to plan, execute, and administer the SPP.

National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking

The committee is aware that the Administration has announced a National 

Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, which established guiding principles 

for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, including strengthening domestic 

and global enforcement; reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife at home and 

abroad; and strengthening partnerships with international partners, local 

communities, non-governmental organizations, private industry, and others to 

combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade. The committee believes that the 

Department of Defense should support this national strategy to the extent that it is 

in the U.S. national defense interest.

Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations

The committee reaffirms its longstanding support for the accelerated 

development, fielding, and deployment of non-lethal technologies. Non-lethal 

systems are useful for both force application and force protection missions. The 

committee notes that their employment is consistent with U.S. military strategy 

and helps minimize damage to property and inadvertent civilian casualties in the 

kinds of operational contingencies, including irregular warfare and humanitarian 

crises, in which U.S. forces are likely to be engaged. Their use provides commanders 

with additional decision time and space before resorting to lethal force, helps 

263
mitigate the negative consequences of unintended non-combatant injuries and 

fatalities, and enhances the overall prospects of mission success.

The committee understands that, as a result of budget pressures, the 

Department of Defense is proposing significant cuts to the Department's NonLethal Weapons program over the next 5 years. This includes a roughly one-third 

reduction in fiscal year 2015 for overall Department of Defense non-lethal 

investments and more than a 40 percent reduction in the Future Years Defense 

Plan compared to the previous 5-year estimate. The committee is also concerned 

that significant cuts to service procurements are also planned, further exacerbating 

cuts to the joint program.

The committee believes that such reductions may have unintended or 

unforeseen impacts on contingency planning related to humanitarian relief, noncombatant evacuation operations, and peacekeeping. If current contingency plans 

are predicated on the availability of such non-lethal systems, the Department of 

Defense may be forced into relying solely on lethal force to deal with these emerging 

requirements. Accordingly, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 

February 1, 2015, on the impact of funding reductions for non-lethal systems on 

current contingency operations planning supporting humanitarian relief, noncombatant evacuation operations, and peacekeeping. This briefing should examine 

current contingency planning to determine if the level of investment estimated 

across the Future Years Defense Program in the joint and service programs is 

sufficient to support those plans, and a possible course of action to mitigate any 

shortfall.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit

The committee notes that the September 2014 North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) Summit in Wales, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern Ireland, represents an important opportunity for the United States and 

alliance members to discuss the future of the alliance. Historically, NATO has 

served as the cornerstone of U.S. cooperation with European allies and partners. As 

U.S. security interests remain parallel with those of European partners, the 

committee believes the United States should continue to consider NATO as the 

security and defense foundation of the transatlantic relationship. 

The committee believes that the Wales Summit presents an opportunity for 

the United States to reaffirm its commitment to the alliance in the midst of an 

environment of complex global challenges and threats, and that the United States 

must play a leadership role both in the alliance and at the Summit. The committee 

also notes the United Kingdom's key role in hosting and leading the Summit. 

Additionally, the committee is aware that the Wales Summit agenda has 

not yet been determined, but believes key areas of discussion for the alliance could 

include: the evolving security situation between the Russian Federation and 

Ukraine, and the implications for NATO; the defense and security threats facing 

264
alliance members, including potential aggression by Russia towards NATO allies; 

maintaining key defense capabilities and capacities across the alliance; NATO's 

Operation Resolute Support mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan beyond 

December 2014; and maintaining interoperability and combat gains from the 

International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan. 

Lastly, the committee encourages continued engagement by the 

Department of Defense as the Summit approaches, as well as after the Summit.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on Deterrence

The committee is aware that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) has successfully built a construct of centers of excellence in member states 

to strengthen the Alliance's posture by training and educating leaders from NATO 

member and partner states, develop important doctrines, improve interoperability, 

identify lessons learned, and test and validate important concepts for alliance 

security.

The committee is aware of over 18 of these centers (with three more in 

development) concentrating on subjects ranging from human intelligence to 

cooperative cyber defense. The committee is also aware that there is no center 

devoted to nuclear deterrence, including extended deterrence and assurance, or to 

reducing the risk of nuclear smuggling and nuclear terrorism.

The committee is aware of the robust nuclear weapons modernization 

program in a state neighboring the alliance, the on-going security crisis in Europe, 

including concerns about the use of nuclear weapons in escalation control in certain 

circumstances, invasion of states considered for Alliance membership, arms control 

violations that could affect the security of Alliance members, and the instances of 

nuclear smuggling and risk of fissile material theft or diversion in or near-Europe. 

Moreover, the committee is aware that it is a central tenet of the May 2012 

NATO Deterrence and Defense Posture Review that, "[n]uclear weapons are a core 

component of NATO's overall capabilities for deterrence and defense alongside 

conventional and missile defense forces ... As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO 

will remain a nuclear alliance."

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 

utility for NATO of a center of excellence focusing primarily on nuclear deterrence 

(including extended deterrence and ensuring compliance with arms control 

obligations), missile defense, and reducing the risk of nuclear smuggling and 

nuclear terrorism and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 

later than November 1, 2014. The study should include: a detailed examination of 

establishing a NATO Center of Excellence-Deterrence (COE-D), which would 

include a discussion of the notional concept with key allies and potential 

stakeholders (Allied Command Transformation, NATO Headquarters, Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. European 

Command); development of a notional vision and mission statement, goals and 

objectives, and organizational chart; propose a timeline for establishment, initial 

265
operating capability, final operating capability (accreditation), and provide proposed 

budget and staffing; development of a notional curriculum; recommendations for 

physical location and necessary infrastructure; the manner in which the center 

would meet NATO (Allied Command Transformation) accreditation requirements; 

and, additional recommendations as appropriate based on the outcome of the study. 

The committee believes, in discussion with Allies, the study should identify and 

encourage member states to offer to be the host nation for the COE-D and equitably 

share the costs of establishing and operating such a center.

Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile Defense Cooperation 

Discussions

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the 

Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

to brief certain congressional committees on (1) missile defense discussions between 

the United States and the Russian Federation; (2) the use of missile defense 

declassification authority by Director, Missile Defense Agency; and (3) the 

declassification of certain missile defense information.

The committee directs that this information provided to the congressional 

committees pursuant to H. Rpt. 113-102 be updated by the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Secretary of State, 

and be reported to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 

Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 

Representatives not later than August 1, 2014. 

Additionally, at the March 25, 2014, House Committee on Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request for missile defense, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy stated, “[w]ith regard to talks with Russia on 

transparency and cooperation, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine in violation of 

international law led to the suspension of our military-to-military dialogues, 

including [Department of Defense] civilians, and we have subsequently not 

continued to engage Russia on the topic of missile defense.” 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the House 

Committee on Armed Services not later than one week after the Department of 

Defense resumes any missile defense discussion with the Russian Federation.

 

Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

On March 5, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear 

and Missile Defense Policy testified before the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services that, "[w]e are concerned about Russian activity that appears to be 

inconsistent with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We've raised the 

issue with Russia. They provided an answer that was not satisfactory to us, and we 

266
will, we told them that the issue is not closed, and we will continue to raise this." 

The committee shares this concern regarding Russian behavior that is "inconsistent 

with" or in violation or circumvention of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces 

(INF) Treaty.

Additionally, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and Supreme 

Allied Commander Europe, stated on April 2, 2014, that, “A weapon capability that 

violates the INF, that is introduced into the greater European land mass is 

absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with...I would not judge how the alliance 

will choose to react, but I would say they will have to consider what to do about 

it...It can’t go unanswered.”

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 

consultation with the Commander, U.S. European Command, the Commander, U.S. 

Central Command, and the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not 

later than September 1, 2014, detailing the following:

(1) A list of any military capabilities (beyond those indicated by the 

September 2013 report by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Report on 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike Options if Exempt from the Restrictions of the 

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Between the United States of America 

and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) the United States would develop or 

deploy to satisfy military requirements but for United States compliance with and 

adherence to the INF Treaty;

(2) The capability of the Aegis Ashore systems scheduled to be deployed to 

Romania and the Republic of Poland to detect Russian military systems that are 

inconsistent with or in circumvention of the INF treaty, and the appropriate types 

of interceptor missiles, including interceptor missiles other than the Standard 

Missile-3, that would be capable of defending allies and U.S. deployed forces from 

such Russian military systems that could be deployed at such Aegis Ashore sites, as 

well as a detailed explanation of any hardware and software changes required to 

those sites in order to provide a cruise-missile defense capability, and the costs of 

those changes;

(3) The defensive capability of the Aegis Ashore system, currently situated 

on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, if redeployed to one of the following 

locations: Japan, the Baltic Region of Europe, or the South Caucuses of Europe; 

(4) Options to increase the long-term, long-duration deployment of U.S. 

Aegis destroyers and cruisers, configured with the Aegis ballistic missile defense 

system, in the North Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, White Sea, and other locations that 

provide an enhanced defense of the United States, deployed forces, and allies within 

range of the aforementioned Russian military systems, and costs of those options;

(5) Options to provide for the forward-deployment, on a non-temporary 

basis, for U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or PATRIOT units at potential 

locations in Eastern Europe, the South Caucuses of Europe, or in allied states in 

East Asia, and the costs of those options;

267
(6) Options to increase the deployment of U.S. Dual Capable Aircraft in 

states within range of the aforementioned Russian military systems, and the costs 

of those options; 

(7) Potential locations in Eastern Europe or the South Caucuses of Europe, 

or in allied states in East Asia, for U.S. Weapons Storage and Security System 

weapons vaults that would reduce response time and increase proximity to potential 

threats, and the costs of constructing the vaults at those sites; and

(8) The potential sensor coverage of potential threats to allies and U.S. 

deployed forces if the United States deployed the Ground-based Radar Prototype 

presently located on Kwajalein Atoll at optimal locations in the Baltic States, the 

South Caucuses, Eastern Europe, or in allied states in East Asia, as well as the 

potential sensor coverage of additional forward-deployed Army-Navy/Transportable 

Radar Surveillance units at those locations, and the costs of deploying such sensors.

(9) Assessment of likely responses by the Russian Federation to such 

options, if implemented, and the interest of NATO states in hosting the capabilities 

described in (2)-(8) and an assessment of the Alliance's likely position on the 

deployment of such options, as required.

The report shall be submitted un unclassified form, with a classified portion 

marked annex as necessary.

Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry of Defense and 

Ministry of Interior

In November 2013, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction (SIGAR) issued a report titled, "Comprehensive Risk Assessments of 

MOD and MOI Financial Management Capacity Could Improve Oversight of Over 

$4 Billion in Direct Assistance Funding" (SIGAR-14-12-SP). The report evaluated 

whether Department of Defense funds provided to the Ministry of Defense (MOD) 

and the Ministry of Interior (MOI) of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are 

properly managed and safeguarded to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. The 

Department of Defense reported to SIGAR that, as of September 2013, it committed 

$4.2 billion and disbursed nearly $3.0 billion in direct assistance to the Afghan 

MOD and MOI for the sustainment of the Afghanistan National Security Forces 

(ANSF), including procurement of food, goods, and services; funding salaries; and 

funding minor construction. 

The committee believes that an assessment of the financial management 

capacity of the Afghan MOD and MOI will improve the protection of U.S. direct 

assistance to Afghanistan to fund and equip the ANSF and ensure the assistance is 

used as intended. The committee also believes that an assessment of any associated 

risks for U.S. funds will assist the Department of Defense in developing mitigation 

measures to address any such risks. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the financial management 

capacity and risks within the Afghan MOD and the MOI. The Inspector General 

268
should also assess the capacity and risks within the Afghan Ministry of Finance, to 

the extent the Inspector General determines that such an assessment is required to 

protect Department funds and would not duplicate efforts conducted by other 

agencies of the U.S. Government. Such assessment should: 

(1) Identify core financial management functions within the Afghan MOD 

and MOI, including: financial management and accounting capacity; financial 

accountability and control environment; procurement and asset management 

capacity; contracting mechanisms and processes; and management of personnel 

systems;

(2) Identify major risks and mitigation strategies deemed necessary for 

ensuring that the MOD and MOI are able to manage U.S. direct assistance; and

(3) Assess how a post-2014 United States and North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization residual military presence to train, advise, and assist the ANSF would 

help mitigate any risk in the financial management capacity of the Afghan MOD

and MOI.

The committee further directs the Inspector General to provide a report on 

the results of the assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives by December 31, 2014. 

The committee is cognizant of the security situation in Afghanistan and of 

other challenges that may affect the Inspector General's ability to carry out such an 

assessment. The committee understands that the Inspector General would conduct 

the assessment in phases to accommodate these challenges. If the Inspector 

General cannot complete the assessment and deliver the required report by 

December 31, 2014, the Inspector General should notify the committees of the 

reasons the assessment cannot be completed by that date and include in such 

notification the date the Inspector General expects that the assessment will be 

completed and submitted.

Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

The committee notes the long-term utility of the annual reports on military 

power of states including the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of 

Iran. Drawing on these examples, as an initial step, the committee is interested in 

better understanding the consequences of the increasing reliance on missile 

defenses by states around the globe. 

For example, the committee was informed by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff in his response to its direction in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-

102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

that: "Russia’s objective with its ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities is to 

ensure defense of critical political and military targets in the Moscow area from a 

ballistic missile attack, either by the United States or any other nation with nuclear 

or conventional ballistic or cruise missile capabilities. China desires a BMD 

capability to protect its mainland and strategic forces. At present, China’s existing 

long-range surface to air missile inventory offers a limited capability against short269
range ballistic missiles. China is proceeding with research and development toward 

a missile defense umbrella consisting of intercept at exo-atmospheric altitudes 

(>80km), as well as intercepts of ballistic missiles and other aerospace vehicles 

within the upper atmosphere." 

The committee is also aware that the Republic of India is undertaking tests 

of its anti-ballistic missile defense system as part of its efforts to develop and deploy 

a ballistic missile defense shield. The committee is further aware of extensive U.S. 

missile defense cooperation involving the State of Israel, the Republic of Korea, 

Japan, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and many others. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, 

in cooperation with the Director, Missile and Space Intelligence Center and the 

Director, National Air and Space Intelligence Center, to provide an unclassified 

report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations 

of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 

Representatives not later than November 15, 2014, that includes the following:

(1) A detailed description of ballistic missile defense programs of each state 

that possesses such a program, including role and capability of outer space in their 

system architecture, either through indigenous development or procurement from 

another state;

(2) The missile defense employment policy of that country, including any 

views on the reason such state has its missile defense system and any limitations on 

its use as a defense system, as well as any technical or doctrinal indications that a 

state’s ballistic missile defense programs are intended to defend that state from 

U.S. ballistic missiles; 

(3) Intent to, and established programs to, modernize such systems and 

relative budget as compared to national defense budget; and

(4) Indication that a state will abandon its ballistic missile defense program 

if the U.S. provides that state guarantees of any sort that U.S. ballistic missile 

defense programs are unrelated to that state’s offensive forces. 

Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa Command

While much attention has been paid to the use of contractors by the 

Department of Defense to support the large-scale operations in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee recognizes the Department 

uses contractors to support myriad efforts in other locations around the globe. 

Specifically, within U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), the Department relies 

heavily on contractors to provide logistical, linguistic, intelligence, and 

transportation support to ongoing training, advising, and other assistance missions. 

While the challenges and deficiencies regarding the planning, management, and 

oversight of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been well documented, and 

the Department has taken several steps to address these challenges, the committee 

notes that the challenges associated with contractor support for other types of 

270
operations in other regions could be substantially different. In addition to broader 

concerns regarding planning, management, and oversight of contracts of this 

nature, the committee is concerned about the extent to which the Department may 

face operational contract support challenges in AFRICOM.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to examine the processes AFRICOM uses to plan, manage, and oversee 

contractors that support its military operations conducted in Africa. Specifically, the 

review should include an assessment of the following:

(1) The extent to which AFRICOM uses contractors to support its programs 

and operations and the appropriateness of how AFRICOM uses contractors to 

support such programs and operations;

(2) The extent to which AFRICOM depends on the Department of State to 

provide operational contract support to its activities in Africa and the potential 

challenges associated with this support; 

(3) The organizational structure in place at AFRICOM and its subordinate 

commands to manage operational contract support, including planning for the use 

of contractors and oversight of contractors during operations, as well as the systems 

and processes for tracking contractors throughout operations; 

(4) The processes used to vet non-United States contractors and contractor 

employees; and 

(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines appropriate with 

respect to the Department of Defense’s operational contract support in AFRICOM.

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by March 1, 2015, on the above assessment, with a followon report delivered to those committees not later than April 15, 2015.

Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the Support of the Chinese 

Government 

The committee is aware that the United States has repeatedly invoked 

sanctions on Karl Lee, a national of the People's Republic of China, for his 

proliferation to the Islamic Republic of Iran of components related to its illegal 

ballistic missile program in violation of United States statutes (for example, the 

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act) and numerous Executive orders. 

The committee is also aware that despite a criminal indictment in the 

United States for these activities, and numerous and repeated invocations of United 

States sanctions against him, China has made little apparent effort to respond to 

Karl Lee's activities. The committee believes it would be a benefit to the bilateral 

relationship between the two nations if China took efforts to arrest Karl Lee to stop 

permanently his illegal proliferation. 

The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 

Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 

271
Representatives, not later than August 31, 2014, providing the following: ongoing 

proliferation activities involving Karl Lee or his front companies, and relationships 

between Karl Lee and officials of the Chinese government, including bribes or 

protection payments to ensure that his activities go unchallenged by the 

government. The report should be in unclassified form, with a classified annex if 

necessary. 

Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa

In 2013, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) became the first geographic 

combatant command to receive a regionally aligned force (RAF). Under the 

regionally aligned force concept, the Army will align designated units to specific 

regions and deploy small groups of personnel from those units to conduct security 

force assistance activities, leaving the rest of the units at their home stations. These 

activities include exercises, training events, and other security cooperation and 

security force assistance activities. The RAF units are expected to maintain 

readiness for their core mission even as they support the geographic combatant 

commander’s needs. The Army has designated one brigade to serve as the regionally 

aligned force for AFRICOM. 

The committee is concerned about potential overlaps in roles and 

responsibilities, and notes that there are other Department of Defense security force 

assistance activities underway in Africa, including Africa Contingency Operations 

Training and Assistance efforts and the National Guard’s State Partnership 

Program. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these additional mission 

requirements and the dispersion of the RAF may impact the ability of the force to 

maintain readiness for its core mission. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 

expresses support for the Army's RAF concept but also states various concerns. In 

addition, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would 

require the Secretary of the Army to submit an assessment of the RAF to the 

congressional defense committees concurrent with the submission of the President's 

budget for fiscal year 2016. 

As a complement to this assessment, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to evaluate the employment of the RAF in Africa. The 

Comptroller General's evaluation should be informed by the required Army 

assessment and include the following:

(1) The extent to which AFRICOM has defined the intended roles, 

responsibilities, goals, objectives, and required capabilities for the use of the 

regionally aligned brigade to conduct security force assistance activities, to include 

evaluating the impact of conducted activities;

(2) The extent to which AFRICOM has identified and mitigated potential 

overlap between the requirements and capabilities of the regionally aligned brigade 

and other Department of Defense security force assistance activities within 

AFRICOM; 

272
(3) The extent to which the regionally aligned brigade has been able to meet 

AFRICOM requirements to conduct security force assistance activities, to include 

the training and equipping of brigade personnel and associated costs to meet 

mission requirements;

(4) What impact, if any, the regionally aligned brigade's security force 

assistance activities and requirements in AFRICOM have had on its ability to 

maintain readiness, to include adhering to training schedules; and

(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines appropriate with 

respect to the Army’s regionally aligned brigade in Africa.

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a preliminary 

briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by March 1, 2015, on the above evaluation, with a report to follow 

not later than April 15, 2015. 

Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to Strengthen its Strategic 

Partnership with Djibouti

The committee believes that the strategic relationship between the U.S. 

Government and the Government of the Republic of Djibouti remains one of the 

most important strategic relationships that the United States has in the region. In 

written testimony submitted to the committee on March 5, 2014, the Commander, 

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stated that the Department of Defense's 

presence at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, "provides a critical platform for our 

activities, as well as those of Central Command, Special Operations Command, and 

Transportation Command." The committee further notes the importance of the 

Department's presence in Djibouti in the classified annex to this report. 

The committee appreciates the Government of Djibouti's continued support 

of this relationship and therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a 

provision that would provide an enhanced authority to the Secretary of Defense to 

acquire products and services produced in Djibouti in support of Department of 

Defense activities in AFRICOM. 

However, the committee believes that a comprehensive, long-term, 

interagency approach is necessary to support the strategic relationship between the 

two countries, and to support ongoing Department of Defense efforts facilitated by 

that relationship. The committee is aware that the Department of State and the 

U.S. Agency for International Development are engaged in Djibouti, but believes 

that these efforts could be better coordinated within the interagency and should be 

robust enough to support such a comprehensive approach. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to provide a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the Committee 

on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

House of Representatives, not later than February 6, 2015, on the specific steps the 

273
U.S. Government is taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti, 

including:

(1) A summary of the strategic goals for the relationship between the 

United States and the Government of Djibouti; 

(2) An assessment of the current state of the relationship between the 

United States and the Government of Djibouti; and

(3) A detailed description of the steps being taken, and additional steps that 

could be taken, to support a long-term, strategic relationship between the United 

States and the Government of Djibouti. 

Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European Phased Adaptive 

Approach

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense provided the 

October 2012 Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost 

Estimate (ICE) for the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) on February 

25, 2014. The committee is aware of both the total acquisition and lifecycle cost as 

well as the statement of the Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics that there have been numerous requirement content changes to the EPAA 

since it was completed, including mission requirements.

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation to update his October 2012 ICE and submit it directly to the 

congressional defense committees not later than November 15, 2014. 

Republic of China Radar Interoperability

The committee is aware that the Republic of China (Taiwan) possesses a 

large and highly capable Early Warning Radar. The committee believes that, based 

on its geographical location, this radar could be a benefit to United States and allied 

missile defense objectives. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than October 1, 

2014, detailing his views on any benefits, and associated costs and security 

requirements, of integrating such radar with other United States missile defense 

and sensor systems to improve U.S. regional missile defense capabilities. The 

committee directs this report to be provided in unclassified form, with a classified 

annex if necessary. 

Separately, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy may provide an 

additional report detailing his views on the benefits and costs of such cooperation. 

Transfers of Excess Defense Articles

The committee appreciates the important diplomatic interests served by the 

transfer of Excess Defense Articles (EDA) to allied and partner nations. While a 

274
properly executed EDA program bolsters U.S. diplomatic aims, under section 2321j 

of title 22, United States Code, the EDA program must be executed in a way that 

does not harm the capability or capacity of the U.S. defense industrial base, which 

is particularly important during this time of fewer Federal investments in defense 

procurement and research and development. 

The committee is concerned about the adverse impact of antiquated 

equipment transfers on partner nation capacity-building objectives as well as the 

harm done to the reputation of the U.S. industrial base from transferring nonfunctional or obsolete equipment. In order to ensure that the diplomatic aims of 

EDA are fully appreciated and efforts to enhance the sustainment of the U.S 

defense industrial base with international sales are not undermined, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to engage the industrial base in providing 

refurbishment and sustainment of EDA equipment, to include supplies and parts, to 

the fullest extent possible.

United States Security Assistance to the Government of Egypt

The committee notes with concern the growing Al Qaeda presence and 

associated terrorist attacks in the Arab Republic of Egypt. Presently, at least six 

terrorist groups with links to Al Qaeda operate in Egypt, including the Ansar Bayt 

al-Maqdis and the al-Furqan Brigades. In recent months, terrorist attacks in Egypt 

claimed the lives of hundreds of Egyptians and over 350 soldiers and police officers. 

Within the past 6 months, there have been over 280 attacks in the Sinai Peninsula. 

On January 24, 2014, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists conducted a series of coordinated 

attacks that killed 6 and injured over 100 people in Cairo. 

Egypt is not only enduring the effects of terrorism from the Sinai 

Peninsula, it is also enduring the increasing flow of foreign fighters and military 

material from its western and southern borders with Libya and the Republic of the 

Sudan, respectively.

The committee understands that the Secretary of State, in accordance with 

section 7041 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-71), will 

certify to Congress that Egypt is taking steps to support a democratic transition and 

that the President has made the decision to deliver 10 Apache helicopters to support 

Egypt's counterterrorism operations in the Sinai Peninsula. Given the significant 

increase in terrorist activity, the close relationship that the Egyptian military has 

with the U.S. military, and the interim Government’s support of the peace treaty 

with the State of Israel, the committee supports the President's decision to provide 

the Apache aircraft to the Government of Egypt. The committee further believes 

that the United States should provide necessary security assistance to the 

Government of Egypt, specifically focused on areas of mutual security interest. 

The committee remains concerned that if the United States does not engage 

through security assistance with the Government of Egypt and the Egyptian 

military, then other countries, such as the Russian Federation, may fill this gap, 

which would work at cross-purposes with vital U.S. national security interests.

275
The committee continues to closely observe Egypt’s transition towards a 

new democratic government structure and is encouraged by both the direction and 

progress that the interim Government has made in this realm. In January 2014, 

Egyptians participated in a referendum to approve a new constitution, which 

includes protections for individual freedoms, equal protection and rights for all 

Egyptians, government transparency and accountability, and improved civilian 

oversight of the Egyptian military. Additionally, the committee is encouraged that 

the presidential and parliamentary elections appear to be on track and likely to be 

completed by the summer of 2014, and urges the Government of Egypt to ensure 

that the elections are free, fair, and devoid of fraud. The committee is concerned by 

reports that there may have been human rights violations that have occurred in 

Egypt. The committee encourages the next President of Egypt to address the 

economic and political needs of the Egyptian people, including the protections for 

individual freedom and human rights reflected in the new Egyptian constitution. 

United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle East and North Africa

The committee recognizes that the Middle East is undergoing significant 

change, and remains concerned about the implications of those changes on security 

and stability in the region and on U.S. policy and posture in the region. 

As the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs testified to the 

committee on February 11, 2014, "The Middle East today is undergoing historic 

changes. Across the region, we are seeing unprecedented political ferment and in 

some cases upheaval as people demand change." Major events such as the war in 

the Republic of Iraq, the Arab Awakening, and the ongoing conflict in the Syrian 

Arab Republic, have shaped, and are shaping, the Middle East in fundamental and 

irreversible ways. Over the next 6 months, key diplomatic and defense related 

events in the greater Middle East will further shape the region and the U.S. 

engagement therein. These include: the likely signing of the Bilateral Security 

Agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; the 

President’s decision on a potential post-2014 U.S. residual presence in Afghanistan; 

the international effort to destroy the chemical precursors and chemical weapons 

production capability of the Assad regime; the continuing conflict in Syria; the 

negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority; the 

negotiations to achieve a comprehensive nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of 

Iran; and the parliamentary and presidential elections in the Arab Republic of 

Egypt. However, the committee remains unclear about how these diplomatic and 

military activities will shape a comprehensive U.S. policy for the Middle East and 

North Africa.

Officials from key allies and partners in the region, most prominently from 

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of Israel, and some Gulf States, have made 

public comments that suggest they are concerned that the United States is 

disengaging from the Middle East, or at least that U.S. interests appear to be 

diverging from these allies’ interests. These public expressions of concern appear to 

276
be spurred by the ongoing negotiations and interim nuclear deal with Iran, 

disagreements with the United States about how best to respond to the conflict in 

Syria, and the ongoing U.S. “rebalance to the Asia-Pacific” that may lead to greater 

U.S. disengagement from the Middle East. 

The committee believes that the United States should be clear in its 

commitment to the Middle East and North Africa, and that the U.S. forward 

posture across these regions should demonstrably support U.S. stated policy goals 

and strategy, consistent with the "deep, enduring interest" and commitment 

expressed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee also 

notes that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 

Security Affairs stated before the committee on February 11, 2014, that "the greater 

Middle East remains a region of vital strategic importance to the United 

States...The most tangible sign of U.S. commitment that we can make to the 

security of the region is the physical presence of the men and women in uniform as 

well as the presence of advanced military equipment."

The committee believes that a commitment to the regular funding of U.S. 

strategic bases that support U.S. forces in the Middle East is the most visible way 

the United States can demonstrate its commitment to the region in the short term. 

The committee further believes that the United States' forward posture and 

presence is not sufficient to meet the goals of the 2014 QDR unless they are also 

fiscally sustainable. The committee is aware that much of the critical U.S. military 

posture and basing in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, which is used to 

deter Iran and would be leveraged in the event there are any military operations to 

counter Iran in the GCC region, continues to be expeditionary in nature and 

financed through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The committee 

recognizes that OCO funding may be phased out in the coming years, and therefore 

remains concerned that the Department of Defense has not identified other sources 

of funding to support these strategic bases and presence. In addition, the 

committee notes that the United States does not have in place the Status of Forces 

Agreements, and associated defense agreements, with GCC countries to ensure that 

these locations are maintained for the defense of the Arabian Gulf and other U.S. 

national security interests. The committee has previously highlighted the need for 

a sustainable posture and relationship with the GCC countries, including language 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 

that required the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with a report 

addressing its concerns about U.S. plans, funding, and agreements in the region. 

The committee expects continued engagement from the Department of 

Defense on U.S. policy and posture in the Middle East and North Africa, and on any 

changes stemming from budgetary constraints or policy shifts.

Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Developments

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the 

277
Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to "provide unclassified semi-annual reports, 

with a classified annex if necessary, detailing the status of the development and 

deployment by the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and associated delivery 

systems not subject to strategic arms control treaties. Such reports shall include 

status of deployment, numbers of deployed systems, expected employment doctrine, 

and status of training in the employment of such systems by the military forces of 

the Russian Federation."

The committee has received one such report and found it to be less 

responsive to its direction than it hoped. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to submit a report to the House Committee on 

Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, that includes the following:

(1) The status of the development and deployment by the Russian 

Federation of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems not subject to 

strategic arms control treaties; 

(2) The numbers of such deployed and non-deployed systems; 

(3) The expected employment doctrine; and

(4) The status of training in the employment of such systems by Russian 

military forces.

Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace

The budget request contained $24.4 million for the Warsaw Initiative Fund 

(WIF)/Partnership for Peace (PFP) program, representing a $9.7 million decrease 

from the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense's Warsaw 

Initiative Fund program is one of the primary tools the Department uses to 

promote defense reform efforts and defense institution building with developing 

partners that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership 

for Peace program. The committee believes that additional funds are necessary to 

enable U.S. European Command, through military exercises and defense reform 

efforts, to build the capacity of PFP militaries in order to promote regional stability 

and deter aggression by the Russian Federation. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $34.4 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, for the WIF/PFP program.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Section 1201—One-Year Extension of Global Security Contingency Fund

This section would modify section 1207 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). This section would 

broaden the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) authority to include smallscale construction, not to exceed $750,000 on a per-project basis, as part of the 

278
authorized types of capacity building. The committee believes that small-scale 

construction, under $750,000 per project, may be required for long-term 

sustainability of capacity building activities. However, the committee expects that 

any small-scale construction projects authorized under this section would be a 

supporting, logical component of a comprehensive GSCF program, and not a standalone project. 

This section would also authorize a 1-year extension of the GSCF and state 

that amounts appropriated or transferred to the Fund before the date of the 

enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 shall 

remain available for obligation and expenditure after September 30, 2015, only if 

activities under programs under section 1207(b) begin before September 30, 2015.

The committee remains concerned about the progress of the GSCF, as 

previously stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and the committee report 

(H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013. The committee believes that if the Department of Defense and the 

Department of State cannot successfully establish full operational capability for the 

GSCF, including planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may 

consider not renewing this authority in future years.

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends no dedicated funding 

for GSCF; rather, the committee believes projects contemplated under GSCF should 

compete within other security assistance priorities for funds otherwise available to 

the Department as they have been.

Section 1202—Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance Under Authority to 

Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to 

Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction

This section would amend section 1204 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) by adding the 

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs of the House of Representatives to the notification requirement.

Section 1203—Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support to Foreign Military 

Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries While Assigned to the Department of Defense

 This section would amend section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to 

authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide administrative and support services, 

to include certain training programs, for liaison officers of a foreign country, while 

such liaison officers are assigned temporarily to the headquarters of a combatant 

command, component command, or subordinate operational command of the United 

States. This section would further amend section 1051a of title 10, United States 

Code, to include a limitation on the authorized number of liaison officers and 

amount of unreimbursed support for travel, subsistence, and medical care expenses 

per fiscal year for any such liaison officer. This section would also require the 

279
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual 

report on January 31 of each year from 2016-18 on the summary of expenses 

incurred by the United States for liaison officers of a developing country, and 

include the Department of Defense's definition of a "developing country" as used for 

the purposes of this authority. 

The committee recognizes the role of foreign liaison officers at the 

combatant commands and component commands to provide expertise to the 

commander and staff to better understand the respective region and plan for 

contingencies in the command's area of responsibility. Although the committee 

recognizes foreign liaison officers are present at all commands, section 1051a of title 

10, United States Code, provides specific authority to the Secretary of Defense to 

provide administrative and financial support to those liaison officers of a developing 

country involved in a current U.S. military operation. The committee believes the 

commands should continue to benefit from the unique contributions of the liaison 

officers beyond current military operations, such as Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 1204—Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and Verification 

Procedures of the Department of Defense

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State, to submit to Congress an annual report on human rights 

vetting and verification procedures of the Department of Defense. This report shall 

be submitted at the same time as the budget of the President is submitted to 

Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

SUBTITLE B—MATTERS RELATING TO AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

Section 1211—Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program in 

Afghanistan

This section would amend section 1201 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as most recently 

amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66), by extending for 1 year the Commanders' Emergency 

Response Program in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Section 1212—Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition 

Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations

This section would amend section 1233 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently 

amended by section 1213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition 

nations for support provided to the United States for military operations through 

fiscal year 2015, and making certain technical amendments. 

280
Additionally, this section would prohibit the reimbursement of support 

provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until such time as 

the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that 

Pakistan is maintaining security and is not, through its actions or inaction at any 

level of government, limiting or otherwise restricting the movement of U.S. 

equipment and supplies along the Ground Lines of Communication through 

Pakistan, and that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps to: (1) support 

counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and other 

militant groups such as the Haqqani Network and the Quetta Shura Taliban; (2) 

disrupt the conduct of cross-border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan 

security forces; (3) counter the threat of improvised explosive device networks; and 

(4) conduct cross-border coordination and communication with Afghan security 

forces and U.S. Armed Forces.

Section 1213—Extension of Certain Authorities for Support of Foreign Forces 

Supporting or Participating with the United States Armed Forces

This section would amend section 1234 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and section 1202(e) of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364), as most recently amended by sections 1217(a) and 1217(b) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), 

respectively. Specifically, it would extend the authority to (1) provide supplies, 

services, transportation (including airlift and sealift), and other logistical support to 

coalition forces supporting United States military and stabilization operations in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; and (2) use acquisition and cross-servicing 

agreements to lend military equipment to the military forces of a nation 

participating in combined operations with the United States in Afghanistan.

The committee recognizes that the United States may be involved in a 

combined operation with partner nations in Afghanistan as part of Operation 

Resolute Support, following the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

mission in Afghanistan on December 31, 2014. Should the President decide to 

commit the United States to a post-2014 presence and mission as part of Operation 

Resolute Support, such partner nations would require logistical support and the 

lending of military equipment from U.S. forces in Afghanistan to effectively execute 

the Operation Resolute Support mission. 

 

Section 1214—Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan 

under Operation Resolute Support

This section would create a new "Report on Progress Toward Security and 

Stability in Afghanistan." It would include reporting requirements similar to those 

originally contained in section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended by section 1218 of 

281
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), 

but updated to reflect the post-2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

effort in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan known as Operation Resolute Support. 

In addition, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit such report to the congressional 

defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than April 

1, 2015, and every 180 days thereafter, on the progress toward security and 

stability in Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support. 

Lastly, this section would extend the original "Report on Progress Toward 

Security and Stability in Afghanistan" for 3 months and sunset it on December 31, 

2014. 

Section 1215—Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance to 

Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150 Percent of All Taxes Assessed by 

Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by Afghanistan

This section would require the Department of Defense to withhold fiscal 

year 2015 funds appropriated for assistance to the Government of the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan in the amount equivalent to 150 percent of the total taxes 

assessed during fiscal year 2014 by Afghanistan on such assistance. This withhold 

would continue to the extent that the Secretary of Defense certifies that 

Afghanistan has not provided a reimbursement for those taxes to the Department, 

or relevant Department contractors and subcontractors. The Secretary of Defense 

may waive such requirement if it is necessary to achieve U.S. goals in Afghanistan.

Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report, not later than March 1, 2015, to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of 

the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 

on the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 2014 by the Government of 

Afghanistan on any Department of Defense assistance. 

Lastly, this section would terminate once the Secretary of Defense notifies 

the appropriate committees that the United States and Afghanistan have signed a 

bilateral security agreement and that such agreement has entered into force.

The committee notes that such taxation by Afghanistan on Department of 

Defense assistance is a violation of the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between 

the United States and Afghanistan. The committee expects the Government of 

Afghanistan to adhere to this SOFA and not levy illegitimate taxes and penalties on 

Department of Defense contractors and subcontractors providing services in 

Afghanistan.

Section 1216—United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan National Security 

Forces Through the End of Fiscal Year 2018

282
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State, to submit a report within 90 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on 

Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

of Representatives, that contains a detailed plan for sustaining the Afghanistan 

National Security Forces (ANSF) through the end of fiscal year 2018, consistent 

with plans that are being considered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

The objective of such plan is to ensure that the ANSF will be able to independently 

and effectively conduct operations and maintain security and stability in the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Section 1217—Sense of Congress on United States Military Commitment to 

Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan

This section would express the sense of Congress on the United States 

military commitment to Operation Resolute Support in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan to include: the importance of maintaining a U.S. residual presence in 

Afghanistan for Operation Resolute Support beginning on January 1, 2015; the 

importance of achieving a signed Bilateral Security Agreement, and a status of 

forces agreement to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

mission; and, continuing to financially support the Afghanistan National Security 

Forces (ANSF) due to the vital interests that the United States continues to have in 

Afghanistan. 

The committee applauds the gains achieved by the United States, NATO, 

and its coalition partners in Afghanistan, to include:

(1) The International Security and Assistance Force has trained and is 

building the ANSF, including doubling the ANSF in size between 2009-14, to its 

current end strength of approximately 352,000 personnel;

(2) The ANSF currently executes 95 percent of its conventional operations 

and 98 percent of its special operations missions across Afghanistan;

(3) The United States signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement with the 

Government of Afghanistan and has designated Afghanistan as a major non-NATO 

ally;

(4) Life expectancy in Afghanistan has increased from 37 years of age in 

2000 to 56 years of age in 2014;

(5) 65 percent of the Afghan population has access to the Internet;

(6) There are four times more healthcare facilities in Afghanistan in 2014 

than in 2003;

(7) More than 10,000,000 children are attending school, including 3,000,000 

girls, in Afghanistan;

(8) There are more than 13,000 general education schools in Afghanistan; 

and

(9) Paved roads have increased from just 32 miles in 2002 to 7,500 miles in 

2014.

283
The committee notes that the term Operation Resolute Support refers to 

the NATO mission in Afghanistan beginning on January 1, 2015.

Section 1218—Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program

This section would authorize a certain number of visas for principal aliens 

who may be provided special immigrant visa status in accordance with section 

602(b)(3) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101). This section 

would also extend the period in which the principal alien must be employed by or on 

behalf of the U.S. Government in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to December 

31, 2015. Additionally, this section would extend the period in which the principal 

alien must apply to the Chief of Mission in Afghanistan to September 30, 2015. The 

authorization in this section would terminate on September 30, 2016. 

SUBTITLE C—MATTERS RELATING TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Section 1221—Limitation on Military Contact and Cooperation between the United 

States and the Russian Federation

This section would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2015 for bilateral 

military-to-military contact or cooperation between the United States and the 

Russian Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

Secretary of State, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Russia 

is respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer acting inconsistently 

with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in compliance with the Treaty 

on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, and Russia has not sold or transferred 

the Club-K land attack cruise missile system to any foreign country or person 

during fiscal year 2014. This section would include a waiver for the Secretary of 

Defense, pending a notification, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to the 

appropriate congressional committees that such contact or cooperation is in the 

national security interest of the United States and a period of 30 days has elapsed 

following the notification. Further, the certification regarding the sale or transfer of 

the Club-K cruise missile could be waived by the Secretary of Defense if the United 

States has imposed sanctions against the manufacturer of such system by reason of 

the sale or transfer, or, if the Secretary has developed and submitted to the 

appropriate congressional committees a plan to prevent the sale or other transfer of 

such system in the future. 

The committee notes that at the time this report was filed, the Secretary of 

Defense has suspended military exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits, and 

planning conferences between the Armed Forces of the United States and Russia in 

response to ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. The committee believes 

that U.S.-Russia military contact and cooperation must remain suspended so long 

as Russia continues its aggression towards Ukraine and continues to take actions 

inconsistent with its treaty obligations. 

284
Section 1222—Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to Certification of Certain 

Flights by the Russian Federation Under the Treaty on Open Skies

This section would impose a limitation on the use of funds to permit the 

certification of a proposal by the Russian Federation to change any sensor package 

for a flight by Russia under the Open Skies Treaty unless: (1) the Secretary of 

Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of National 

Intelligence jointly certify to the appropriate congressional committees that such 

proposal will not enhance the capability or potential of the Russian Federation to 

gather intelligence that poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the 

United States or is not designed to be collected under such treaty; and (2) the 

Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Russia 

is no longer illegally occupying Ukrainian territory, the Russian Federation is no 

longer violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and is in compliance 

with the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. The President would be able to 

waive this section if he submits to the appropriate congressional committees a 

certification that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so. 

The section would also require a 90 day notice-and-wait prior to the approval of a 

Russian proposal. 

The committee is committed to effective and complete compliance with the 

Treaty on Open Skies, provided such compliance is not allowed to become a threat 

to the national security of the United States. 

The committees notes its request for a briefing on the ongoing 

implementation of the Treaty on Open Skies, and that this briefing was postponed 

at the request of the Administration. The committee looks forward to receiving this 

briefing and plans to continue close oversight of this issue.

Section 1223—Limitations on Providing Certain Missile Defense Information to the 

Russian Federation

This section would extend the sunset date on certain measures relating to 

the provision or prohibition on the provision of U.S. missile defense information to 

the Russian Federation. This section would also add a new prohibition on the 

transfer of velocity at burnout information to Russia. Additionally, this section 

would add the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives to the specified recipients of the 

notification required under this section. 

Section 1224—Limitation on Availability of Funds to Transfer Missile Defense 

Information to the Russian Federation

This section would limit the use of funds in a fiscal year to transfer missile 

defense information to the Russian Federation unless the President has submitted a 

report to the congressional defense committees by October 31st of such fiscal year 

285
detailing discussions between the United States and Russia during the prior fiscal 

year. 

Section 1225—Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation of Its 

Obligations under the INF Treaty

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the material

breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Russian 

Federation, and would require the President to report not later than 90 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, on efforts to 

have Russia return to being in compliance with the treaty, and the President's 

assessment as to whether it remains in the national security interest of the United 

States to remain a party to the treaty. 

Section 1226—Sense of Congress Regarding Russian Aggression Toward Ukraine

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding Russian 

aggression towards Ukraine.

Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes with concern the recent 

actions undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The 

committee believes both the overt and covert actions taken by the Russian military 

and Government to seize and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and 

threaten further military action against the Government of Ukraine, are clearly 

meant to coerce the Government and people of Ukraine into adopting policies and 

an orientation centered on Russia and away from Europe and the West.

Section 1227—Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the 

Russian Federation

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later than June 1, 

2015 and annually thereafter through 2021, to submit to the specified congressional 

committees a report on the current and future military power of the Russian 

Federation. The report would address the current and probable future course of 

military-technological development of Russian security and military strategy, and 

military organizations and operational concepts, for the 20-year period following the 

report. This section would also repeal section 10 of the Support for the Sovereignty, 

Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (Public Law 

113-95).

SUBTITLE D—MATTERS RELATING TO THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Section 1231—Strategy to Prioritize United States Interests in the United States 

Pacific Command Area of Responsibility and Implementation Plan

286
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of State and the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, to 

develop a strategy to prioritize United States interests in the U.S. Pacific 

Command's area of responsibility. This section would further require the President, 

acting through the National Security Council and in coordination with the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget, to develop an implementation plan for the 

strategy, and to submit a report to Congress containing the strategy and 

implementation plans not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

Section 1232—Modifications to Annual Report on Military and Security 

Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China

This section would modify section 1202 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) to include an additional 

reporting requirement on developments in the maritime law enforcement 

capabilities and organization of the People's Republic of China.

Section 1233—Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding Military Engagement with 

Burma

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense committees, the 

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later than December 1, 2014, a report 

on the goals and objectives guiding military-to-military engagement between the 

United States and the Union of Burma. This section would further require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit an 

annual update to the required report to the aforementioned committees that would 

sunset after a 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

The committee welcomes the commitment to reform made by the 

Government of Burma. However, the committee notes that the Government of 

Burma needs to progress in: protecting the individual freedoms and human rights of 

the Burmese people, including for all ethnic and religious minorities and internally 

displaced populations; establishing civilian control of the armed forces; severing 

military-to-military ties with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; 

implementing constitutional and electoral reforms; and implementing mechanisms 

for increased governmental transparency and accountability. 

The committee recognizes the role that the U.S. military can play in 

improving the Burmese military's understanding of human rights, the rule of law, 

and civilian control of the military. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense and the Department of State to communicate the relationship between 

U.S.-Burma military-to-military engagement and reform efforts undertaken by the 

Government of Burma.

287
Section 1234—Report on Department of Defense Munitions Strategy for United 

States Pacific Command

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by 

April 1, 2015 to the congressional defense committees, on U.S. Pacific Command's 

10-year munitions strategy, including munitions requirements, gaps and shortfalls, 

and investment plans.

Section 1235—Missile Defense Cooperation

This section would express the sense of Congress that increased missile 

defense cooperation among the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea 

enhances the security of allies of the United States in northeast Asia, increases the 

defense of forward-based forces of the United States, and enhances the protection of 

the United States. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct an 

assessment to identify opportunities for increasing missile defense cooperation 

among the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, and to evaluate options 

for short-range missile, rocket, and artillery defense capabilities, including several 

specific elements. The Secretary would be required to brief the congressional 

defense committees on such assessment not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Section 1236—Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its Contribution to Regional 

Peace and Stability

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report on the maritime 

capabilities of Taiwan and its contribution to regional peace and stability to the 

congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not 

later than April 1, 2016. This section would also express the sense of Congress on 

Taiwan. 

Section 1237—Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-access and Area-denial 

Strategies and Capabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to enter into an 

agreement with an independent entity to conduct an assessment of anti-access and 

area-denial strategies and capabilities that pose a threat to security in the AsiaPacific region and strategies to mitigate such threats. This section would further 

require the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

not later than March 1, 2015, containing the assessment and strategies.

Section 1238—Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security Commitment to Japan

288
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the continued 

importance of the alliance between the United States and Japan for Asia-Pacific 

stability and prosperity.

Section 1239—Sense of Congress on Opportunities to Strengthen Relationship 

between the United States and the Republic of Korea

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the continued 

importance of the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea for 

Asia-Pacific stability and prosperity. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1241—Extension of Authority for Support of Special Operations to Combat 

Terrorism

This section would extend through 2017 the authority for support of special 

operations to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 

amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Further discussion of this provision is 

contained in the classified annex to this report. 

Section 1242—One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional Assisted 

Recovery Capabilities

This section would extend by 1 year the authority for non-conventional 

assisted recovery capabilities pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). 

Section 1243—Extension and Modification of Authority to Support Operations and 

Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq

This section would amend section 1215(f)(1) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as most recently 

amended by section 1214 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66), by extending the authority for the Office of Security 

Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) through fiscal year 2015, to include clarifying that the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may authorize 

OSC-I to conduct training activities in support of Iraqi Ministry of Defense and

Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) personnel at a base or facility of the Government 

of the Republic of Iraq to address capability gaps, integrate processes relating to 

289
intelligence, air sovereignty, combined arms, logistics and maintenance, and to 

manage and integrate defense-related institutions.

Section 1244—Modification of National Security Planning Guidance to Deny Safe 

Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent Extremist Affiliates

This section would modify section 1032 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by requiring the 

President to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the required 

national security planning guidance, including any updates to such guidance, to 

deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates not later than 

October 1, 2014. Additionally, this section would add an element to the required 

guidance that would describe the feasibility, resourcing, authorities required, and 

potential benefit of conducting multilateral training and equipping of military forces 

in relevant countries.

The committee remains concerned about the worldwide evolution and 

growth of Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and associated groups, as noted by non-U.S. 

Government experts at a February 2014 committee hearing. Al Qaeda has been able 

to evolve and grow largely due to safe havens in certain locations such as the Syrian 

Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq, and Libya, to name a few. 

While section 1032 of Public Law 112-81 required the President to issue 

national security planning guidance to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent 

extremist affiliates, it did not require the submission of such guidance to the 

relevant congressional committees. However, the conference report (H. Rept. 112-

329) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

requested that the conferees be briefed on the guidance issued by the President. The 

committee notes that such briefing was not provided. 

Section 1245—Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and Services of Djibouti in 

Support of Department of Defense Activities in United States Africa Command Area 

of Responsibility

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with an enhanced 

authority to acquire products and services produced in the Republic of Djibouti in 

support of Department of Defense activities in the U.S. Africa Command 

(AFRICOM) area of responsibility. The Secretary would be required to make a 

determination that: (1) the product or service is to be used only in support of 

Department activities in AFRICOM; (2) the limit on competition or preference for 

Djiboutian products or services is vital to the national security interest of the 

United States; (3) the Djiboutian product or service is of equivalent quality to that 

which would have been otherwise acquired; and (4) the limitation or preference will 

not adversely affect U.S. military or stability operations in AFRICOM or the U.S. 

290
industrial base. The authority provided in this section would terminate on 

September 30, 2018.

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that such 

procurement of Djiboutian products or services is conducted in accordance with 

Department of Defense management structure requirements in section 2330(a) of 

title 10, United States Code, and identified and reported under a single, joint 

Department of Defense-wide system for the management and accountability of 

contractors operating overseas. It would also require the Secretary to ensure that 

AFRICOM has sufficiently trained staff and resources to conduct oversight of such 

procurement activities in order to detect and deter fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Additionally, this section would express the sense of Congress that U.S. 

forces should remain forward postured in Africa and the Middle East; that Djibouti 

is strategically located to support U.S. vital national security interests; that the 

United States should take definitive steps to maintain its basing access and 

agreements with the Government of Djibouti; that the United States should devise 

and implement a comprehensive approach to reinforce the strategic partnership 

with the Government of Djibouti; and that the Secretary of State, the Administrator 

for the United States Agency for International Development, and the Secretary of 

Defense should take concrete steps to advance and strengthen the relationship 

between the United States and the Government of Djibouti. 

The committee believes that this is an exceptional situation and 

recommends this authority because it recognizes that the U.S. military basing in 

Djibouti provides unique strategic positioning and access to the region, which has 

and continues to support vital U.S. national security interests. Additional detail on 

the criticality of U.S. basing in Djibouti is contained in the classified annex to this 

report. The committee believes that the United States must take proactive steps to 

reinforce a long-term, strategic relationship with the Government of Djibouti in 

order to support such vital national security interests. Elsewhere in this report, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 

State, to submit a report to certain committees outlining the specific steps that the 

Department of State is taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti.

Section 1246—Strategic Framework for United States Security Force Assistance 

and Cooperation in the European and Eurasian Regions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of State, to develop a strategic framework for security force assistance 

and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia. This section would also require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report 

on the strategic framework within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

291
The committee believes that a comprehensive strategic framework for 

security force assistance is important for building and maintaining the partner 

capacity of European and Eurasian forces. The committee recognizes and values 

the interoperability and combat gains made by European and Eurasian allied and 

partner forces, earned as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan, and it does not want to see these gains lost after the ISAF mission 

ends in December 2014. The committee believes the strategic framework should 

focus on those nations for which the Department of Defense has leveraged its 

building partnership capacity authorities, to include the Global Train and Equip, 

Warsaw Initiative Fund, and Global Security Contingency Fund authorities.

Section 1247—Requirement of Department of Defense to Continue Implementation 

of United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence 

Globally and Participation in Interagency Working Group

This section would express the sense of Congress that combating violence 

against women and girls worldwide is critical to promoting regional and global 

stability and achieving sustainable peace and security. This section would further 

require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, to provide a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees on efforts 

by the Department of Defense relating to its participation in the interagency 

working group to implement the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Genderbased Violence Globally, and to continue implementing the strategy as appropriate.

Section 1248—Department of Defense Situational Awareness of Economic and 

Financial Activity

This section would set forth a number of findings and require the Secretary 

of Defense to take such steps as necessary to improve the situational awareness 

capabilities of the Department of Defense regarding legal and licit business 

transactions of adversaries and potential adversaries, and to improve the ability of 

the Department to translate such capabilities into certain activities of the 

Department.

Section 1249—Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic 

Union of Kurdistan Under the Immigration and Nationality Act

This section would authorize the Secretary of State, after consultation with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States, 

or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of 

State and the Attorney General, to exclude the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) 

and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) from the definition of a terrorist 

organization in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

292
(8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III)) for the purpose of issuing a temporary visa to a 

member of the KDP or PUK.

Additionally, this section would prohibit judicial review by any court that 

has jurisdiction to review any determinations made in accordance with the 

authority in this section.

Section 1250—Prohibition on the Integration of Certain Missile Defense Systems

The section would continue the prohibition enacted in section 233 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 

regarding the use of Department of Defense funds to integrate the missile defense 

systems of the People's Republic of China into the missile defense systems of the 

United States.

SUBTITLE F—REPORTS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

Section 1261—Report on "New Normal" and General Mission Requirements of 

United States Africa Command

This section would express a sense of Congress on the force structure and 

force posture of AFRICOM within the context of "New Normal" and its general 

mission requirements. 

Following the terrorist attack against U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on 

September 11, 2012, the U.S. Government established a "New Normal" set of 

requirements and associated resourcing worldwide. The committee is aware that 

with the current force posture and structure of the U.S. Africa Command 

(AFRICOM), the United States is accepting a high level of risk in defending U.S. 

posts that have been determined to be "high risk, high threat" as part of the "New 

Normal" requirements. Moreover, the committee is concerned that AFRICOM does 

not have sufficient assigned military forces; intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance assets; crisis response forces; and enablers to meet the "New 

Normal" requirements.

Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on 

Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

of Representatives not later than January 15, 2015, on how the “New Normal” has 

changed AFRICOM's force posture and force structure requirements. The 

committee expects the report to include inputs and views from the Commander, 

U.S. Africa Command.

Section 1262—Report on Contractors with the Department of Defense That Have 

Conducted Significant Transactions with Iranian Persons or the Government of 

Iran

293
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual 

report to 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, within 180 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, that contains: 

(1) A list of each contractor with the Department of Defense that has 

conducted a significant transaction with an Iranian individual or corporation;

(2) A list of each contractor with the Department that has conducted 

significant transactions with an Iranian individual or corporation whose property 

has been blocked by the United States Government during the 5-year period prior to 

the submission of this report; and 

(3) The value of such significant transactions.

The period for the annual report required by this section would not exceed 3 

years.

Section 1263—Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran

This section would require the President to submit a report to Congress, 

within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the interim agreement 

related to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program, including a verification of 

whether Iran is complying with such agreement and an assessment of the overall 

state of Iran's nuclear program.

Additionally, this section would require the President to submit additional 

reports to Congress on the nuclear program of Iran. If the interim agreement 

related to Iran's nuclear program is renewed or if a comprehensive agreement is 

entered into, the President is required to submit to Congress a report on such 

interim agreement or comprehensive agreement with the Government of Iran. 

These additional reports would be submitted to Congress not later than 90 days 

after a renewal of the interim agreement or 90 days after entering into a 

comprehensive agreement with the Government of Iran.

Section 1264—Sense of Congress on United States Presence and Cooperation in the 

Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran

This section would express the sense of Congress on the U.S. forward 

presence and cooperation in the region of the Arabian Gulf in order to deter the 

Islamic Republic of Iran. Elements of this section would include statements that the 

United States should: maintain a robust forward presence and posture in the 

Arabian Gulf; seek ways to support the security posture of Gulf Cooperation Council 

(GCC) countries and the State of Israel; move funding of key strategic bases in the 

Arabian Gulf region into the Department of Defense's base budget; and seek to 

complete status of forces and defense agreements with GCC countries to support the 

defense of the Arabian Gulf.

Furthermore, this section would state that any comprehensive agreement 

with Iran regarding its nuclear program should address past and present issues of 

294
concern of the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the 

United Nations Security Council. Additionally, this section would express that any 

comprehensive agreement should be agreed to by the United States only if: (1) Iran 

ceases enrichment of uranium; (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and 

development of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, its ballistic missiles, 

and ballistic missile launch technology, including verifiable dismantlement; and (3) 

the Government of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of international 

terrorism. 

Finally, the sense of Congress would state that the United States should 

continue to put pressure on Iran's network of organizations that conduct malign 

activities, and the U.S. Government should not enter into a contract with any 

person or entity that has violated U.S. sanctions laws with respect to contracting 

with the Government of Iran.

Section 1265—Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense Capabilities of 

Poland

The provision would express the sense of Congress that the Polish defense 

modernization program is an important opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-Poland 

bilateral relationship. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

OVERVIEW

The budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 

Reduction (CTR) Program contained $365.1 million for fiscal year 2015, 

representing an decrease of $163.3 million from the amount requested and 

authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014. The request included $20.7 

million for the Global Nuclear Security (GNS) Program, $256.8 million for CBEP, 

and $40.7 million for the Proliferation Prevention Program (PPP).

The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR program and 

believes that the program is important to United States national security. In past 

years, the committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance 

and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints, have sometimes 

limited progress of the CTR program. The committee notes, however, that the CTR 

program has made significant achievements, and that much work remains to be 

done as new threats emerge. The committee is also aware of the Department's 

efforts to identify and streamline CTR authorities. 

Congress has addressed these concerns in recent national defense 

authorization acts by: repealing limitations on the use of CTR funds; expanding 

CTR authority outside the former Soviet Union; increasing CTR funding, including 

funding for new CTR initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of 

Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new CTR initiatives 

295
and metrics; requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to 

complete the chemical weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at 

Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of Defense on CTR 

defense and military contacts; providing CTR programs with authority for urgent 

threat reduction activities; authorizing the CTR program to accept international 

contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses threats involving 

nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, 

technologies, and expertise.

The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological Engagement 

Program (CBEP) now encompasses 70 percent of the CTR budget request. The 

committee reaffirms its view, stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and 

reaffirmed in the two most recent committee reports accompanying the House of 

Representatives-passed national defense authorization acts, that biological threat 

reduction and engagement "should be guided by a comprehensive long-term 

interagency engagement and coordination; rigorous Department management and 

oversight; coordination and integration with other Department programs and 

activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress." The committee further 

reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a whole should "maintain a strong 

focus" on the full range of threat reduction challenges. The committee continues to 

believe that concrete metrics remain important for measuring the impact and 

effectiveness of CBEP activities. Lastly, the committee welcomes efforts by the 

Department of Defense to actively consult with the committee and to keep it fully 

informed of efforts and developments in these areas.

The committee recommends $365.1 million, the amount of the budget 

request, for the CTR program. The committee believes that no CTR funds for fiscal 

year 2015 should be authorized for activities with the Russian Federation based on 

ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Therefore, the committee 

recommends $17.7 million for the GNS Program, a decrease of $3.0 million; $254.3 

million for CBEP, a decrease of $2.4 million; and $46.1 million for PPP, an increase 

of $5.4 million. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Cooperative Biological Engagement Program

The budget request contained $365.1 million for the Department of Defense 

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, of which $256.8 million was 

requested for the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). The 

committee notes that the CBEP share of the total CTR program budget continues to 

increase. The budget request would allocate 70 percent of the fiscal year 2015 CTR 

funds to CBEP as compared to the 40 percent that was allocated in fiscal year 2011. 

The committee questions the focus on infrastructure projects that the CBEP 

continues to fund, with approximately $34.7 million of CBEP's budget request 

allocated towards laboratory construction and renovation in the former Soviet 

296
Union republics. While the committee supports the CBEP mission to build the 

capabilities and capacities of key partners to rapidly detect, investigate, report, and 

secure dangerous biological pathogens, it is concerned about the CBEP's focus on 

building and renovating laboratories. The committee is aware of the program's plan 

to phase out funding for these infrastructure projects in the next few years as the 

projects are completed. However, the committee believes that, in the current fiscal 

environment, the Department should focus its CTR resources on more efficient and 

effective means to build partnership capacities to counter biological weapons of 

mass destruction. The committee will continue to oversee these projects to ensure 

the CBEP is properly positioned to meet evolving biological threats, both in the 

region and around the world. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs and Funds

This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative 

Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those authorized to be appropriated 

in section 301 of this Act, and specify that CTR funds shall remain available for 

obligation for 3 fiscal years.

Section 1302—Funding Allocations

This section would allocate specific amounts for each program under the 

Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program from within 

the overall $365.1 million that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. 

The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget request for fiscal 

year 2015. This section would also require notifications to Congress 15 days before 

the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for purposes 

other than those specifically authorized. In addition, this section would provide 

limited authority to obligate amounts for a program element under the CTR 

program in excess of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.

Section 1303—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative Threat 

Reduction Activities with Russian Federation

This section would limit Cooperative Threat Reduction fiscal year 2015 

funding to the Russian Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees 

that Russia is respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer acting 

inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and in 

compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This section 

would include a waiver for the Secretary of Defense, pending a notification, in 

coordination with the Secretary of State, to the appropriate congressional 

297
committees that such contact or cooperation is in the national security interest of 

the United States and a period of 30 days has elapsed following the notification.

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund Cash Balances

The committee has been concerned for a number of years that the 

determination of prices and rates for Defense Working Capital Fund activities is 

driven by an arbitrary, outdated goal of maintaining 7 to 10 days of cash to sustain 

business operations. This metric cannot respond to changes related to external 

pressures such as fluctuations in commodity markets that are outside of the 

Department of Defense's control. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee directed the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report examining a range of alternative cash 

balance parameters by which the revolving funds could be managed to sustain a 

single rate or price to the customer throughout the fiscal year. Having found this 

report to be insufficient, the committee directed a study in section 1402 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) 

requiring an independent review of each working capital fund within the 

Department to ascertain the appropriate cash corpus required to maintain good 

financial management of each fund. This study was thorough and informative but 

did not provide for change within management of the working capital funds. In the 

committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013, the committee responded by recommending 

that the Department modify its Financial Management Regulations to adjust the 

range of the cash corpus required for fuel-related working capital funds to mitigate 

the continued fluctuation of rates charged to the customer during the fiscal year.

The committee commends the Department for initiating processes to 

determine the correct cash corpus thresholds for each working capital fund. 

Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 2B, 

Chapter 9, 090103, Cash Management Policy, is under revision to require each 

activity to determine and justify its cash requirements in terms of mission and 

management factors, such as collection and disbursement cycles. The Department 

anticipates that cash requirements will vary by activity and anticipated workload 

levels. The new cash target range will support a number of requirements including 

the following: 

(1) Near-term operational requirements (formerly 7 to 10 days); 

(2) Capital investment program disbursements; 

(3) Any positive accumulating operating result budgeted for return to 

customers; 

298
(4) An amount of cash equal to undisbursed direct appropriations (lags over 

a 4-year period); 

(5) A commodity/market adjustment for cost changes; 

(6) Cash required for undelivered orders that will be delivered after the 

budget year; 

(7) Multiple disbursement cycles between collection cycles (for example, 

extra payroll cycle); and 

(8) Mitigation of risk/cash loss when implementing a business process 

change.

The committee looks forward to future budget submissions with prices and 

rates set to maintain an adequate cash balance to absorb external pressures, 

thereby maintaining a steady, dependable rate for the customer throughout the 

fiscal year.

Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security

In section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66), the Congress provided authority for the National Defense 

Stockpile Manager to acquire six materials critical to national security, two of 

which were compounds of rare earth elements: dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide. 

The committee notes that foreign suppliers, historically, accounted for the majority 

of global production of these materials and have implemented multiple controls on 

the production and export of dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide. 

Based upon research by the Department of Defense, new investment in the 

rare earth supply chain may have increased the availability of these materials from 

domestic sources. As the Department prepares to procure quantities of these 

materials for the Defense National Stockpile, the committee is concerned that 

market dynamics may result in these materials being provided by historically 

foreign suppliers rather than from secure domestic sources. The committee 

encourages the National Defense Stockpile Manager to maximize the utilization of 

sources that refine dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide in the United States.

Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile

The committee notes that the existing National Defense Stockpile (NDS) for 

beryllium, a strategic and critical defense material, is presently not in a form which 

is usable within the defense supply chain. Viable sources of beryllium are only 

found in the United States and the Russian Federation. The committee continues to 

believe that military readiness requires continued quick access to beryllium. The 

committee recognizes the concerted effort on the part of the Department of Defense 

and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which administers the NDS, to upgrade 

the beryllium stockpile. In its latest Annual Materials Plan, the DLA stated its 

plan to upgrade more than 17 short tons of beryllium material. The committee 

urges the DLA to upgrade this material quickly, thereby ensuring that the 

299
beryllium held in the NDS is capable of quick insertion into the defense supply 

chain, potentially mitigating supply chain risk. 

In addition, the committee directs the Administrator of the National 

Defense Stockpile to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than 

September 1, 2014, on the progress of and future plans for the upgrade program for 

beryllium.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY PROGRAMS

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds

This section would authorize appropriations for Defense Working Capital 

Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

Section 1402—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical Agents and 

Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level identified in section 4501 of division D 

of this Act.

Section 1403—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide

This section would authorize appropriations for Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the level identified in section 4501 of 

division D of this Act.

Section 1404—Defense Inspector General

This section would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector 

General at the level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

Section 1405—Defense Health Program

This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health 

Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Section 1411—Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals from the National 

Defense Stockpile

This section would authorize revisions on limitations in asset sales 

contained in section 3303(a)(7) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 

300
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), as most recently 

amended by section 1412(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), to increase the Department of 

Defense's stockpile commodity disposal authority by $50.0 million, and extend this 

authority from 2016 to 2019.

This section would further authorize revisions on limitations in asset sales 

contained in section 3402(b)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 1412 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to 

increase the Department of Defense's stockpile commodity disposal authority by 

$20.0 million, and extend this authority from 2016 to 2019. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1421—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of DefenseDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain 

James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds 

from the Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

Section 1422—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $63.4 million to be appropriated for the 

operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal year 2015.

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

OVERVIEW

The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires the 

budget submission to Congress for each fiscal year to include:

(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing operations in the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;

(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for 

operations; and

(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to be available 

upon enactment of this Act to support overseas contingency operations.

301
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained no 

funding for National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment account. Elsewhere 

in this Act, the committee notes that the base budget request contained $3.3 billion 

for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment.

The specific amount of resources, including equipment, needed to 

adequately sustain the National Guard and Reserve Component’s operational 

reserve status remains a concern because of the fiscal environment, especially given 

the dual mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve Components, 

particularly the National Guard. The committee recognizes the National Guard and 

Reserve Components continue to report significant equipment shortages in 

modernized equipment. 

The committee believes additional funds would help eliminate identified 

shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-use equipment. The committee expects these 

funds to be used for the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of: aircraft, 

missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, 

ammunition, small arms, tactical radios to include single channel ground and 

airborne radio systems, non-system training devices, logistics automation systems, 

remote weapon stations, chemical/biological protective shelters, internal and 

external fuel tanks for rotorcraft, and other critical dual-use procurement items for 

the National Guard and Reserve Components. 

The committee recommends additional funding for a National Guard and 

Reserve Component equipment account within the Overseas Contingency 

Operations budget request. The committee recommends $3.3 billion, the full 

amount of the base budget request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

Section 1501—Purpose

This section would establish this title and make authorization of 

appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, 

in addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 

costs due to overseas contingency operations.

Section 1502—Procurement

This section would authorize an additional $6.2 billion for procurement 

programs.

302
Section 1503—Operation and Maintenance

This section would authorize an additional $64.0 billion for operation and 

maintenance programs, and $635.0 million for maintaining, operating, and 

upgrading A-10 aircraft.

Section 1504—Military Personnel

This section would authorize an additional $7.1 billion for military 

personnel.

Section 1505—Other Appropriations

This section would authorize an additional $1.5 billion for the Defense 

Health Program, Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, and 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment.

SUBTITLE B—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations

This section would state that amounts authorized to be appropriated by this 

title are in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act.

Section 1512—Special Transfer Authority

This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of additional 

war-related funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title.

SUBTITLE C—LIMITATIONS, REPORTS, AND OTHER MATTERS

Section 1521—Continuation of Existing Limitations on the Use of Funds in the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

This section would continue the existing limitations on the use of funds in 

the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund subject to the conditions of section 1513 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 

as amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), through fiscal year 2015.

Section 1522—Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint Improvised Explosive 

Device Defeat Fund

303
This section would authorize various transfer authorities, reporting 

requirements, and other associated activities for the Joint Improvised Explosive 

Device (IED) Defeat Fund, as managed by the Joint IED Defeat organization.

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND 

INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

OVERVIEW

The committee has determined it necessary to reorganize title XVI to 

combine missile defense, nuclear forces, space, cyberspace, and intelligence sections 

within one title. These new subtitles have been rearranged from positions from past 

national defense authorization acts to now reflect the current title XVI.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site

The committee notes that section 239 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) provided for certain 

briefings on the development of an additional homeland defense interceptor site and 

section 4201 of that Act provided $20.0 million for planning activities related to 

such site. 

The committee is also aware that on February 26, 2014, the Commander, 

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) testified that: 

“[T]he third site, if you built it, would give us better weapons access, it'd 

give us increased inventory and increased battle space with regards to a threat 

coming from the direction of the Middle East. So those are just facts. And that's 

what it would give to the combatant commander—and that's me—the one that's 

accountable for the defense of the homeland from the ICBM threats ... [Iran has] not 

stopped aspirational goals towards ICBM technologies. They have successfully put a 

missile—space vehicle into orbit, and that demonstrates the types of technologies 

that you need to develop an ICBM ... I think it was very prudent to direct us—or the 

Missile Defense Agency—to do a site selection.”

The committee acknowledges the assessment of the Commander of 

NORTHCOM and therefore directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in 

coordination with the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, to provide the House 

Committee on Armed Services briefings not less than every 90 days through the end 

of fiscal year 2015, and starting not later than September 15, 2014, on the following:

(1) Progress updating the cost estimates provided to the committee in 

March 2012 for the additional homeland missile defense site; 

(2) Progress updating the Facility Requirement Documents, such as those 

developed for the ground-based interceptor site at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and the 

planned site in the Republic of Poland, also known as the Third Site, and other 

304
planning and designing processes related to the construction of an additional 

homeland missile defense interceptor site; and 

(3) Any additional matters they deem useful.

Furthermore, the committee directs the Director, MDA, in coordination 

with the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM, not later than September 15, 2014, to 

provide the congressional defense committees a written and unclassified assessment 

of which of the potential sites for a homeland missile defense site under 

consideration offers the best site for the defense of the homeland from 

intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran and whether such site is different than 

the site determined by the Commander in his 2007/2008 homeland missile defense 

study (the 2007-2008 U.S. NORTHCOM Ground-based Interceptor Study).

Air Force Cyber

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget request is generally 

characterized by reductions in most mission areas except cyber. This trend is true 

across all the military services, including the Air Force. However, the committee 

believes that for the Air Force, it is particularly difficult to understand the breadth 

and depth of investment and focus in cyber given the dispersion of cyber manpower 

across multiple program areas and operating environments. 

The committee is concerned that disaggregating the cyber workforce across 

multiple expenditure centers and projects in such a manner not only makes 

understanding the entirety of the cyber investment more difficult, it generates 

greater risk for suboptimizing the cyber workforce, increased unintentional 

redundancy in tasking, and challenges in managing operational roles and 

responsibilities.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

coordination with the Director of the National Security Agency, to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on 

Intelligence of the Senate by February 16, 2015, that captures the aggregate Air 

Force investment in cyber, laying out where the various elements of Air Force cyber 

are nested, and how those elements are integrated within the overall Air Force and 

Department of Defense cyber enterprises. The report should focus both on the 

current laydown of personnel as well as the envisioned end-state manning 

construct. It should also include a discussion on how the Air Force has constructed 

the various operational chains of command within the service and between the 

service elements and United States Cyber Command.

Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System

The Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System (DCGS-AF) is a 

family of existing and planned systems providing multi-intelligence tasking, 

processing, exploitation, and dissemination capabilities at the Joint Task Force 

level and below. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 request for DCGS305
AF totaled $782.4 million dollars and included over 7,600 personnel. Resident in 

the Processing and Exploitation expenditure center, DCGS-AF has traditionally 

been viewed in that functional context.

The committee is concerned that through the course of supporting combat 

operations over the past 12 years, DCGS-AF has begun to evolve beyond the 

intelligence processing and exploitation functions to include single-intelligence and 

even multi-intelligence source analysis. The committee believes this presents an 

important opportunity for the Air Force to clarify the operational role of the DCGSAF enterprise, taking every measure to ensure full coordination between enterprise 

elements and complete deconfliction of functions, tasking, and mission 

responsibilities where possible.

The committee is specifically concerned that initiatives like the DCGS-AF 

Analysis and Reporting Team (DART) System risk stepping beyond the appropriate 

functional boundaries for the system, unduly broadening the mission, and 

distracting the operational focus. However, the committee believes that the future 

Analysis and Targeting Wing must take full advantage of technical advances 

accomplished within the DCGS-AF as part of Air Force efforts to clarify and cement 

appropriate mission assignments across the intelligence enterprise.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a 

report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees by June 1, 2015, 

that describes the future of DCGS analytic and processing, exploitation, and 

dissemination responsibilities. The report should describe which intelligence 

functions, such as processing, exploitation, and analysis, should reside at the 

service intelligence centers, the Joint Intelligence and Operations Centers, and at 

DCGS-AF nodes. The report should outline a proposed Plan of Action and 

Milestone to execute the transformation to the stated end state, including 

anticipated costs and manpower requirements across the enterprise and a plan for 

satisfying those requirements.

Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs

 As the United States embarks on a decades-long effort to recapitalize the 

nuclear deterrent, the committee believes a comprehensive assessment of foreign 

nuclear weapons programs would help inform decisions on policies, programs, and 

resources. 

 Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Department of Energy's 

Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and the Director of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency to submit a joint report to the congressional defense 

committees, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by January 31, 2015, on foreign nuclear 

weapons programs. Such report should include a comprehensive assessment and 

description of current and developmental capabilities in foreign countries regarding 

nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The report should also discuss nuclear 

doctrine and employment strategy, nuclear explosive and subcritical testing, 

306
advanced nuclear weapon research programs, the number of nuclear weapons and 

delivery systems, and other matters as the Directors determine appropriate. Such 

report should be unclassified to the maximum extent consistent with the protection 

of classified information, but should also have classified annexes at the appropriate 

levels of classification. 

Biometrics for Identity and Access Management

The committee is aware that the Joint Information Environment is 

developing a reference architecture for identity and access management. Currently, 

for enterprise applications, this is done through the use of passwords and common 

access cards. As the Department of Defense moves to a future architecture for 

security and identity management, the committee believes that the Department 

should look at ways to integrate biometrics capability into that architecture for 

improved two-factor authentication. 

Additionally, the committee believes that the Department should examine 

the possibility of implementing enterprise-scale biometric enrollment solutions in 

order to gain efficiencies and better secure sensitive data. As the Department has 

already transitioned from the collection of fingerprints on ink and paper cards to 

electronic fingerprints for the conduct of background checks, the committee believes 

that further improvements can be achieved by leveraging web-enabled submission 

technologies. 

Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary of Defense's Plans for 

Cruise Missile Defense of the United States

The committee shares the concerns of the Commander, U.S. Northern 

Command, who testified on February 26, 2014, about the rising threat of cruise 

missile attack on the United States homeland and commends the Department of 

Defense for beginning to address this threat in an affordable manner. The 

Commander testified that:

"[W]e've been directed by the Secretary to ensure that we are also looking 

at how to provide effective defense against cruise missiles in a way that outpaces 

any threats, to include Russians ... and that's a three-phased approach that's been 

approved by the Pentagon. And it starts with getting the national capital region 

right. And right now, we're going through a test phase where two things have been 

added or are being added to the national capital region -- the stateside affordable 

radar, in conjunction with a joint elevated net sensor, the JLENS balloons. And 

what they're trying to accomplish is integrating that into an overall defensive plan 

that allows us to see, detect, track, warn and in the future hopefully engage cruise 

missiles that could pose a threat to the national capital region. Then the issue will 

be if the cruise missile threat continues to evolve, how do we then take and export 

that capability where we think we might need it to defend other strategically or 

critical infrastructure locations in the United States and Canada."

307
The committee supported the Secretary of Defense's plan in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). However, the 

committee is concerned that the Secretary's plan is in danger of not being executed 

in only its second year of implementation. The committee is aware that the Joint 

Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization had been responsible for 

implementation and funding for the initial capability in fiscal year 2014, but that 

responsibility is shifting to a military service in fiscal year 2015. The committee is 

aware that at least two of the key programs in the Secretary's plan are not funded 

by the responsible military service in the first year of its responsibility for doing so.

However, to more fully understand the impacts of the fiscal year 2015 

budget request, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 

consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. 

Northern Command, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services not later than June 30, 2014, explaining the impacts on the Secretary's 

cruise missile defense plan of the potential delays included in the fiscal year 2015 

budget request and how the Chairman believes these potential delays can be 

avoided, including through reprogramming actions if necessary. 

 The committee directs the Chairman, in consultation with the Commander, 

U.S. Northern Command, and such other persons or agencies he deems expedient, 

to submit to the congressional defense committees a report not later than February 

1, 2015, that includes the following: an identification of the longer-term 

coordination challenges within the Department of Defense and the federal 

government concerning other government radar assets that could be useful to this 

mission and a plan to ensure their availability; an identification of any air space 

challenges that may be present at a more advantageous geographic location for 

defense of the national capital region and a plan to address them; views of, and 

recommendations from, the North American Air Domain Awareness Surveillance 

(NAADAS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA); and a recommendation for the 

designation of a responsible Departmental authority to coordinate planning for the 

cruise missile defense mission and acquisition of related military capabilities. 

Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent

Given the long timeframes and costs associated with programs to 

modernize the nation's nuclear deterrent, the committee believes it is imperative 

that such efforts be based upon sound long-term planning. The nation is embarking 

upon a decades-long effort to modernize a nuclear deterrent that last saw major 

recapitalization in the 1980s. These current and future efforts include life extension 

of nuclear warheads, development and procurement of new delivery systems 

(ballistic missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, dual-capable tactical 

aircraft, cruise missiles, and ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles), 

modernization of nuclear command and control systems, and construction of new 

nuclear infrastructure.

308
In a 2013 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of 

operating, sustaining, and modernizing the nuclear triad over the next decade at 

approximately $355.0 billion. While the Department of Defense's estimate contained 

in the reports submitted pursuant to section 1043 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) is lower, the committee 

notes that this report did not include expected costs for the new bomber or 

replacement intercontinental ballistic missiles because of uncertainty in these 

programs' direction. The committee is pleased that the Department plans to include 

rough estimates for these costs in its next report, and encourages the Department to 

make its assumptions clear to enable consistent comparisons between various cost 

estimates.

The committee is aware that many of the planned nuclear programs are 

expected to enter service in the 2030s, and is aware of significant production and 

funding challenges to successfully execute this important recapitalization effort. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees no later than October 31, 2014, on the 

Department's process for planning, prioritizing, and estimating costs for sustaining 

and modernizing the nuclear triad beyond the current 10-year reporting 

requirement. This briefing should include relevant measures to ensure that these 

plans are executable and cost-effective, and discussion of the challenges associated 

with such very-long-term planning.

Briefing on Number of B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be Produced

The committee notes the value of providing a credible extended nuclear 

deterrent to U.S. allies. The committee recognizes that the ongoing B61 Life 

Extension Program (LEP) will produce B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs to contribute 

to both extended deterrence and the U.S. strategic deterrent. The committee 

believes the number of B61-12 bombs to be produced by the LEP must be 

appropriately sized to meet the requirements of extended and strategic deterrence, 

and should be informed by geopolitical developments in Europe, Asia, and 

elsewhere around the world. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, 

the Commander of U.S. European Command, the Commander of U.S. Pacific 

Command, and the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to the 

committee by January 15, 2015, on the analysis and requirements that have 

informed the determination of the number of B61-12 bombs to be produced by the 

LEP. This briefing should include analysis regarding the number required to 

provide a credible extended deterrent to U.S. allies around the world, the number 

required for forward-deployment and to be available for forward-deployment, the 

number required for the U.S. strategic deterrent, and a timeframe for when a final 

decision must be made regarding the total number of B61-12s to be produced by the 

LEP. 

309
Briefing on Plutonium Strategy

The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, in 

consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to provide a briefing to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

by September 15, 2014, on the costs, benefits, risks, challenges, opportunities, 

requirements, and potential impacts on other programs associated with pursuing a 

plutonium strategy that achieves a pit production capacity of 50 to 80 plutonium 

pits per year in 2027 as compared to a strategy that achieves such capacity in 2031.

Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command

The committee notes that according to the Secretary of Defense, cyberspace 

is the new terrain for warfare where adversaries seek to do harm to the Nation, the 

economy, and its citizens. Adversaries, such as nations, insiders, terrorists, 

criminal groups, hackers, and other individuals and organizations, use an array of 

cyber tactics that could threaten our nation’s security. The unique nature of cyberbased attacks can vastly enhance their reach and impact. To address these threats, 

the Department of Defense established U.S. Cyber Command as a sub-unified 

command under U.S. Strategic Command. 

In 2010 and 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 

that the Department’s and U.S. Cyber Command’s efforts could benefit from 

additional detail and clarity and that they had not fully defined long-term mission 

requirements and desired capabilities to guide the military services’ efforts to 

recruit, train, and provide forces with appropriate skill sets. In 2014, GAO also 

reported on the Department’s planning efforts to maintain continuity of operations 

in a degraded cyber environment. 

U.S. Cyber Command achieved full operational capability in October 2010, 

and is currently responsible for planning, coordinating, integrating, synchronizing, 

and conducting activities to direct the operations and defense of specified 

Department of Defense information networks, and to prepare to conduct full 

spectrum military cyberspace operations, when directed, to enable actions in all 

domains and ensure U.S. and allied freedom of action in cyberspace while denying 

the same to our adversaries. As U.S. Cyber Command continues to develop and 

grow, it is essential that it does so as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2015, on the 

organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command and its operational 

relationship with the geographic combatant commands. This report should include a 

review of the existing organizational structure of the U.S. Cyber Command, 

including the extent to which:

(1) The Department has clearly defined U.S. Cyber Command's mission, 

responsibilities, and authorities;

(2) U.S. Cyber Command's organization, personnel, and structure support 

cyberspace operations and leverage relationships with the combatant commands, 

310
military services, and defense while minimizing potential overlap or duplication of 

effort; 

(3) U.S. Cyber Command coordinates and supports the operations and 

activities of the geographic combatant commands, including identifying the 

offensive and defensive cyber rules of engagement for U.S. Cyber Command and 

geographic combatant commands and conducting assessments to identify needed 

cyber capabilities; and

(4) Effective coordination mechanisms have been established between U.S. 

Cyber Command and other Federal agencies that have a role in cyberspace 

operations. 

Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance

Airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems 

provide critical insight to the warfighter across the spectrum of operations from 

combat to peacetime. Commanders of the combatant commands recognize the 

advantages that ISR provides, and therefore have significant demand and 

requirements for the use of these platforms in their areas of operation. The military 

departments must balance the warfighter requirements and overall investments to 

meet a broader defense strategy. Addressing the appropriate level of ISR capacity 

and capability appears to be a significant and recurring challenge for the 

Department of Defense.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess the processes by which the Department determines its airborne 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance investments and balances capability 

and capacity in order to meet commanders of the combatant commands' critical ISR 

requirements. The Comptroller General should provide a report to the 

congressional defense and intelligence committees by February 1, 2015. The report 

should address the extent to which the Department of Defense has the necessary:

(1) Risk and resource management structures in place to validate, 

prioritize, and address airborne ISR collection requirements of the commanders of 

the combatant commands; 

(2) Airborne ISR capabilities to meet current intelligence requirements of 

the commanders of the combatant commands; 

(3) Airborne ISR investment strategy, including the appropriate capability 

and capacity of platforms and sensors relative to current and anticipated 

intelligence requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands; and 

(4) Any related matters the Comptroller General finds appropriate.

Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense Efforts to Protect 

Information and Systems from Insider Threats

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has implemented a 

number of measures, both technical and administrative, to try to mitigate the 

311
threat from privileged insiders. That process began with the unauthorized 

disclosures from Bradley Manning, but clearly gaps continue to exist that have been 

exploited by Edward Snowden. The committee remains concerned that the 

Department's efforts have not been comprehensive enough or implemented swiftly 

enough to get ahead of the problem. The committee is also concerned that the 

Department does not have an adequate baseline or rigorous metrics to assess the 

effectiveness or performance of the measures that are in place.

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 

2015, evaluating the Department's efforts at protecting against insider threats. This 

report should address the following issues:

(1) To what extent has the Department assessed and mitigated for the 

threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences that insiders pose to Department of 

Defense information and systems the Department uses?

(2) To what extent has the Department developed and implemented an 

insider threat detection and prevention program consistent with guidance and 

standards developed by the Insider Threat Task Force?

(3) To what extent have lessons learned from prior insider threat incidents 

been incorporated into the Department’s insider threat detection and prevention 

program?

(4) Has the Department reached out to other Federal agencies, foreign

governments, or the private sector to identify best practices and lessons learned 

with regard to insider threats; and to what extent have those best practices and 

lessons learned been incorporated into the Department’s insider threat detection 

and prevention program?

(5) How well has the Department been performing on the assessments, both 

self-assessments and external assessments, called for in Executive Order 13587; 

and to what extent has the Department developed corrective action plans to address 

the findings in a timely manner?

(6) What additional areas need to be addressed, either by technical systems 

or additional policies?

Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council

The role of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) established by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (Public Law 99-661) has 

evolved with time and national needs. Today, the NWC's primary responsibilities 

focus on coordination and joint decisionmaking between the Department of Defense 

and the Department of Energy with respect to U.S. nuclear weapon policies, 

programs, schedules, and budgets. 

Over the past several years, the NWC has considered and approved a series 

of actions, programs, and plans for the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program 

that have shortly thereafter been thwarted by Department of Energy resource 

constraints and differing priorities. This tension has been exacerbated by 

312
Department of Energy's increasing reliance on annual budget authority transfers 

from Department of Defense (totaling over $1.0 billion each year) to accomplish its 

nuclear modernization mission. Recent defense authorization bills have sought to 

provide the NWC greater insight into Department of Energy's National Nuclear 

Security Administration budget and budgeting process, but coordination and 

transparency problems remain apparent. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2015, 

containing an assessment of the Nuclear Weapons Council's role, responsibilities, 

and effectiveness in coordinating Department of Defense and Department of Energy 

policies, programs, schedules, and budgets for developing, sustaining, and 

modernizing nuclear delivery systems, nuclear weapons, and their supporting 

infrastructure. The Comptroller General should assess: (1) the authorities and 

responsibilities of the NWC; (2) the decisionmaking processes and procedures of the 

NWC and its subordinate committees; and (3) the ability of the NWC to implement, 

oversee, and ensure its decisions are successfully executed. The Comptroller 

General's report should include recommendations to the Department of Defense and 

Department of Energy, or matters for congressional consideration, as appropriate, 

to improve the effectiveness of the NWC.

Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research, Development, and Acquisition

The committee is aware that in testimony before it on April 2, 2014, the 

Commander, U.S. Strategic Command stated:

"Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) capability offers the opportunity to 

rapidly engage high-value targets without resorting to nuclear options. CPS could 

provide precision and responsiveness in Anti-Access Area Denial environments 

while simultaneously minimizing unintended military, political, environmental, 

economic, or cultural consequences. I support continuing research and development 

of these important capabilities."

The committee agrees. The committee recognizes the success of the Army's 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) test conducted on November 17, 2011, though 

it notes the failures of the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle tests. The committee is 

also aware of the planned flight test 2 of the AHW technology development system 

that will demonstrate operationally suitable ranges and performance as well as 

additional technologies needed to support continued development of this capability.

The committee is aware that following flight test 2, the Department of 

Defense plans to examine the feasibility of deploying a hypersonic prompt strike 

weapon on a submarine platform. The committee believes it is prudent to undertake 

these efforts but is concerned about the budget sufficiency to do so. The committee 

is also concerned that there is no clear development path of an Army system. The 

committee believes that a third flight test of the AHW system could provide useful 

information to inform decisions about such a development path.

313
The committee is also concerned that with the budget request for fiscal year 

2015, and the Future Years Defense Program, there is not sufficient funding 

requested and planned for the transition of this technology to a military service for 

a full-scale development and acquisition program when the technology has reached 

appropriate maturity.

The committee notes that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that the 

Administration planned to deploy these capabilities, "while not negatively affecting 

the stability of our nuclear relationships with Russia or China." The committee 

agrees with this policy. The committee also notes that it directed the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a report on any policy considerations concerning any potential 

ambiguity problems regarding the launch of a conventionally armed missile from 

submarine platforms and any potential verification measures that may be pursued 

in the Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print No.2) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The committee has not yet 

received this directed report; it expects to receive a detailed understanding of how 

the Department plans to evaluate and resolve these potential problems, including 

potential cooperative measures.

The committee is also concerned that there does not appear to be an Army 

development program in the Department's plans, notwithstanding the fact that the 

only success the United States has seen with these technologies is the Army's AHW 

demonstrator. The committee believes it is prudent to consider whether a third 

flight test of the AHW could contribute to the Department's understanding of the 

feasibility of an Army development path. 

The committee therefore directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, jointly with the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 

February 1, 2015, that includes the following: a detailed plan for the future of CPS, 

including an estimated timeline for completion of current research and development 

activities and associated projected cost; a determination about which additional 

strategic infrastructure technologies and enabling capabilities may be required to 

support CPS; opportunities for inter-service collaboration in development of 

common technology; opportunities and efforts to transition technologies developed 

under this program to current and future weapons systems; a date by which CPS 

programs will be transitioned to military services for full development and 

acquisition; an assessment of the utility of a third AHW flight test; an assessment of 

the key technologies that could be demonstrated through a third development test; 

and, an updated assessment of threat for which the military requirement for this 

capability was validated. 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile Defense Agency Tests 

and Targets Efficiencies

The committee is aware that the budget request for fiscal year 2015 and the 

Future Years Defense Program contains significant and meaningful efficiencies in 

314
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) ballistic missile tests and targets programs. The 

committee commends the efforts of the Director, MDA to achieve these hundreds of 

millions of dollars in savings by the measures proposed and believes these funds can 

and should be reinvested into important modernization programs for the ballistic 

missile defense system. 

To support the Director, MDA, the committee directs the Director, Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), in coordination with the Director, 

MDA, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later 

than October 31, 2014, detailing the views of the Director, CAPE on the likelihood 

that the proposed efficiencies in MDA's test and targets programs can be realized 

and the Director's views as to whether there are opportunities to achieve further 

efficiencies in fiscal year 2015 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for Cybersecurity

The committee notes that the Department of Defense maintains a program 

of information sharing with its defense industrial base (DIB) known as the DIB 

Information Assurance/Computer Security program. The committee is aware that 

this program has been successfully sharing classified government threat 

information with its industrial base, and has been expanding its network of 

voluntary partners of the past few years. The committee believes that the 

Department continues to prioritize efforts to help secure the networks and 

information systems of DIB companies, and that continued attention by 

Department leadership is needed to ensure that defense industrial base companies 

are making the maximum possible effort toward protecting their systems. 

Furthermore, the committee encourages the Department to recognize and account 

for participation in relevant cybersecurity information-sharing structures to the 

greatest extent possible when making procurement decisions.

Defense Intelligence Priorities

As part of both the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community 

(IC), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is dually tasked with providing 

intelligence collection, analysis, and support specifically responsive to the 

Department of Defense as well as national requirements established through the 

National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF). The committee believes that 

both roles are critical, but can be difficult to balance. The committee also 

understands that measuring satisfaction of NIPF requirements may be easier than 

measuring the satisfaction of Department-specific requirements. In part, the 

committee believes this is due to difficulties with identifying Department-specific 

requirements in a holistic manner. 

Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66) requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a written policy 

315
governing the internal coordination and prioritization of intelligence priorities of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, 

and the military departments to improve identification of the intelligence needs of 

the Department of Defense. Given this new policy, the committee directs the 

Director, DIA, to provide an assessment to the congressional defense and 

intelligence committees by October 1, 2014, of the following: 

(1) A specific description of how the new policy is being implemented in 

terms of driving and focusing DIA intelligence efforts to support the Department; 

(2) How efforts to incorporate the new policy are being balanced with DIA's 

responsibilities pursuant to the NIPF; 

(3) The extent to which any other Department of Defense or IC policies or 

guidance impact DIA's implementation of the new policy; and

(4) Any recommendations to further improve the Department's 

identification of its specific requirements and DIA's ability to respond to such 

requirements. 

Directed Energy for Missile Defense

The committee is concerned with the fiscal year 2015 budget request for 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) directed energy. The committee is also concerned 

that MDA has chosen to focus the limited funds included in the budget request for 

directed energy on two technologies, which may not in fact be the most promising 

technologies for multiple aspects of the missile defense mission. While the 

committee supports the MDA's focus on directed energy applications for the missile 

defense sensing mission, it does not believe it is appropriate to focus only on those 

applications. 

The committee is aware of the progress being made by the U.S. Army and 

the U.S. Navy with testing, including field testing, of directed energy systems to 

destroy threats. The committee is also aware of cutting-edge work being done 

elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee notes that MDA pursued 

development of a megawatt class laser and had a successful test against a ballistic 

missile threat, though the program experienced technical challenges and delays. 

MDA has largely abandoned near-term development of its non-sensing directed 

energy efforts. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in cooperation with the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Director, Missile Defense Agency, 

to provide a roadmap to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than 

January 15, 2015, covering the development and deployment of missile defense 

technologies dealing with the destruction of threat ballistic missiles. 

E4-B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control

In a January 2014 report to Congress required by the committee's report 

(H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

316
Year 2014, the Air Force described the history and way ahead for sustainment of 

the E4-B fleet. The report described several abortive attempts to initiate a 

replacement program for the aging E4-B fleet, as well as the increasingly difficult 

and costly efforts to sustain and recapitalize E4-B systems. Plans for replacement of 

the E4-B have been delayed largely because of uncertainty in future concepts of 

operations (CONOPs) for nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) 

National Military Command System (NMCS) airborne fleets. The January 2014 

report describes several efforts underway, and scheduled for completion by latesummer 2014, that are examining and defining NC3 requirements, architectures, 

and CONOPs. The committee believes these efforts must be completed expeditiously 

to inform critical decisions regarding the nation's NC3 system, including potential 

replacement of the E4-B system. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to submit to the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2014, the 

reports resulting from the ongoing capabilities-based assessment of the nuclear 

command and control system and the mission area analysis of the NC3 NMCS 

airborne fleet.

Encrypted Key Delivery

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is developing a 

system called the Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) which is designed to 

provide secure and interoperable cryptographic key generation, distribution, and 

management capabilities. When fully deployed, KMI will provide a means for the 

secure ordering, generation, production, distribution, management, and auditing of 

cryptographic products, and will replace the legacy Electronic Key Management 

System. 

The committee also understands that the National Security Agency, which 

is developing KMI, is utilizing its Commercial Communications Security 

Endorsement Program to look at commercial solutions that might supplement or be 

integrated into KMI. The committee encourages the Department to take advantage 

of existing solutions in the private sector in order to meet the encrypted key 

delivery requirements of the future. The committee believes that such solutions can 

be helpful in reducing the time, cost, and manpower used in key distribution and 

rekeying operations for current systems.

Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code

The committee fully supports investments to the Global Positioning System 

(GPS) to maintain U.S. military preeminence in positioning, navigation, and timing. 

In particular, the Department of Defense is working to field the military code (Mcode), which is a capability designed to provide improved resistance to existing and 

emerging threats, to include jamming. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee noted its concern 

317
that the current schedule for GPS III spacecraft, Next Generation Operational 

Control System, and the user equipment is not aligned. The committee believes 

that this is still a valid concern. The committee also notes the requirements stated 

in section 913 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111-383) requiring the Department to purchase M-code capable 

user equipment during the fiscal years after fiscal year 2017. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 

2015, on the progress the Department is making in deploying an M-code capability. 

This assessment should include current and planned investments; whether key 

milestones are being met; the projected ability to the meet the requirements in 

section 913 of Public Law 111-383; and an identification of the challenges that GPS 

faces and possible recommendations on how to make the program more successful 

in delivering M-code capabilities. 

Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5 Missiles

In the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Navy has proposed, as a cost 

savings measure, a reduction in the number of Follow-on Commander's Evaluation 

Tests (FCET) for Trident II D5 missiles in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. 

While the committee supports the Navy's efforts to find efficiencies wherever 

possible, the committee cautions that such efficiencies must not come at the expense 

of critical operational testing needed to ensure the reliability of the nuclear 

deterrent. The committee expects this reduction in testing to be temporary and 

encourages the Navy to return to a full FCET testing schedule in fiscal year 2017.

Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users

The committee is aware of the stated National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency (NGA) strategic goal to provide online, on-demand access to geospatialintelligence knowledge. However, in contrast to online products, the committee 

notes the importance of NGA's continued support to combat forces operating in 

disconnected, intermittent, and limited bandwidth operational environments. 

While current programs are addressing this requirement, a strategic plan for this 

area has yet to be developed for software tools.

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency, in coordination with the Department of Defense Chief 

Information Officer, to jointly provide a briefing to House Committee on Armed 

Services by December 1, 2014, on a joint plan to address the relevant combat forces 

requirements for software tools to efficiently and cost-effectively access national 

geospatial-intelligence data in disconnected, intermittent, and/or limited bandwidth 

environments. 

Global Positioning System Denied Environments

318
The committee notes that many military assets such as aircraft, missiles, 

ground vehicles, and dismounted troops rely on the Global Positioning System 

(GPS) for accurate position and time information. If GPS is unavailable, such as by 

malfunction or enemy jamming action, then alternative sources of navigation data 

must be available for mission completion. The committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to review potential technologies to improve the military’s 

ability to address this challenge.

Global Positioning System Replenishment

The committee is aware of the Air Force's most recent plan to delay the 

procurement and launch of Global Positioning System (GPS) III constellation 

satellites. While the committee is aware that the Air Force may have made some 

technical changes to enable better power management of on-orbit satellites, this 

does not affect the overall constellation fragility as characterized by factors such as 

satellite age and technical state of internal redundancy or lack thereof. The 

committee is concerned with the revised Air Force plan and has not seen any 

detailed analysis to support the significant changes to the schedule.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees, by November 1, 2014, on the Global 

Positioning System satellite constellation and replenishment plan. The GPS plan 

should address the following:

(1) Current satellite and launch vehicle acquisition schedule;

(2) Cost advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a satellite and 

launch vehicle acquisition schedule as planned in the fiscal year 2014 President's 

budget, as compared to the current schedule;

(3) Age, design life, and technical state of all on-orbit assets;

(4) Calculated functional availability as identified with planned launches;

(5) Risk assessment of not meeting the required functional availability;

(6) Options to lower the risk assessment, to include faster replenishment of 

satellites;

(7) National security impact if the necessary capability is not provided; and

(8) Risks of further schedule delays to the planned satellite and launch 

schedule.

High Capacity Satellite Communications

The committee is aware of the growing satellite communications needs of 

the Department of Defense. According to the fiscal year 2013 report from the 

Defense Business Board (DBB) titled, "Taking Advantage of Opportunities for 

Commercial Satellite Communications Services," the DBB states, "as the demand 

for service increases in the future, the cost of communications satellite services 

purchased by Defense Information Systems Agency is projected to grow to $3B-$5B 

over the next 15 years." 

319
The committee believes that the use of modern technologies, such as high 

capacity communications satellites, may provide cost-effective bandwidth options to 

meet the Department's growing communications requirements. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 15, 

2014, on the potential use of modern technologies, such as high capacity 

communications satellites, to address the Department's requirements, and whether 

existing satellite communications acquisition processes and authorities are 

conducive to acquiring such technologies.

Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence

The committee is aware of the Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of 

Excellence at Fort Huachuca. The committee supports this joint activity to help 

reduce costs, foster better inter-service relationships, and improve the quality of 

training across the services.

The committee recommends continued funding of this program to improve 

interoperability and increased efficiency across the Department of Defense.

Information Assurance Training and Certification

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its ongoing efforts 

related to providing certifications to personnel responsible for Information 

Assurance (IA) activities pursuant to Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 

8570, which establishes the policy and assigns the responsibilities for Department 

IA training, certification, and workforce management. Furthermore, the committee 

is aware that the Department may be looking at making adjustments to this policy 

to update it with current considerations related to cyber training standards that are 

in development. The committee believes that as this policy evolves, it should 

leverage the successes of DODD 8570 as the foundation for any future policy. 

As the Department evolves to address its future cyber and IA workforce 

training needs, the committee also understands the importance of testing to verify 

skills, which raises the effectiveness of information technology and cyber 

professionals and can help identify gaps in training. The committee therefore 

encourages the Department to make testing which leads to certifications available 

for trainees, as needed, in order to improve and continuously evaluate the cyber and 

IA workforce. 

Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the Joint Information 

Environment

The committee has been monitoring progress on the Department of 

Defense's Joint Information Environment (JIE) for several years. The committee is 

aware that the Department does not consider JIE to be a program of record, but is a 

coordinating framework for other programs of record in the Department. The 

320
committee is concerned that without a strong architectural foundation, many 

acquisition decisions are being made by the military services and Department of 

Defense agencies without sufficient planning and rigor to ensure that there is 

transparency and competition in the process. The committee is aware of at least one 

instance in which the Air Force, despite a court ruling, failed to adhere to necessary 

contracting and Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements. The committee 

believes that the current process for contracting components of the JIE lends itself 

to an over-reliance on sole-source or brand-names contracts, or other decisions made 

for expediency over competition. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense to review Department of Defense noncompetitive information technology 

contracts to determine whether they were properly justified as sole source, and to 

provide a briefing on the results of the review to the Committee on Armed Services 

of the House of Representatives by March 1, 2015. The review should look at a 

sample of noncompetitive information technology contracts in fiscal years 2013-14, 

and review of these contracts should determine whether the Department is overly 

reliant on sole-source, brand-name or other contract types that bypass competition 

requirements. 

Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities

As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee has been monitoring 

progress on the Department of Defense's Joint Information Environment (JIE) for 

several years. The committee is aware JIE is an ambitious initiative to consolidate 

its information infrastructure, but is considered a coordinating framework for other 

programs of record in the Department and not a program of record itself. However, 

the committee recognizes that many existing acquisition programs influence, or are 

influenced by, the architectural framework being developed by the Department of 

Defense, in close coordination with each of the military services and defense 

agencies. 

The committee is concerned, however, that the Department cannot readily 

indicate which programs are affected by the standards and processes being 

developed for JIE. The committee believes that JIE cannot be effective if the 

Department does not understand the span of all programs falling under the rubric 

of JIE, which will effect resourcing, development, manpower, testing, and 

evaluation. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the 

Department of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 1, 2015, that identifies all of the major funded activities within 

each of the military services and defense agencies that currently contribute to JIE, 

as well as the funding across the Future Years Defense Program, and an integrated 

master schedule with major milestones for all of the indicated programs.

Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration

321
The committee fully supports the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 

Command program called Kestrel Eye. Kestrel Eye is a Joint Capability 

Technology Demonstration of a nanosatellite-class imagery satellite that is designed 

for tactical ground forces. The satellite will provide the warfighter, in the field, a 

capability to directly task and receive operational data from a space-based collection 

system. The imagery intelligence will support rapid situational awareness.

The committee is aware that this is a technology demonstration in 

development and has not launched into orbit yet. The committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to find a suitable space launch opportunity to enable the 

Army to complete a military utility assessment to evaluate the operational value of 

this capability.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a briefing to the House Committee 

on Armed Services, within 180 days of initial operating capability, on the military 

utility assessment of Kestrel Eye.

Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile Defense

Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113-66), directed the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to deploy 

a long-range discriminating radar (LRDR) against long-range ballistic missile 

threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and authorized $30.0 

million for that purpose. 

In the budget request for fiscal year 2015, $79.5 million was also requested 

for this purpose. As the MDA's fiscal year 2015 budget overview states, "the new 

LRDR is a mid-course tracking radar that will provide persistent sensor coverage 

and improve discrimination capabilities against threats to the homeland from the 

Pacific theater. This new radar also will give the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar 

more geographic deployment flexibility for contingency and test use." 

The committee recalls that section 235 of Public Law 113-66 also requires a 

plan be developed for such contingency deployment, including on the East Coast of 

the United States against the potential long-range ballistic missile threat from the 

Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee looks forward to receiving this report in 

June 2014. 

The committee supports the LRDR approach and intends to provide careful 

oversight over the technology and site selection processes for what the Future Years 

Defense Program indicates will be a nearly $1.0 billion program. 

The committee is aware that the National Academy of Sciences report, 

"Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and 

Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other 

Alternatives," recommended one potential sensor architecture. The committee also 

recalls that in a study conducted by the Director, Missile Defense Agency in 

response to the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 

322
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, it was clear that employing current 

technology, like the ground-based radar-prototype, could be highly affordable and 

effective. The committee expects the Director to consider these and other options. 

The committee is also concerned that this necessary, $1 billion investment 

will be borne entirely by the Missile Defense Agency when, it is likely that the 

missile defense mission will consume very little of the LRDR's actual operational 

employment. The committee understands that missile defense will, by necessity, be 

the priority mission; however, it is expected that space situational awareness and 

other applications will likely be the primary operating mode. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency, in 

coordination with the Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command and any other 

appropriate United States government agency, to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees 

prior to setting the requirements for the LRDR, and not later than January 1, 2015, 

detailing how those requirements will be optimized to perform missions including 

missile defense sensor coverage, space situational awareness, and other missions of 

interest to the United States. The committee believes that there is also the 

opportunity for cost-sharing of the costs of such radar design and operation and 

expects the report coordinated by the Director among these agencies will include an 

assessment of that opportunity. The committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force is 

making significant investments in space situational awareness and believes there 

exists the opportunity in this nascent MDA acquisition effort to realize significant 

efficiencies for the American taxpayer. 

The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than January 31, 

2015, detailing the requirement for space situational awareness coverage and how 

the LRDR fits into that coverage requirement and may enable a change in current 

plans to take advantage of this added capability. 

Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity

The committee is aware of the challenges associated with communication 

between the U.S. Government and commercial industry in response to cybersecurity 

threats. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to 

research and develop metrics of trust in dynamic adversarial and cooperative

networks including the military and commercial industry in order to promote timely 

and effective cybersecurity measures. 

Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the National Intelligence 

Program

In addition to describing responsibilities with regard to the Military 

Intelligence Program, section 3038 of title 50, United States Code, describes the 

Secretary of Defense's responsibilities regarding the National Intelligence Program. 

Section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to "ensure that the budgets of the 

323
elements of the intelligence community within the Department of Defense are 

adequate to satisfy the overall intelligence needs of the Department of Defense, 

including the needs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders 

of the unified and specified commands and, wherever such elements are performing 

government-wide functions, the needs of other departments and agencies." Further, 

section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to "ensure that the elements of the 

intelligence community within the Department of Defense are responsive and 

timely with respect to satisfying the needs of operational military forces." The 

Secretary also has specific statutory authorities relating to individual elements of 

the intelligence community that are part of the Department of Defense.

Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence (USDI) is largely responsible for fulfilling these statutory 

responsibilities on behalf of the Secretary and plays a critical role in ensuring that 

the intelligence needs of the warfighter are addressed. Specifically, the USDI has 

taken the lead role in establishing the new policy required by section 922 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to 

govern the internal coordination and prioritization of intelligence priorities of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and 

the military departments to improve identification of the intelligence needs of the 

Department of Defense. 

Thus, the committee directs the USDI to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by 

October 1, 2014, that contains a detailed description of how the new policy 

regarding Department of Defense intelligence priorities has been integrated into 

resourcing deliberations and planning for the Military Intelligence Program, and 

how the new policy has been integrated into USDI's representation of the 

Department of Defense in resourcing deliberations and planning for the National 

Intelligence Program.

Missile Defense Applications for Electro Magnetic Rail Gun Technology

The committee applauds the work of the Navy and the Strategic 

Capabilities Office (SCO) to develop an electro-magnetic rail gun that could be 

capable of use as a more affordable air and missile defense option. The committee is 

mindful that a significant body of work and technology maturation remains to be 

completed before a thorough evaluation of this technology's suitability for air and 

missile defense is possible. 

The committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has 

been largely relegated to a minor, supporting role in the evaluation of rail gun 

technology thus far. The committee is aware that MDA has been granted 

significant exemptions from Department of Defense acquisition processes precisely 

to empower the agency to provide for the rapid development and fielding of cutting 

edge technology to defend the United States, its allies, and deployed forces from 

threat ballistic missiles. This exemption for MDA was reaffirmed in the Ballistic 

324
Missile Defense Review of 2010. The committee notes the value of cutting-edge and 

nimble development and acquisition to satisfy air and missile defense requirements, 

as well as the operational requirements of the combatant commanders, and it hopes 

MDA is still capable of such development and acquisition efforts. 

The committee is also aware of the assumption of technical authority over 

Integrated Air and Missile Defense by MDA; and the committee believes this is a 

powerful opportunity to synergize efforts across the Department of Defense. 

The committee has been briefed by SCO and MDA on the path ahead for 

evaluating rail gun technology for the air and missile defense mission, and believes 

that rigorous testing is vital to that evaluation. The committee is concerned that 

the current test schedule creates the potential for progress to stall in fiscal year 

2016 if SCO funding ends for this test program and MDA has not had sufficient test 

data to evaluate the technology for development as part of the ballistic missile 

defense system and inclusion in the budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency, in 

coordination with the Director, Strategic Capabilities Office, to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees not later than November 15, 2014, that 

details the following:

(1) An agreed upon series of test events to determine the suitability of this 

technology for transfer to MDA for further development activity, including test exit 

criteria that should be met to warrant its transition; 

(2) Funding required in fiscal year 2016 and future years to undertake that 

test activity (beyond those funds already provided by SCO); 

(3) Opportunities to use existing MDA test events and assets to evaluate 

features of a rail gun system; and

(4) Opportunities to leverage other military service development and test 

activities to ensure the most cost-effective commitment of SCO, MDA, and other 

Department of Defense resources. 

Mobile User Objective System

The committee supports the Department of the Navy's Mobile User 

Objective System (MUOS) space program. The committee is aware that MUOS will 

provide a critical communication capability for the warfighter by enabling greater 

mobility, higher data rates, and improved operational availability. Of the eventual 

five satellite constellation, there are currently two MUOS satellites on orbit which 

were launched in November 2012 and July 2013.

The committee is aware that MUOS has two payloads, one to continue the 

legacy narrowband communications capability and another with a modern 

adaptation of Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) cellular 

technology. The committee is concerned that the modern WCMDA payload, which 

represents the primary purpose of developing a MUOS system, is unavailable for 

use by the warfighter. 

325
The committee is aware that the current Navy schedule projects the MUOS 

space and ground system to be operational in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, 

but the user terminals will not be available until 21 months later. The committee is 

disappointed with this lack of synchronization in delivery of capability to the 

warfighter. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in 

coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by 

December 1, 2014, on a plan to accelerate the fielding of the user terminals in 

support of the MUOS program.

Nuclear Detonation Detection System

The committee is aware of the joint Department of Defense and 

Department of Energy nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection system. The NUDET 

detection system is designed to detect, locate, and report on nuclear detonations in 

the Earth’s atmosphere or near space in near real time. The program is designed to 

support treaty monitoring, integrated tactical warning and attack assessment, and 

nuclear force management. The committee is aware that the funding for this 

program is split between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, 

which can cause challenges in program execution and coordination. The committee 

notes the importance of meeting NUDET detection system requirements as part of 

its plans for its space architecture, understanding the multitude of requirements 

that exist on the space architecture and the declining budget. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the 

House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2015, on the NUDET detection 

system. The briefing should include identification of the requirements, a strategic 

plan to address those requirements, and the cost and schedule of the associated 

activities.

Operationally Responsive Space

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the Operationally 

Responsive Space (ORS) program.

The committee continues to support the ORS program to address urgent 

military operational requirements for space support and reconstitution. 

Additionally, the committee is aware of the Air Force's plan to develop ORS-5, a 

space situational awareness operational demonstrator to address rapidly evolving 

space threats. This satellite is being funded with prior year appropriations and 

does not include funding for a launch vehicle. The committee is aware that this 

satellite is projected to be completed around fiscal year 2017.

Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0 million, an increase of $30.0 

million, in PE 64857F to continue the Operationally Responsive Space program and 

to fund a competitively procured launch vehicle for the ORS-5 mission.

326
Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has embarked on 

an ambitious, multiyear effort to improve its cybersecurity posture. That process 

was begun in 2010 with the establishment of United States Cyber Command, with 

the responsibility as a sub-unified combatant command to plan, coordinate, 

integrate, synchronize, and conduct activities to direct the operations and defense of 

specified Department of Defense information networks. It has continued with the 

creation of a cyber mission force that will defend Department of Defense networks, 

conduct cyber operations missions to protect the homeland, and to support 

combatant commander requirements for cyber operations support. Even the single 

security architecture for the Joint Information Environment represents a change of 

approach that integrates security seamlessly into network operations.

The committee is concerned, though, that the focus of the Department of 

fielding and training a cyber workforce has far outpaced the ability of that 

workforce to have all of the tools necessary to operate effectively on the network. In 

particular, the committee is concerned that the tools supporting cyber situational 

awareness do not provide a comprehensive, fused common operational picture. The 

committee believes such tools are vital to empower a skilled, trained and 

experienced workforce to fight the network as effectively as any land, sea or air 

component commander.

Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of United States Cyber 

Command, in coordination with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics, to provide a plan for improving cyber situational 

awareness tools to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015. This 

plan should include the following:

(1) Development of a common, open cyber situational awareness 

architecture, including the capability to rapidly integrate new privacy and civil 

liberty protections into the architecture based on changes directed by the Secretary 

or the administration;

(2) Identification of current tools for providing cyber situational awareness, 

as well as an assessment of gaps in current capabilities; 

(3) Assessment of new tools or processes that might be incorporated into a 

cyber situational awareness architecture, such as net flow data, host-based 

monitoring, anomaly detection, audit logs and agent-based algorithms, including 

identification of any potential issues related to current privacy and civil liberties 

protection policy;

(4) Integration of current tools into the Joint Information Environment 

single security architecture; and

(5) Assessment to testing resources, including funding and ranges, that 

may be necessary in the future to support developmental and operational testing.

Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination

327
The committee recognizes that advances in the understanding and 

application of Object Based Production and Activity Based Intelligence (ABI) have 

exposed the imperative need for making every ounce of collected and processed 

intelligence readily accessible to the all-source analyst community in formats that 

are consistent, shareable, and searchable. The committee is concerned that the 

military services have been largely absent or excluded from those discussions and 

working groups. As the services have a significant personnel investment in 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance processing, exploitation, and 

dissemination (PED), it is of critical importance that they remain abreast of 

technical advances in shared intelligence and analytic processes. To obtain the 

maximum possible value from nascent ABI analytic methodologies, the committee 

believes that every PED process must deliver accurately tagged and accessible or 

shareable content.

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence to submit a report to the congressional defense and the congressional 

intelligence committees by May 1, 2015, on a proposed way ahead for transforming 

the existing Department of Defense PED enterprise. The report should look across 

all PED organizations in the enterprise and focus on today’s single source products 

developed in largely single intelligence discipline environments. The report should 

include a plan of action and milestones (POA&M) laying out specific actions to be 

taken, by each intelligence disciple and each collector, to evolve or enhance today’s 

PED processes and outputs to a condition that directly facilitates ABI analysis. In 

building the POA&M, the report should prioritize collection sources, identifying 

those that can be tackled simultaneously, and highlighting any obstacles that 

prevent the required PED maturation.

Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL NETWORK

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional defense 

and intelligence committees not later than October 1, 2014, on the process and 

procedures for conveying finished intelligence products to the appropriate 

committees via the CAPITAL NETWORK (CAPNET). The report should specifically 

describe:

(1) Any Department or Department agency-specific policies and procedures 

for identifying and approving finished intelligence products to be posted to CAPNET 

(specifically including the processes by which the products are reviewed or 

evaluated before posting), or for removing, supplementing or modifying such 

intelligence products;

(2) Any policies and procedures that may exist to adjudicate potential 

disagreements about the posting or failure to post finished intelligence to CAPNET; 

and

328
(3) Any changes to or deviations from existing practices, policies, or 

procedures for identifying and approving information to be posted to CAPNET since 

January 1, 2012.

Further, as this report is being prepared but before it is conveyed to the 

committees, the committee directs the Secretary to provide an interim briefing to 

the congressional defense and intelligence committees on these issues.

Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs

The committee is aware of the importance of remote sensing as a discipline 

to support defense intelligence missions. As the Department of Defense increasingly 

focuses on operating in non-permissive environments, and on traditional missions 

like non-proliferation and counter-proliferation, the committee sees remote sensing 

as a critical skill set for the defense intelligence establishment. Additionally, with 

the growth of new techniques and increasing sophistication of remote sensing tools, 

the committee believes it is important to foster a robust analytical workforce for this 

community that can flexibly adapt to new missions and new technologies. The 

committee encourages the Department to leverage its science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics research and educational resources to find methods 

for establishing partnerships with qualified universities to increase the quality of 

remote sensing technical education in areas including sensor systems, 

phenomenology, analytical techniques, image processing, and collections strategies, 

to include a variety of current and future imaging modalities. The grants should 

also be aimed at increasing the number of remote sensing students at all university 

levels, including undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate. 

Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment

From 2001-09, the Air Force conducted a Propulsion Replacement Program 

to remanufacture solid rocket motors for the Minuteman III intercontinental 

ballistic missile system. This high-production rate program extended the life of 601 

solid rocket motors an additional 20-25 years. In 2017, ongoing surveillance efforts 

will enable the Air Force to determine the expected service life of these 

remanufactured rocket motors; the first of which will likely age out between 2020-

25. Concurrently, existing Minuteman III guidance electronics are expected to age 

out in the mid-2020s. 

The committee notes that the Air Force is expected to finish its analysis of 

alternatives (AOA) for the follow-on to the Minuteman III in July 2014. Regardless 

of the outcome of this analysis, the Air Force plans to sustain and operate the 

Minuteman III system through 2030. The committee believes a significant gap and 

misalignment exists between the Air Force's stated intention to sustain Minuteman 

III through 2030 and the programs required to do so. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees by February 1, 2015, containing the Air Force's plan and 

programs to sustain the Minuteman III system through 2030 or beyond. Such 

329
report and plan should: (1) be informed by the pending AOA; (2) assess the 

feasibility, costs, and benefits of initiating a low-rate production program for solid 

rocket motors, including identification of preparatory actions should current rocket 

motors begin aging out in 2020; and (3) to the extent practicable, align guidance 

replacement, propulsion replacement, and other efforts to minimize flight testing 

expenses. 

Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex

The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in 

coordination with the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command and the Commander, 

U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees not later than September 1, 2014, on the requirements and value of 

converting the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at the Pacific Missile 

Range Facility from a test and evaluation center to a permanent facility capable of 

continuous operations. 

The report shall include the following:

(1) A description of manpower requirements associated with staffing the 

facility for continuous operations.

(2) A description of the safety mitigation strategies associated with 

permanent, continuous operations.

(3) A description of operational impacts at the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

complex.

(4) Anticipated operations and sustainment costs.

(5) A description of operational benefits and impacts of conversion to a 

permanent facility.

For the report described, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall 

include a consideration of the following:

(1) Technical feasibility.

(2) Cost, cost effectiveness, and affordability.

(3) Schedule considerations.

(4) Capacity to respond to changes in future threat evolution.

Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program

The committee continues to believe that the National Nuclear Security 

Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons program is in the process of 

transitioning from a focus, in the past two decades, on developing new tools and 

science-based understanding of nuclear weapons to a focus on applying such tools 

and understanding to modernize the stockpile. NNSA's projected program plan 

shows that the level of effort and funding required to support this modernization, 

including life extension programs and the infrastructure needed to support them, is 

considerable. The committee believes that while continual progress in advancing 

science-based understanding of the stockpile is needed to certify the stockpile in the 

absence of nuclear explosive testing and respond to unforeseen challenges, the 

330
program plan may require further rebalancing towards engineering- and 

production-based efforts centered upon life extension programs and their supporting 

infrastructure. 

To better understand the appropriate balance in this program, the 

committee directs the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees by January 31, 2015, on the appropriate 

balance, over approximately the next decade, between efforts within the nuclear 

security enterprise to advance scientific understanding of nuclear weapons and 

efforts to deliver life extension programs and supporting infrastructure. In 

particular, this report should assess and make recommendations regarding: (1) the 

appropriate balance in resources, funding, and personnel; (2) the required levels of 

funding and the requirements driving programs on science, life extensions, and 

infrastructure; (3) the certification challenges facing the nuclear weapons stockpile 

over the next decade and the scientific advances necessary to meet them; (4) the 

level of basic science research needed to attract, retain, and challenge world-class 

scientists for the nuclear security enterprise; and (5) such other matters as the 

Commander determines appropriate. The committee expects the Commander to 

leverage the expertise of the Commander's Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile 

Assessment Team in support of this effort. Subsequent to submission of the 

Commander's report, the committee expects to receive the Administrator for 

Nuclear Security's views on these matters and understand how the Administrator 

intends to follow the Commander's recommendations.

Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space Activities

The committee is aware that there are ongoing discussions related to 

international agreements concerning outer space activities. As noted in section 913 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-

239), the committee wants to ensure that any agreements, nonbinding or otherwise, 

will not have any impact on the ability of the United States to conduct military or 

intelligence activities in outer space. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by December 1, 2014, on any 

agreements currently in discussion or being considered, the potential for impact on 

any Department of Defense or intelligence activities in outer space, and the 

significance of such impacts. Such report shall be in unclassified form, with a 

classified portion marked annex if necessary.

The Secretary of State may submit additional views, and such additional 

views shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees and the 

congressional intelligence committees, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

of the House and Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Such report shall 

be in unclassified form, with a classified portion-marked annex if necessary.

331
Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense Segment

The committee recognizes the shift in the Administration’s missile defense 

policy to a priority on homeland defense as evidenced by the March 2013 Secretary 

of Defense announcement, made in response to an escalating intercontinental 

ballistic missile threat, to increase the ground-based interceptor (GBI) fleet by 

nearly fifty percent by 2017. The committee supports this position; however, there 

is concern that the Administration has not made a commensurate shift in funding 

for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to address long-standing 

issues that have manifested themselves in flight test failures, degraded reliability, 

escalating obsolescence, and erosion of margin of capability over the threat. The 

committee notes that the GMD system is approximately 10 years old and was 

originally designed for a 20-year service life. The committee supports efforts to

close the gap between what it believes is needed as necessary investment in the 

GMD system and the proposed funding levels contained in the budget request. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than November 

1, 2014, that evaluates the necessary resources to maintain the GMD system in 

future years to achieve no less than standard industry practices for strategically 

important peer systems (such as Minuteman, Trident D5, Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense, and Aegis Standard Missile-3) for fleet upgrades, reliability 

confidence, obsolescence mitigation, and service-life assurance of capabilities 

against a threat that is growing in quantities and sophistication. The report should 

include, but not be limited to:

(1) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to improve overall 

GBI fleet reliability and incorporate lessons learned from all ground and flight test 

failures into the existing fleet and in-process assets;

(2) Action plans, schedule, asset line-of-balance allocations, and by-year 

budget required to conduct a robust systems engineering approach for GBI ground 

testing to ensure confidence in system reliability, capability, and long-term 

sustainment. This should include robust GBI integration testing, Stockpile 

Reliability, Aging and Surveillance, Highly Accelerated Life Testing, and Highly 

Accelerated Stress Screening;

(3) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to modernize and 

improve the GMD Ground System to ensure its sustainability for its operational 

life. Areas addressed should include technology refresh of obsolete components and 

technologies, modernized electronics architectures to eliminate single point failures 

and improve reliability, replacement of Ada software with a modern supportable 

and sustainable language, and fully incorporate the improved capabilities planned 

in the Enhanced Kill Vehicle Re-design and the Long Range Discrimination Radar; 

and

(4) By-year procurement budget requirements for various lot-buys for the 

additional 14 GBIs that the Secretary of Defense announced in March 2013, and 

332
include the associated long-lead procurement budget requirements and timeline to 

support, and impacts on the industrial base.

Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations Near U.S. Overseas 

Military Installations

Not later than June 30, 2015, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National 

Intelligence (DNI), to provide to the congressional defense committees, the 

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 

the House of Representatives, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a report on global navigation 

satellite system ground monitoring stations operated directly or indirectly by the 

Russian Federation located near any U.S. military installation overseas or located 

near allied military installation or any other installation deemed sensitive by the 

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or Director of National Intelligence. The 

report shall include the name and location of any such stations located in 

geographic proximity to any U.S. military or sensitive installation located outside 

continental United States; an assessment of the threat posed to such installations; 

the significance of such threat; and the plans to mitigate the impacts of covered 

stations. The report should also cover any planned future locations of such Russian 

Federation ground monitoring stations, to the extent that the Secretaries or the 

DNI are aware. The committee understands from public reports, that this will be a 

limited number of sites. The Secretary shall submit such report in unclassified 

form, with a classified annex if necessary.

Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the People's Republic of 

China

In its report on "Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s 

Republic of China 2013," the Department of Defense highlighted the ballistic 

missile submarine program in the People's Republic of China, stating that China's 

Navy "places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine force. China 

continues the production of JIN-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines 

(SSBN). Three JIN-class SSBNs (Type 094) are currently operational, and up to five 

may enter service before China proceeds to its next generation SSBN (Type 096) 

over the next decade." In testimony before the committee on March 5, 2014, the 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command stated that, "China’s advance in submarine 

capabilities is significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine 

force. China continues the production of ballistic missile submarines. The platform 

will carry a new missile with an estimated range of more than 4,000 nautical miles. 

This will give the [sic] China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent, probably 

before the end of 2014."

The committee is concerned that China's imminent deployment of an 

operational sea-based strategic deterrent is a major new step in China's nuclear 

333
weapon program. This step further increases the opacity of China's already opaque 

nuclear forces. Of particular concern, deployment of nuclear-armed SSBNs requires 

China to develop and implement new command, control, and communications 

paradigms to ensure positive control of the nuclear warheads by China's senior 

leaders. To better understand this new Chinese capability and its implications, the

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by November 1, 2014, on the strategic and regional implications 

of China's sea-based nuclear deterrent force; China's command, control, and 

communications system for such force; the implications for the U.S. and its allies of 

the emergence of a Chinese sea-based nuclear force; the contribution of China's seabased deterrent to China's overall nuclear doctrine and employment strategy, 

including survivable second-strike capabilities; and, U.S. and partner nation 

mitigation or response plans. 

Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life Testing and Highly 

Accelerated Stress Screening

On March 4, 2014, the committee received a report from the Director, 

Missile Defense Agency in response to the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 

concerning highly accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress screening 

(HALT/HASS) testing of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Components. The 

committee believes this report was a useful review of the potential benefits and 

limitations of employing this rigorous review system in addition to current Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) systems. The committee agrees with the Director's belief 

that HALT/HASS testing could be useful in certain future MDA efforts. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives in concurrence with the fiscal year 2016 budget submission a plan 

to employ HALT/HASS testing, as appropriate, in appropriate future MDA 

programs. The committee believes these efforts should be supervised in part by 

MDA and should be competitively awarded through full and open competition. 

Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats

The committee is concerned that the People's Republic of China and other 

competitor nations pose an increasing challenge to the United States’ technology 

edge in such emerging areas as hypersonic weapons. On January 9, China 

successfully conducted the first flight test of a hypersonic glide vehicle. The 

Russian Federation is also known to be pursuing research and development of 

hypersonic capabilities. In testimony before the committee on January 28, 2014, 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, stated 

that, "[o]n hypersonics, this is a good example of an area of technology that is going 

to move forward whether we invest in it or not...China is doing work in this area.”

334
At the same time, the committee is unaware of any significant efforts to 

prepare defenses against hypersonic weapons. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in 

consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to

the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2014, that evaluates 

emerging hypersonic threats to the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces, 

and explains how the Department of Defense intends to develop and deploy a 

defensive capability to counter this emerging threat. 

Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs

The committee notes the Administration's stated goal of retiring B83 

nuclear gravity bombs in the mid-2020s, after confidence in the safety, security, and 

reliability of the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb is established. The committee also 

notes that, in June 2013 the President stated an intention, "to seek negotiated cuts 

with Russia," favoring bilateral negotiations rather than unilateral cuts to U.S. 

nuclear forces. On March 6, 2014, the Secretary of Defense testified before the 

committee that, "there would be no unilateral actions taken by this Administration 

on going below the current levels. Those would have to all be, as we have done in 

every administration, negotiated through treaties." At the same hearing, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reinforced this position, saying, "any further 

reduction should be done only through negotiations, not unilaterally."

The committee is concerned that the proposed retirement of the B83 would 

be a unilateral action by the United States, with no reciprocal reductions by the 

Russian Federation. Both Congress and the Administration have made clear that 

further reductions to the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and associated delivery 

vehicles should only be made in concert with Russia pursuant to a treaty that is 

bilateral and verifiable. The committee expects the Administration to ensure this is 

the case prior to retirement of the B83, and that such a treaty ensures appropriate 

reciprocal reductions in the nuclear stockpile of Russia.

Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan

The committee believes that the reliability and warfighter confidence in the 

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment, also called the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense (GMD) segment, could be enhanced through more frequent flight 

and intercept testing. 

According to the "Plan to Increase the Rate of Ground-Based Midcourse 

Defense Flight Tests" submitted to the congressional defense committees in October 

2013 in accordance with the requirements of section 231 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), an increase in test 

cadence to three test events every 2 years will "require an increase in test resources 

and personnel." The committee believes such resources could increase warfighter 

confidence and the reliability of the nation's operationally deployed homeland 

missile defense capability if this test cadence is feasible and efficient. 

335
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA), in coordination with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees following the FTG-06b 

intercept test, if successful, on the benefits and risks of revising the Integrated 

Master Test Plan presently in force and future submissions of the plan, to achieve 

GMD tests at a frequency of not less than every nine months. The committee also 

directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to include in the budget request for 

fiscal year 2016 an illustration of the funding required, if appropriate, to meet this 

enhanced GMD test cadence. 

Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has been making

great strides in establishing a robust cyber mission capability, including increasing 

the number of cyber operations personnel, organizing and training them to a joint 

standard, and creating the tools and doctrine for their employment. However, the 

committee is also aware that while these cyber mission teams are being adequately 

resourced, personnel reductions to headquarters elements for the military service 

cyber commands are becoming a serious cause of concern. 

While the Department's goal of reducing bloat in headquarters is laudable, 

and an important step in increasing the tooth-to-tail ratio for military forces, this is 

having an unintended but detrimental effect for cyber forces. The committee notes 

that in some cases, military service cyber commands headquarters personnel are 

double- and sometime triple-hatted, leading to even greater inefficiencies and 

slower response to operational needs. These headquarters forces are important 

enablers for the cyber mission forces, providing planning, requirements, resourcing, 

and exercise support that is vital at this early stage of development. The committee 

encourages the Department to examine its cyber personnel needs more 

comprehensively in order to ensure that the military service cyber commands have 

sufficient support enablers to keep pace with the expansion of operational forces.

Space-Based Reconnaissance

The committee believes that the Operationally Responsive Space-1 (ORS-1) 

satellite has provided significant intelligence value to the U.S. Central Command 

and the Army's 513th Military Intelligence Brigade. When referring to this 

capability, the 513th stated "the ability to provide timely geospatial-intelligence 

(GEOINT) response to a real world mission during execution cannot be matched." 

U.S. Central Command provided similar feedback on the operational flexibility 

provided by this space reconnaissance asset to support urgent, short-notice 

requirements. 

The committee is aware that ORS-1 is currently operating well beyond its 

design life, and there is no follow-on program planned. The committee would like to 

understand the requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands for 

use of space reconnaissance assets. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman 

336
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a report to the congressional defense and the 

congressional intelligence committees by January 15, 2015, on the feedback from 

each of the commanders of the combatant commands on the utility of space-based 

reconnaissance capabilities to meet their priority intelligence requirements and 

their current ability to utilize and control space-based reconnaissance to meet those 

requirements. 

Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program

The committee is aware that there are a number of threats and challenges 

in U.S. Southern Command. The Commander of U.S. Southern Command stated 

that 132 metric tons of cocaine was seized under the command’s counter-narcotics 

mission in fiscal year 2013. This represents over $2.5 billion drug revenue that 

would have supported transnational criminal organizations, cartel violence in 

Mexico, and the continued threat of regional destabilization.

The committee is aware of new sensor technologies that may be able to 

support the Commander of Southern Command’s ability to address these 

challenges. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

examine the current state of sensor technologies that could be used to modernize 

existing systems and improve detection, tracking, targeting, and engagement of 

these irregular threats as part of the Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and 

Exploitation Program.

Standard Missile 3 Block IB

The committee is concerned by the reduction in funding for the Standard 

Missile 3 (SM-3) program in fiscal year 2015 and across the Future Years Defense 

Program (FYDP). After demonstrating success in five of five intercepts in 2013 and 

with a Full Rate Production decision planned for fall 2014, the Department now has 

reduced programmed quantities each year to fewer than were funded in fiscal year 

2014 in Low Rate Initial Production. The committee believes such a reduction 

injects inefficiency into the production line and that inefficiency may unnecessarily 

increase the per unit cost of these interceptors. 

At the same time, the committee is not aware of any diminishment in 

requirements by the combatant commanders for these interceptors. The committee 

supports the funding requested in the budget submission for Advanced Procurement 

to support long-lead time requirements for these missiles. The committee also 

supports the likely request in the fiscal year 2016 budget request for multi-year 

procurement authority for these missile interceptors. The committee believes that a 

successful negotiation between the Missile Defense Agency and its contractors could 

drive down the per unit cost of these interceptors and increase the available 

quantities to the warfighter. 

The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to provide a 

briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, 

on the sufficiency of current and programmed inventory of SM-3 missiles to meet 

337
combatant commander requirements, the number of Requests for Forces received 

from combatant commanders in 2012-13 for SM-3 interceptors, and the shortfall in 

interceptors in each year of the FYDP. 

Targeting Enterprise

The committee recognizes the importance of geospatial intelligence 

(GEOINT) support to military operations. The National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency (NGA) defines GEOINT as the exploitation and analysis of imagery and 

geospatial information that describes, assesses and visually depicts physical 

features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth. An important aspect 

of GEOINT operations is the target material provided to support the common 

operational picture, mission planning, precision coordinate generation, and other 

analytical products. The committee believes that the targeting mission is of critical 

importance, and the current threat environment will create challenges and 

necessitate the need for further review of the methods to accomplish this mission. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence, in coordination with the Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 

Representatives and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 

of Representatives by May 1, 2015, on the state of the targeting enterprise. The 

briefing should include: an assessment of the current GEOINT targeting 

capabilities; identification of targeteer training as well as the current and projected 

number of targeteers across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, including NGA; 

and an analysis of opportunities for improvement within the defense intelligence 

community.

U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and Operations Center

 The U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and Operations 

Center (JIOC-TRANS) recently executed a highly successful proof of concept 

associated with a new organizational construct titled the Transportation 

Intelligence Center (TIC). While the committee supports the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff delegation of authority to the TIC to allow full exercise of appropriate 

intelligence coordination activities as demonstrated in the proof of concept, the 

committee requires additional information regarding why it is necessary to 

engender a new organizational construct to achieve the desired end state, 

particularly when manned with the same personnel as the existing JIOC. 

 Therefore, the committee directs that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, in coordination with the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, to provide a 

report to the congressional defense and the congressional intelligence committees by 

February 16, 2015, detailing the authorities delegated to the TIC as part of the 

proof of concept and presenting an evaluation of any obstacles to delegating those 

same authorities directly to the Commander, JIOC-TRANS. The report should 

identify any opportunities to apply the same lessons and delegations across the 

338
other functional JIOCS (e.g. U.S. Strategic Command JIOC, U.S. Cyber Command 

JIOC, and U.S. Special Operations Command JIOC) to achieve improved 

operational intelligence efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, the report should 

explore the potential for such initiatives to allow more efficient utilization of JIOC 

or Intelligence Community manning. 

University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile Defense Agency

The committee believes the missile defense mission is crucial to the 

protection of the homeland as well as allies and deployed forces, especially as the 

enemy threat increases in size and complexity. Yet, both internal and external 

evaluations and assessments have indicated that the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) needs to make significant technical advancements to create Ballistic Missile 

Defense System performance that is more reliable and affordable. 

The committee is aware that many agencies, including defense agencies, 

have found that University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) have been useful 

for their core research and development capabilities.

 Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2014, on whether 

expanding use of UARCs is appropriate and useful to the Missile Defense Agency, 

and if so, in what specific mission or technological areas, the prospective costs of 

such cooperation (including the safeguarding of unclassified technical information 

and classified information), and a plan for relevant universities to undertake a pilot 

UARC partnership, including identification of requirements for qualification to 

participate, and the completion by MDA of a public survey of university capabilities 

before entering into any UARC agreement.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—SPACE ACTIVITIES

Section 1601—Department of Defense Space Security and Defense Program

This section would state the sense of Congress that critical U.S. space 

systems face a growing foreign threat, that both the People’s Republic of China and 

the Russian Federation are developing capabilities to disrupt the use of space by the 

United States during a conflict, and that a fully-developed, multi-faceted approach 

is needed to deter and defeat any adversary’s acts of aggression in outer space.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act that assesses the ability of the Department of Defense to 

deter and defeat any adversary's act of aggression in outer space.

In addition, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense, acting 

through the Office of Net Assessment, to conduct a study and provide a report to the 

339
congressional defense committees not later than one year after the date of the 

enactment of this Act of potential alternate defense and deterrent strategies in 

response to the existing and projected counterspace capabilities of China and 

Russia. 

Section 1602—Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Notification

This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to provide certain 

congressional committees with notification of each change to the Evolved 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) acquisition plan and schedule as compared to 

the plan and schedule included in the budget submitted by the President for fiscal 

year 2015. The notification would include an identification of the change, a national 

security rationale for the change, the impact of the change on the EELV block buy 

contract, the impact of the change on the opportunities for competition for certified 

EELV launch providers, and the costs or savings of the change. The notification 

requirement would apply to fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Section 1603—Satellite Communications Responsibilities of Executive Agent for 

Space

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to revise Department of 

Defense directives and guidance for the Department of Defense Executive Agent 

(EA) for Space, with respect to the development of space strategies, architectures 

and programs for satellite communications. This section would require the EA to 

conduct strategic planning to ensure these strategies align with Department 

requirements. In addition, it would require the EA to coordinate with the necessary 

offices within the Department of Defense in order to eliminate duplication of efforts, 

maximize the effectiveness of efforts, and to optimize acquisition effectiveness and 

efficiency for military and commercial satellite communications. Finally, this 

section would direct the EA to coordinate with the Chairman of the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council to develop a process to identify current and 

projected satellite communications requirements for the Department.

Section 1604—Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 

Defense should develop a next-generation liquid rocket engine that is made in the 

United States, meets the requirements of the national security space community, is 

developed by not later than 2019, is developed using full and open competition, and 

is available for purchase by all space launch providers of the United States. 

This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a nextgeneration liquid rocket engine that enables the effective, efficient, and expedient 

transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative 

for national security space launches. Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 

this Act, $220.0 million would be available for the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

340
next-generation liquid rocket engine. The Secretary would be required to coordinate 

with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to 

the extent practicable, to ensure that the rocket engine developed meets objectives 

that are common to both the national security space community and the civil space 

program of the United States. 

The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, would be directed to 

deliver a report with a plan to carry out the development of the rocket engine, 

including an analysis of the benefits of using public-private partnerships, the 

estimated development costs, and identification of the requirements of the program 

to develop such rocket engine. 

Section 1605—Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial Satellite 

Communication Services

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to develop and execute a 

pilot program to examine the feasibility of expanding the use of working capital 

funds to acquire commercial satellite communications services to meet Department 

of Defense requirements. This program would terminate on October 1, 2020. In 

addition, this section would limit the use of any funds authorized for the 

Department's acquisition of commercial satellite communications services to not 

more than $50.0 million per year for the pilot program execution, and only for fiscal 

years 2015-20. This section would also limit the authorities of the Secretary of 

Defense in the execution of the pilot program by prohibiting the use of the 

authorities granted in sections 2208(k) and 2210(b) of title 10, United States Code. 

Finally, this section would define goals for the execution of the pilot program, as 

well as reporting requirements for the program. This section does not constitute 

authority for multi-year procurement of commercial satellite services.

SUBTITLE B—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Section 1611—Assessment and Limitation on Availability of Funds for Intelligence 

Activities and Programs of United States Special Operations Command and Special 

Operations Forces

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting through the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, and the Director of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency, to submit an assessment to the appropriate congressional 

committees on the intelligence activities and programs of the U.S. Special 

Operations Forces and U.S. Special Operations Command. This section would also 

limit 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise 

made available for fiscal year 2015 of U.S. Special Operations Command Major 

Force Program-11 procurement, defense-wide, and research, development, testing, 

and evaluation, defense-wide, until such assessment is received. Further discussion 

of this provision is contained in the classified annex to this report. 

341
Section 1612—Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands

This section would direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees and the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select 

Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on the intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance requirements, by specific intelligence capability type, of each of the 

combatant commands; for the year preceding the year in which the briefing is 

provided, the satisfaction rate of each of the combatant commands with the 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements, by specific intelligence 

capability type, of such combatant command; and a risk analysis identifying the 

critical gaps and shortfalls in such requirements in relation to such satisfaction 

rate.

Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence would be 

required to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees and the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and 

the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on short-term, mid-term, and 

long-term strategies to address the critical intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance requirements of the combatant commands. The briefings should 

address the role of government and commercial systems, and the methods to 

meeting the requirements of the combatant commands.

These briefings would be due with the budget submission each year, from 

fiscal year 2016-20.

Section 1613—One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery Intelligence and 

Geospatial Information Support Provided to Regional Organizations and Security 

Alliances

This section would extend the existing reporting requirement by 1 year, 

regarding sharing of imagery intelligence and geospatial information to regional 

organizations and security alliances. 

Section 1614—Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Executive Agent

This section would establish an executive agent for the Tactical 

Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP) program. The executive agent shall 

report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and shall be 

responsible for working with the combatant commands, military services, and 

intelligence community to develop methods to increase warfighter effectiveness 

through the exploitation of national capabilities and to promote cross-domain 

integration of such capabilities into military operations, training, intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance activities. 

This section would also require the TENCAP executive agent to provide an 

annual briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

342
of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives for the 

fiscal years 2016-20 on the investments, activities, challenges, and opportunities in 

carrying out the TENCAP program.

Section 1615—Air Force Intelligence Organization

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Air Force 

National Air and Space Intelligence Center provides indispensable intelligence 

support, and should remain organizationally aligned to the Headquarters Air Staff 

with reporting through the Vice Chief of Staff. In addition, this section would 

require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense 

committees and the congressional intelligence committees a strategic plan for the 

intelligence organization of the Air Force, which includes maintaining the National 

Air and Space Intelligence Center alignment to the Headquarters Air Staff.

Section 1616—Prohibition on National Intelligence Program Consolidation

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the 

funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 

ending on December 31, 2015, to execute: the separation of the portion of the 

Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National Intelligence 

Program from the rest of the Department of Defense budget; the consolidation of the 

portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the National 

Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense budget; or the 

establishment of a new appropriations account or appropriations account structure 

for such funds.

SUBTITLE C—CYBERSPACE-RELATED MATTERS

Section 1621—Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training Ranges

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish an 

executive agent to coordinate and oversee the management of the various cyber test 

and training ranges being developed and deployed by the Department of Defense. 

The committee is aware that a number of cyber ranges currently exist, but 

the Department's Test and Evaluation Strategic Plan has identified a number of 

capability gaps that need to be addressed in order to provide sufficient and 

adequate cyber test and training. Though there has been significant growth of cyber 

personnel to fulfill critical defensive and offensive missions for the Department, the 

capacity for training in a realistic environment has not kept pace. The committee is 

concerned that those challenges have not been addressed and that the Department 

is unable to come to resolution on how best to provide adequate management and 

support for such capabilities. The committee believes that designation of an 

343
executive agent for cyber test and training ranges will be an important step in 

managing the current range resources, as well as provide discipline to prevent 

rampant proliferation of duplicative capabilities. 

SUBTITLE D—NUCLEAR FORCES

Section 1631—Preparation of Annual Budget Request Regarding Nuclear Weapons

This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United States Code, and 

add a new requirement regarding annual transfers to the Department of Energy of 

Department of Defense budget authority. Prior to making such transfers, the 

Secretary of Defense must establish a memorandum of agreement with the 

Secretary of Energy as to how the funds will be obligated and expended within the 

Weapons Activities budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA). The committee believes that these are Department of Defense funds and it 

must be assured as to how they will be used by the Department of Energy if the 

transfers are to continue. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide an 

annual certification to the congressional defense committees that includes detailed 

assessments from the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command regarding the 

implementation by the NNSA of any agreements and decisions of the Council. 

Section 1632—Independent Review of the Personnel Reliability Program of the 

Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program of the Department of 

Energy

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 

Energy to jointly seek to enter into a contract with a federally funded research and 

development center to conduct an independent review of the Personnel Reliability 

Program (PRP) of the Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program 

(HRP) of the Department of Energy and submit the report of this independent 

review to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015. Such review 

would be required to examine the costs and benefits of each program; examples of 

successes and failures for each program; the reporting and administrative 

requirements of each program; the authorities and responsibilities of commanders 

and managers in each program; guidance for when certain positions must be 

included in each program; recommendations for making the programs more 

effective, more efficient, and, to the extent appropriate, more consistent across the 

departments; and such other matters as the Secretaries determine appropriate.

Reviewing the results of investigations initiated by the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Energy in the wake of security and personal 

integrity failures in their respective nuclear enterprises, the committee believes 

that the programs administered by each department to ensure the reliability and 

fitness of personnel for nuclear-related duties must be modernized to be more 

344
effective and more efficient. The Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) of the 

Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program (HRP) of the 

Department of Energy are key programs for mitigating threats from insiders and 

for identifying and mitigating problems with nuclear workers before it affects their 

duties. Concerns about PRP and HRP have been raised in several studies over the 

past decade, but until recently little action has been taken. The committee 

commends the Air Force for its current review of its PRP and encourages its effort 

to take carefully considered actions to improve the program. The committee believes 

the entire nuclear enterprise would benefit from a broad-based, independent review 

of PRP and HRP. 

The committee believes sustained attention at the senior-most levels is 

necessary to overcome the leadership and integrity problems revealed within the 

Air Force and the Navy nuclear enterprise in the past year. The committee notes 

that various reviews and investigations are ongoing and will continue close 

oversight of the recommended reforms and their implementation.

Section 1633—Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary Requirement

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of Energy and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to assess 

the annual nuclear weapon secondary production requirement needed to sustain a 

safe, secure, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent. The Secretary of Defense 

would be required to submit a report on this assessment to the congressional 

defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This 

report would be in unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary, and would 

be required to include an explanation of the rationale and assumptions that led to 

the current 50-to-80 per year secondary production requirement, including the 

factors considered in determining such requirement, and an analysis of whether 

there are any changes to the 50-to-80 per year secondary production requirement, 

including the reasons for any such changes. The report would also be required to 

include a description of how the following is affected by or related to the secondary 

production requirement:

(1) The demands of stockpile modernization, including the schedule for life 

extension programs;

(2) The requirement for a responsive infrastructure, including the ability to 

hedge against technical failure and geopolitical risk; and

(3) The number of secondaries held in reserve or the inactive stockpile, and 

the likelihood such secondaries may be reused.

Finally, the report would be required to include a proposed timeframe for 

achieving the annual secondary production requirement.

Section 1634—Retention of Missile Silos

This section would express the sense of Congress that recent authorization 

and appropriations acts enacted by Congress and signed by the President have 

345
promulgated a national policy that it is in the national security interests of the 

United States to retain the maximum number of land-based strategic missile silos 

and their associated infrastructure to ensure that billions of dollars in prior 

taxpayer investments for such silos and infrastructure are not lost through 

precipitous actions which may be budget-driven, cyclical, and not in the long-term 

strategic interests of the United States. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to preserve each 

intercontinental ballistic missile silo that contains a deployed missile as of the date 

of the enactment of this Act in, at minimum, a warm status that enables such silo to 

remain a fully functioning element of the interconnected and redundant command 

and control system of the missile field and be made fully operational with a 

deployed missile. This requirement to preserve silos in a warm status would 

terminate on February 5, 2021. 

Section 1635—Certification on Nuclear Force Structure

This section would require that, not later than 90 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 

Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, should jointly certify that the plan for 

implementation of the New START Treaty announced on April 8, 2014, will enable 

the United States to meet its obligations under such treaty in a manner that 

ensures the nuclear forces of the United States are capable, survivable, and 

balanced; and maintain strategic stability, deterrence and extended deterrence, and 

allied assurance. 

SUBTITLE E—MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Section 1641—Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of the United States

This section would state the policy of the United States that available 

short-range air and missile defense systems and terminal missile defense systems of 

the United States with operational missiles be rotationally deployed to central and 

eastern European allies, pursuant to agreements with those allies, as appropriate. 

This section would also require that the Secretary of Defense ensure the 

operational availability of the Aegis Ashore system site in Poland not later than 

December 31, 2016, pursuant to an agreement between the United States and the 

Government of Poland. Additionally, this section would require that, not later than 

December 31, 2014, the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to an agreement between 

the United States and the government of Poland, deploy a short-range air and 

missile defense capability or terminal missile defense capability, or both, and the 

personnel required to operate and maintain such a system. Further, the Secretary 

of Defense would be required to notify the appropriate congressional committees by 

not later than 60 days after the date on which a member of the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization makes a request of the Secretary that they host such a system. 

346
Section 1642—Sense of Congress on Procurement and Deployment of Capability 

Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle

This section would state the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of 

Defense should not procure an additional capability enhancement II exoatmospheric 

kill vehicle for deployment until after the date on which a successful intercept flight 

test of the capability enhancement II ground-based interceptor has occurred, unless 

such procurement is for test assets or to maintain a warm line for the industrial 

base. 

TITLE XVII—DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUDITABILITY

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1701—Findings and Purposes

This section would discuss the findings of Congress leading up to the 

establishment of an advisory panel on Department of Defense audit readiness. In 

addition, this section would discuss the purpose of the panel: to actively monitor the 

Department of Defense's audit readiness and audit work and to report on problems 

that need to be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best, most efficient 

path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines relating to auditability.

Section 1702—Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Audit 

Readiness 

This section would establish the advisory panel on Department of Defense 

audit readiness, describe the process for the selection of members to the panel, 

identify the period of appointment, and describe meeting requirements of the panel.

Section 1703—Duties of the Advisory Panel

This section would define the duties of the advisory panel. The panel would 

identify, review, and evaluate the work of the Department of Defense regarding 

auditability. The panel would submit to congressional defense committees semiannual reports on the findings and recommendations of the panel. 

Section 1704—Powers of the Advisory Panel

The section would provide the authority for the advisory panel to hold 

hearings and receive information directly from the Department of Defense.

Section 1705—Advisory Panel Personnel Matters

347
This section would require members of the advisory panel to serve without 

compensation for such service. This section would also provide authority for travel 

expenses and staff to support the advisory panel.

Section 1706—Termination of the Advisory Panel

This section would terminate the advisory panel on April 30, 2019.

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

PURPOSE

Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related 

authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2015. As 

recommended by the committee, division B would authorize appropriations in the 

amount of $6,532,970,000 for construction in support of the active forces, Reserve 

Components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security 

infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2015.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

The Department of Defense requested $5,096,827,000 for military 

construction, $270,085,000 for Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities, 

and $1,190,535,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. The committee 

recommends authorization of $5,276,927,000 for military construction, $270,085,000 

for BRAC activities, and $1,190,535,000 for family housing in fiscal year 2015.

Section 2001—Short Title

This section would cite division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.’’

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be Specified 

by Law

This section would ensure that the authorizations provided in titles XXI 

through XXVII of this Act shall expire on October 1, 2017, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever 

is later.

Section 2003—Effective Date

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, 

and XXVII of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2014, or the date of enactment 

of this Act, whichever is later.

348
TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $539,427,000 for Army military construction 

and $429,585,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. The committee 

recommends authorization of $673,427,000 for military construction and 

$429,585,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Explanation of Funding Adjustments

The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project contained in 

the budget request for military construction and family housing. This reduction 

includes:

(1) $13.0 million for a Command and Control Facility at Fort Shafter, 

Hawaii. The budget request included $96.0 million to support the command and 

control requirements for U.S. Army Pacific headquarters. While the committee 

supports the requirement for this facility, the committee is concerned that the unit 

cost for this facility is high compared to a standard design even when accounting for 

Area Cost Factors. Accordingly, the committee recommends $83.0 million, a 

reduction of $13.0 million, for this project.

In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several 

projects requested by the Department of the Army but not contained in the budget 

request for military construction and family housing. These increases include:

(1) $86.0 million for an Advance Individual Training Barracks Complex, 

Phase 3, at Fort Lee, Virginia. The budget request did not include funding to 

support housing requirements for advanced individual training students. The 

committee notes that this project was included on a list of critical unfunded project 

requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee 

recommends $86.0 million, an increase of $86.0 million, for this project. 

(2) $46.0 million for a Simulation Center at Fort Hood, Texas. The budget 

request did not include funding to support a command and control training using 

simulators. The committee notes that this project was included on a list of critical 

unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $46.0 million, an increase of $46.0 million, 

for this project. 

(3) $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping Center at Bluegrass Army 

Depot, Kentucky. The budget request did not include funding to support a 

consolidated, indoor shipping and receiving center for munitions, arms, and 

explosives. The committee notes that this project was included on a list of critical 

unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 

349
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, 

for this project. 

(4) $69.0 million for a High Value Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba. The budget request did not include funding to support this complex. The 

committee recommends $69.0 million, an increase of $69.0 million, for this project. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Army construction projects 

for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding 

list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2102—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of 

family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2015.

Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army

This section would authorize appropriations for Army military construction 

at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

Section 2104—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2004 

Project

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public 

Law 108-136) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain 

modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 

section was included in the President's request. 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 

Projects

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2101 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112-239) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain 

modifications to the scope of previously authorized construction projects. This 

section was included in the President's request or included as a specific request 

from the Secretary of the Army. 

Section 2106—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project

350
This section would extend the authorization listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

Section 2107—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $1,018,772,000 for Navy military 

construction and $370,441,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. The 

committee recommends authorization of $998,772,000 for military construction and 

$370,441,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Explanation of Funding Adjustment

The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project contained in 

the budget request for military construction and family housing. This reduction 

includes:

(1) $20.0 million for the Center for Cyber Security Studies Building at 

Annapolis, Maryland. The budget request included $120.1 million to support the 

requirements for academic cyber security programs at the U.S. Naval Academy. The

committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to 

the ability of the military department to execute in the year of the authorization for 

appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the 

Navy has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2015. As 

such, the committee recommends $100.1 million, a reduction of $20.0 million, for 

this project. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Navy construction projects 

for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by351
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding 

list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2202—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of 

family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2015.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family 

housing for fiscal year 2015.

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

This section would authorize appropriations for Navy military construction 

at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2012 

Projects

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112-81) and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications 

to the scope of a previously authorized construction projects. This section was 

included in the President's request. 

Section 2206—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 

Project

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2201 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113-66) and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications 

to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section was 

included in the President's request. 

Section 2207—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

Section 2208—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects

352
This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $811,774,000 for Air Force military 

construction and $327,747,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. The 

committee recommends authorization of $811,774,000 for military construction and 

$327,747,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Air Force Strategic Basing Process

The committee notes that the Air Force has plans to divest legacy aircraft 

from its Active Duty and Reserve Component force structure over the Future Years 

Defense Program. While divesting of legacy aircraft, the Air Force will also conduct 

strategic basing reviews to determine where to locate new units and missions, such 

as the F-35A and the KC-46A, in the coming years. The committee is supportive of 

the Air Force’s strategic basing process and believes that it provides a thorough, 

consistent, and transparent process for basing decisions. When evaluating 

candidate bases for new units and missions, the committee believes that it is 

appropriate for the Air Force to consider infrastructure supporting aircraft to be 

divested from its force structure as being available to support new units and 

missions should the scheduled divesture occur before the scheduled arrival of the 

new unit or mission. 

Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities

The committee is aware of serious infrastructure deficiencies of dining 

facilities at installations administered by the Air Force. The failure or 

unavailability of a dining facility would result in mission degradation, and greater 

risk exists at dining facilities constructed several decades ago or those originally 

intended to be temporary structures. Further, relative to the total cost of training 

operations and in the context of critical training missions, the committee believes 

that replacing severely deficient dining facilities is an appropriate, cost-effective 

method of preserving mission capabilities. The committee encourages the Air Force 

to take into consideration the necessity of reducing risk of mission stoppage by 

investing in the replacement of dining facilities that have infrastructure deficiencies 

which could cause health and safety issues. 

353
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force construction 

projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installationby-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the 

binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2302—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force military 

construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

Section 2303—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2008 

Project

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2301 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 

Law 110-181) and authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to make certain 

modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 

section was included in the President's request. 

Section 2304—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project

This section would extend the authorization listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

Section 2305—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $2,061,890,000 for defense agency military 

construction and $62,662,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. The 

committee recommends authorization of $2,032,890,000 for military construction 

and $62,662,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2015. 

354
The budget request also contained $38,715,000 for chemical 

demilitarization construction. The committee recommends authorization of 

$38,715,000 for chemical demilitarization construction for fiscal year 2015.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Explanation of Funding Adjustments

The committee recommends reduction of funding for several projects 

contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These 

reductions includes:

(1) $70.0 million for the Medical Center Replacement, Increment 4 at Rhine 

Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The budget request included $259.695 million to 

support the replacement of an aging medical center that provides medical services 

to beneficiaries throughout U.S. European Command, as well as contingency 

casualty evacuation support for military personnel deployed in various combatant 

command areas of responsibility. The committee supports the authorization of 

appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to 

execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the 

committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully 

expend the funding in fiscal year 2015. As such, the committee recommends 

$189.695 million, a reduction of $70.0 million, for this project. 

(2) $20.0 million for planning and design activities at various worldwide 

locations. The budget request included $142.240 million to support the planning 

and design of projects in the construction program of various defense agencies. The 

committee supports authorizing appropriations for planning and design in an 

amount that supports military construction activities projected in the Future Years 

Defense Program (FYDP). For this request, the committee believes that the 

Department of Defense’s budget request for planning and design exceeds the 

requirement necessary to support the construction program for the FYDP submitted 

for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. As such, the committee recommends $122.24 

million, a reduction of $20.0 million, for planning and design. 

(3) $9.0 million for contingency construction at various worldwide locations. 

The budget request included $9.0 million to support contingency construction 

requirements not previously authorized by law. The committee notes that the 

Department has not requested a military construction project using funds from this 

account since 2008. In addition, the committee notes that unobligated balances 

remain available in the military construction account and other authorities exist to 

construct projects that are in keeping with a national security interest. As such, the 

committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $9.0 million, for this program. 

In addition, the committee recommends an increase of funding for projects 

contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These 

increases include:

(1) $70.0 million for the Hospital Replacement, Increment 6 at Fort Bliss, 

Texas. The budget request includes $131.5 million to support the replacement of a 

355
hospital that provides inpatient and outpatient care to the beneficiary population at 

Fort Bliss. The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an 

amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to executive in the year 

of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that 

the Department of Defense's request is below the amount required in fiscal year 

2015 to support the construction project's scope and schedule without putting the 

project at risk. As such, the committee recommends $201.5 million, and increase of 

$70.0 million, for this project. 

(2) $20.0 million for Missile Defense Agency Military Construction Planning 

and Design activities for a CONUS Interceptor Site for homeland missile defense. 

The committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, for this 

project. 

Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility

The committee notes that in January 2014, approximately 27,000 gallons of 

fuel leaked from a tank in the Red Hill underground fuel storage facility. The 

underground storage facility was constructed in the early 1940s and contains 20 

fuel tanks that are buried beneath 100 feet of volcanic rock. 

The committee further notes that the budget request included $52.9 million 

in investments to replace two fuel tanks and upgrade the fire suppression and 

ventilation system supporting the Red Hill underground fuel storage facility. The 

committee believes that the Red Hill facility will continue to play an important 

supporting role for the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House 

Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, on the long-term 

infrastructure improvements that may be necessary to support the continued safe 

and secure operation of the Red Hill underground fuel storage facility. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—DEFENSE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized defense agencies 

construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to 

be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy 

conservation projects at the amounts authorized for each project at a specific 

356
location valued at a cost greater than $2.0 million. This section would also 

authorize the sum total of projects across various locations, each project of which is 

less than $2.0 million. This section would also preclude the ability to set-aside 

operation and maintenance facilities restoration and modernization funds for the 

exclusive purpose of funding energy projects. It would require installation energy 

projects to compete in the normal process of determining installation requirements. 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

This section would authorize appropriations for defense agencies' military 

construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

Section 2404—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

Section 2405—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

Section 2406—Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission of Required Reports

This section would restrict the obligation of funds to support human 

performance center initiatives at certain locations, until the Secretary of Defense 

submits a report on this program that was required in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement to Accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014, as printed in the Congressional Record on December 12, 2013 (page H7956), 

and a report on the review of Department of Defense efforts regarding the 

prevention of suicide among members of United States Special Operations Forces 

and their dependents required elsewhere in this Act.

SUBTITLE B—CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization 

Construction, Defense-Wide

This section would authorize appropriations for chemical demilitarization 

construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

357
Section 2412—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2000 

Project

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2401 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public 

Law 107-107), as amended, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to make certain 

modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 

section was included in the President's request. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $199,700,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for fiscal year 2015. The 

committee recommends authorization of $199,700,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2015. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in 

section 2502 of this Act and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 

construction previously financed by the United States.

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

This section would authorize appropriations for the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization Security Investment Program at the levels identified in section 4601 

of division D of this Act.

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $426,549,000 for military construction of 

National Guard and Reserve facilities for fiscal year 2015. The committee 

recommends authorization of $521,649,000 for military construction for fiscal year 

2015. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

358
Explanation of Funding Adjustments

The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several projects 

requested by the Department of the Army but not contained in the budget request 

for military construction and family housing. These increases include:

(1) $26.0 million for an Army Reserve Center at Arlington Heights, Illinois. 

The budget request did not include funding to support a reserve center for Army 

Reserve units. The committee notes that this project was included on a list of 

critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $26.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million, 

for this project. 

(2) $25.0 million for an Army Reserve Center, Phase II, at Riverside, 

California. The budget request did not include funding to support a reserve center 

for Army Reserve units. The committee notes that this project was included on a 

list of critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of the 

Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $25.0 million, an increase of $25.0 

million, for this project. 

(3) $19.0 million for Enlisted Barracks and Transit Training at the Yakima 

Training Center, Washington. The budget request did not include funding to 

support the requirements of the Washington Army National Guard’s Regional 

Training Institute. The committee notes that this project was included on a list of 

critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $19.0 million, an increase of $19.0 million, 

for this project. 

(4) $10.8 million for a National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop at 

Dagsboro, Delaware. The budget request did not include funding to support vehicle 

maintenance shop requirements for the Delaware Army National Guard. The 

committee notes that this project was included on a list of critical unfunded project 

requirements submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee 

recommends $10.8 million, an increase of $10.8 million, for this project. 

(5) $9.3 million for an Army Reserve Center and Land at Starkville, 

Mississippi. The budget request did not include funding to support a reserve center 

and land acquisition for Army Reserve units. The committee notes that this project 

was included on a list of critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the 

Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $9.3 million, an 

increase of $9.3 million, for this project. 

(6) $5.0 million for a National Guard Readiness Center 

Addition/Alternation at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The budget request did not 

include funding to support additions/alterations required to address facility 

shortages and inadequacies at a readiness center. The committee notes that this 

project was included on a list of critical unfunded project requirements submitted by 

the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million, an 

increase of $5.0 million, for this project. 

359
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Army National Guard 

construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to 

be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Army Reserve construction 

projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an installationby-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the 

binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Construction 

and Land Acquisition Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts 

are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Air National Guard 

construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to 

be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects

This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force Reserve 

construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to 

be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

360
Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and Reserve

This section would authorize appropriations for the National Guard and 

Reserve military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of 

this Act.

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2611—Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2012 Projects

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2602 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112-81) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications 

to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This section would also 

extend the authorizations listed until October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever 

is later. This section was included in the President's request. 

Section 2612—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 

Project

This section would modify the authority provided by section 2601 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112-293) and authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain 

modifications to the scope of a previously authorized construction project. This 

section was included in the President's request. 

Section 2613—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project

This section would extend the authorizations listed 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. This section was included in the President's 

request. 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $270,085,000 for activities related to Base 

Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities. The committee recommends 

authorization of $270,085,00 for BRAC activities. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

361
Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has requested 

authority to conduct another round of defense base closures and realignment 

(BRAC) in 2017. BRAC is often cited as a means of saving significant defense 

dollars in a time of declining budgets. The committee is concerned that efficiencies 

associated with the BRAC process are offset with the inability to quickly dispose of 

excess property and the potential lack of overall savings to the federal government. 

For example, there are numerous instances where the Department of Defense 

conveyed excess property to other Federal agencies and the overall Government 

may not have saved money.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, as to the overall 

effectiveness of the property disposal process. The report should specifically assess 

each prior BRAC round (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005), by military department, 

and provide the following: 

(1) A listing, by acre, of property disposed to: other Federal agencies; state 

and local agencies; non-profit entities; and the private sector;

(2) A list of remaining acreage to be disposed; 

(3) An assessment of land sale revenues realized from prior property 

disposal actions;

(4) An assessment of environmental expenditures and caretaker services 

expended; and 

(5) An assessment of remaining environmental remediation costs to 

complete and associated caretaker services anticipated during the environmental 

remediation. 

Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations

At the request of the committee, the Government Accountability Office has 

issued reports on the status of Department of Defense’s joint basing initiative. 

However, the committee remains concerned that efforts to implement Base Closure 

and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 recommendations that required the military services 

to merge or consolidate functions to become more joint were not effectively 

implemented, obviating certain cost saving opportunities. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, on the status of Department of 

Defense actions to implement its BRAC 2005 recommendations that meet these 

goals of reducing infrastructure and promoting “jointness.” The report should 

address the following questions:

(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense identified benefits, cost 

savings, and/or cost avoidances resulting from implementing these 

recommendations?

362
(2) To what extent has the Department achieved enhancements to joint 

operations from establishment of joint centers of excellence or joint training 

activities or achieved other operational efficiencies from such consolidations?

(3) What challenges has the Department experienced in implementing 

these initiatives and to what extent has the Department of Defense resolved these 

challenges?

Property Disposal Methods

The committee seeks a greater understanding of the Department of 

Defense's implementation of homeless assistance, pursuant to the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77), via property disposal actions that the 

Department of Defense completes through the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 

1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by March 1, 2015, on the findings of a review of the 

effectiveness of implementation of the relevant statutory provisions by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Defense.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure 

Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account

This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing activities that are 

required to implement the decision of Base Realignment and Closure activities at 

the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL BRAC ROUND

Section 2711—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) Round

This section would affirm congressional intent to reject the budget request 

to authorize another Base Realignment and Closure round in 2017.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2721—Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment 

of Infrastructure Necessary to Support the Force Structure

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report as 

part of the budget justification documents submitted to Congress in support of the 

363
President's budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 that details 

(1) a 20-year force structure plan, and (2) a comprehensive inventory of worldwide 

infrastructure. The report shall also compare these two items to determine 

categories of excess in the Department of Defense infrastructure. The Secretary of 

Defense shall also certify whether the need exists for the closure or realignment of 

additional military installations and whether the Secretary anticipates that each 

Base Closure and Realignment recommendation would result in annual net savings 

for each of the military departments within 6 years after the initiation of the 

additional round of closures and realignments.

This section would also require that within 60 days of submission of the 

Secretary of Defense report, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 

evaluate the accuracy and analytical sufficiency of the plan and inventory.

Section 2722—Modification of Property Disposal Procedures Under Base 

Realignment and Closure Process

This section would authorize the local government, in whose jurisdiction 

the military installation is wholly located, to be recognized as the local reuse 

authority for purposes of managing Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) reuse 

planning. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees as to excess BRAC property that has 

not been declared surplus by the Federal Government.

Section 2723—Final Settlement of Claims Regarding Caretaker Agreement for 

Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah

This section would limit any further claim adjudication associated with a 

caretaker agreement between the City of Ogden, Utah, the Ogden Local 

Redevelopment Authority, and the Department of the Army. This limitation would 

be conditioned on a release of claims against the United States by the City of Ogden 

and the Ogden Local Redevelopment Authority.

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment

The committee notes that the Army has used a stationing strategy, called 

Army 2020, to analyze the various options available to the Secretary of the Army to 

implement a reduction in force structure. The Army 2020 process used key inputs 

including a Programmatic Environmental Assessment, a military value analysis, 

community listening sessions, and an analysis of other stationing factors. 

364
Additionally, military judgment, utilizing a variety of planning and steering 

committees was incorporated into the final decision to reduce specific Brigade 

Combat Teams (BCTs). As a result of the Army 2020 process, the Army inactivated 

12 BCTs and reorganized the remaining BCTs by adding a third maneuver 

battalion to armor and infantry brigades located in the continental United States. 

On February 6, 2014, the Army announced plans to implement a Supplemental 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA), to analyze the reduction of the 

Active Component below 490,000 soldiers. However, the Army is proceeding with 

the SPEA before fully implementing the results of Army 2020. 

The committee believes it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Army to 

use the results of the Army 2020 analysis as the baseline input of the SPEA. 

Therefore, concurrent with the release of the draft SPEA, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by 

September 1, 2014, on the baseline for the SPEA and any deviation from the Army 

2020 analysis. If the Secretary is compelled to deviate from the Army 2020 

analysis, the Secretary should provide the committee an explanation of why such 

deviation is appropriate. 

Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges

 The committee believes that the Department of Defense needs to maintain 

robust test range capabilities to meet current and emerging cyber and 

electromagnetic requirements. The committee believes that maintaining the ability 

to support testing, evaluation, and simulation of cyber and electromagnetic 

capabilities and threats in an open-air environment with limited spectrum 

encroachment is important to U.S. national security interests. As such, the 

committee believes that the Department of Defense should continue to ensure that 

test ranges have modern facilities, instruments, equipment, as well as sufficient 

funds to support its mission. In addition, the Department should take appropriate 

actions to mitigate encroachment or other threats that may reduce the capacity or 

capability to conduct necessary testing missions to ensure a modern military.

Deployment of Secure Work Enviroments

The committee is aware of the increasing importance of protecting valuable 

intellectual property and sensitive information, especially during this current cyber 

environment. The committee notes that data loss prevention is critical for the longterm sustainment of most military operations, personnel protection, and troop 

movements, particularly when information needs to be discussed in locations 

outside of a fully protected Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to establish an agencywide strategy to create secure work environments where unclassified but sensitive 

information can be shared utilizing technological advances in full spectrum Radio 

Frequency (RF) monitoring and commercial off the shelf solutions for film protected 

glass that protects from data loss and intrusion. In addition, the committee directs 

365
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

by March 1, 2015, that: (1) details a programmatic plan to provide additional 

protection from RF and Infrared (IR) for non-SCIF facilities that would be impacted 

by potential intrusions; and (2) an assessment of the Unified Facilities Guide 

specifications that are used to provide RF and IR protections.

Facilities Modernization Model

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s real property 

management process requires extensive oversight to maintain more than $850.0 

billion in infrastructure at an annual cost of nearly $60.0 billion. As part of its 

overall effort to maintain facilities, the Department of Defense is required to 

modernize certain facilities to make sure that they meet current standards. To 

assist in this process, the Department of Defense developed its Facilities 

Modernization Model which predicts the average annual dollar amount required for 

the Department to modernize its inventory of facilities on an ongoing basis. 

The Facilities Modernization Model parallels the Facilities Sustainment 

Model. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported that although the 

sustainment model provides a consistent and reasonable framework for preparing 

estimates of the Department of Defense’s facility sustainment funding 

requirements, there were issues with some of the model’s key inputs, affecting the 

reliability of the model’s estimates. As the Modernization Model should always be 

used in conjunction with the Facilities Sustainment Model, the committee is 

concerned that similar issues may affect the reliability of the Facilities 

Modernization Model’s estimates. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2015, on the Facilities Modernization Model to include the 

following:

(1) What are the main inputs into the Facilities Modernization Model and 

to what extent have the Department and the military services validated these 

inputs?

(2) To what extent are the services funding facility modernization at levels 

determined by the model; how are decisions made to deviate from the models’ 

recommendations if needed; and what is the impact if modernization funding is not 

provided at the recommended levels?

Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea

The committee supports the Yongsan Relocation Plan agreed to by the 

United States and the Republic of Korea to relocate United States military forces 

from Seoul, Korea to Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Korea. The committee notes 

that while the majority of the relocation costs will be paid by the Republic of Korea, 

the Department of the Army is responsible for the acquisition of military family 

housing at Camp Humphreys that meets U.S. standards for acceptable size, 

366
condition, and quality of construction to support command sponsored families that 

will be stationed there.

The committee notes that the Commander, United States Forces, Korea has 

indicated a requirement for 40 percent of command-sponsored families to reside on 

Camp Humphreys based on operational needs to enhance readiness. He also 

testified that additional family housing at Camp Humphreys is required starting in 

2016.

In 2008, the committee notes that the Department of the Army 

competitively solicited and agreed to terms with a private partner to construct and 

operate family housing units on Camp Humphreys. The goal of this project was to 

use private financing to construct military family housing on-post at Camp 

Humphreys. This acquisition method was preferred by the Department over a 

significant investment in military construction, which was unsupportable given the 

limited amounts available in military family housing construction accounts and 

other operational priorities in the Army.

The committee is mindful that the Army conducted a family housing forum 

in Korea in March 2014. This forum confirmed that without some combination of a 

higher Overseas Housing Allowance and occupancy guarantees little new 

construction of American style family housing units is likely to be built in the area 

around Camp Humphreys. The committee is concerned that housing in the 

Pyeongtaek, Korea area does not afford military members and their families' 

adequate housing, meeting quality and force protection standards without 

significant out-of-pocket expenses. The committee believes that privatized housing 

may be a solution for the pending family housing shortage at Camp Humphreys.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, a detailed 

description of the factors and assessment used to determine the adequacy of an offbase housing unit in the Pyeongtaek area and an assessment of the progress and 

milestones for the acquisition of adequate housing for military members and their 

families.

High Performance Facades for Department of Defense Installations

The committee is aware of a new blast protection technology that has been 

developed which utilizes high performance materials through a secondary facade 

structure to provide increased blast and ballistic protection to Department of 

Defense buildings, bases, and installations. The committee notes that such 

secondary facades could provide the Department increased flexibility and costsavings in certain situations where relocation is being considered. The committee 

also notes that secondary facades could be more useful for retrofitting and 

upgrading existing buildings, as well as being incorporated into the architectural 

designs of new buildings. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014, on recent efforts to utilize and 

367
test high performance materials as a secondary facade structure and any 

modifications to the Unified Facility Guide Specifications that would be necessary 

to incorporate the assessment of this technology. 

Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques

The committee notes that in March 2013, the Department of Defense 

released Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-02, High Performance and 

Sustainable Building Requirements. UFC 1-200-02 defines the minimum 

requirements for planning, design and construction, renovation, repair, 

maintenance and operations, and equipment installation in new and existing 

facilities. In a policy memorandum issued in November 2013, military components 

were authorized to pursue greater energy and water efficiency if such initiatives are 

shown to reduce total ownership cost of the facility, or preserve or increase mission 

effectiveness in the face of projected resource scarcity. 

The committee recognizes that innovative technologies have expanded the 

availability of materials with lower embodied energy for facilities that require tall 

walls and large open spaces with minimal intermediate supports. In addition, 

design techniques such as advanced framing contribute to lower material costs, 

increased energy efficiency, and reduced waste in facilities. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate the use of 

innovative materials and design techniques that support the requirements of UFC 

1-200-02 and the goals of achieving greater efficiency and lower environmental 

impacts at a lower material cost.

Joint Land Use Study

The committee notes that military installations are often the economic 

engines that underpin and drive local economies. Direct expenditures of defense 

dollars in the form of payrolls and local procurement contracts generate in turn 

secondary expenditures that help support local economies. Military installations 

can also affect adjacent communities in several ways, some positive (as with the 

economic impacts) and some negative. Negative impacts may include noise, safety 

concerns, smoke, dust, and other effects from training and military operations. In 

some instances, the military attempts to moderate these negative effects through 

the Joint Land Use Program. 

The committee is aware of certain noise and encroachment concerns around 

the U.S. Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson, Colorado. 

The committee believes that a Joint Land Use Study of the surrounding area would 

be effective to help offset these negative consequences. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to provide notice to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2015, of the Joint Land Used Studies that the Secretary 

has programmed and a schedule for when the area supporting the U.S. Air Force 

Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson are expected to begin a Joint 

Land Use Study.

368
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization

The committee notes that the infrastructure supporting Lincoln 

Laboratory’s facilities at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, are in need of 

recapitalization in order to support its mission. The committee is aware that the Air 

Force, in coordination with Lincoln Laboratory, has developed an Enhanced Use 

Lease proposal using existing authorities under section 2667 of title 10, United 

States Code, which has been approved by the Department of Defense and is under 

review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Enhanced Use Lease will 

allow Massachusetts Institute of Technology to carry out improvements and 

modernization of the Lincoln Laboratory complex at Hanscom Air Force Base, 

Massachusetts, at no cost to the U.S. Government. The modernization effort will 

replace the aging compound semiconductor and microelectronics integration 

facilities and the engineering and prototyping facilities with two modern, energy 

efficient buildings. The committee supports the plans to keep Lincoln Laboratory on 

the cutting edge of technology and enable it to continue to confront the Nation’s 

most complex technological challenges. 

Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components

The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) provide guidance for the 

design and construction of facilities and the acquisition of building system 

components by the Department of Defense. The committee notes the limited 

resources available to the Department for the construction and maintenance of 

facilities. The committee further recognizes the consistent implementation of the 

Department's construction specifications is critical to acquiring high performing and 

life-cycle cost-effective assets. The committee is aware of recent instances of 

military construction projects in which deviations from the construction 

specifications occurred. The committee reminds the Department that the use of 

UFGS are mandatory and encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that those 

specifications are consistently applied in construction and renovation.

Public-Private Family Housing on Guam

The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy recently 

released a draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the 

development of a main cantonment area and firing range for U.S. Marines 

realigning from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. Further, the committee recognizes that 

the Distributed Laydown differs significantly from previous realignment plans, as it 

depends on a more heavily rotational force on Guam than a permanent 

headquarters presence. Under the renegotiated agreement with the Government of 

Japan to support the Distributed Laydown, the committee understands that the 

Government of Japan will no longer provide nearly $3.0 billion in special purpose 

entity (SPE) funds. According to plans and briefings from the Department, a SPE is 

369
essentially a public-private venture (PPV) for military family housing and certain 

utility improvements. 

Despite the changes to the plans for the realignment of U.S. Marines, the 

committee recognizes that additional military forces are also realigning to Guam as 

part of the Asia-Pacific rebalance. In particular, the Navy announced the stationing 

of a fourth Los Angeles class fast-attack submarine in Guam, and the Air Force 

continues a Red Horse and Contingency Response Group beddown at Andersen Air 

Force Base. These additional forces, along with other potential military personnel 

increases, will challenge the current inventory of military family housing on Guam. 

The committee has been supportive of PPV endeavors in other U.S. locations and 

recognizes the potential long-term cost savings coupled with improvements to 

quality of life matters for service members and their families.

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2015, on the feasibility of 

utilizing public-private housing ventures on Guam and any factors that might 

inhibit establishment of such a public-private housing venture. The report should 

also assess the current backlog and projected backlog in the Future Years Defense 

Program as to shortfalls in family housing, by service, and the measures that the 

Secretary has programmed to address these shortfalls.

Real Property Management

The committee is concerned about the Department of Defense's 

management of real property resources. In an era of declining resources, the 

committee is concerned by decisions made by the Department of Defense to retain 

underutilized real property. The committee is supportive of real property 

authorities that provide the Secretary concerned the authority to outlease nonexcess properties, but believes that there are instances where the Department has 

not fully utilized these authorities to manage its real property assets. For example, 

the committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force is responsible for Keesler 

Air Force Base and certain noncontiguous properties in the area. A former base 

housing area called Harrison Court was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and the 40 

acre parcel remains vacant 9 years since Hurricane Katrina. The committee notes 

that the Air Force continues to expend funds to maintain the vacant property while 

the local community expresses interest in developing the property for economic or 

public use purposes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to assess the value of certain noncontiguous properties in the Keesler Air Force 

Base area and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 

1, 2015, that determines whether there remains a continued requirement for the Air 

Force to maintain these properties, the feasibility of an enhanced use lease, or the 

Secretary’s intent to initiate excess proceeding for these properties. 

Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws

370
The committee is aware of certain construction projects that were awarded 

without a specific authorization from Congress and in apparent contravention to 

section 2802 of title 10, Unites States Code. The committee is concerned by the 

contracting officer’s and fiscal attorney’s assessment to not seek a specific military 

construction authorization for these projects prior to award. The committee is 

further concerned that similar construction projects may have been undertaken 

within the past 5 years without a specific authorization by Congress. As such, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by March 1, 2015, that assesses the entirety of all construction 

projects carried out in the last 5 years by the Secretary concerned without a specific 

authorization by Congress. This assessment should only review construction 

projects that exceed the minor military construction thresholds established by 

section 2805 of title 10, United States Code.

Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads

As requested in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee notes that 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submitted 

the report, “Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads” to the 

congressional defense committees on April 16, 2014. In its report, the Department 

of Defense stated that “Type III glass beads provide a modest increase in visibility 

compared with Type I beads but this benefit is short-lived and costly. Although the 

Department does not preclude the use of Type III beads, we find Type I glass beads 

to be a satisfactory and cost-effective solution for our airport pavement marking 

requirements.” The committee also notes that another report entitled, “Airfield 

Marking Durability Study” was prepared on March 12, 2014, by Sightline, LC, that 

found “based on reflectivity data recorded at 13 airports across the United States, 

including military and commercial, Type III glass beads provide higher levels of 

retro-reflectivity initially and over time, resulting in lower maintenance costs.” The 

committee notes that the Department of Defense was likely unable to consider the 

findings of the report by Sightline, LC when it was preparing its report to the 

congressional defense committees. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess the Sightline, LC report and 

information associated with Type III glass beads and determine whether this 

additional information was incorporated into its report, “Analysis of Type I and 

Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads” submitted on April 16, 2014. If the 

Sightline, LC report was not considered, the committee directs the Under Secretary 

to prepare an addendum to their previous report and submit it to the congressional 

defense committees by December 31, 2014, and use the Sightline, LC report, and 

any other new information available, to assess the value associated with 

incorporating Type III beads into the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

371
SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING 

CHANGES

Section 2801—Prevention of Circumvention of Military Construction Laws

This section would amend section 2802 of title 10, United States Code, to 

clarify that certain military construction projects, land acquisitions, and defenseaccess roads projects must be specifically authorized in a Military Construction 

Authorization Act.

Section 2802—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction

This section would modify section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, by 

increasing the threshold associated with operation and maintenance funding for 

construction purposes from $750,000 to $1.0 million. This section would also unify 

the threshold for application of unspecified minor construction from $2.0 million to 

$3.0 million. Finally, this section would authorize the Secretary concerned to make 

adjustments to the general authority to match area cost factors.

Section 2803—Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection Procedures for 

Additional Facility Projects

This section would modify section 2862 of title 10, United States Code, to 

expand the existing authority to use turn-key selection procedures for military 

construction projects to also include certain repair projects and facility construction 

associated with authorized security assistance activities. 

Section 2804—Extension of Limitation on Construction Projects in European 

Command Area of Responsibility

This section would extend the prohibition previously included in section 

2809 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 

of Public Law 113–66) on awarding a contract for any new military construction and 

family housing project, with certain exceptions, in the U.S. European Command 

area of responsibility until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 

defense committees that the installations and specific military construction 

requirements authorized in this Act have been examined as part of the ongoing 

European Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment, have been determined to be of 

an enduring nature, and most effectively meet military requirements at the 

authorized location.

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

372
Section 2811—Consultation Requirement in Connection with Department of 

Defense Major Land Acquisitions

This section would require consultation by the Secretary concerned with the 

chief executive officer of the state or territory as to the location of any proposed 

major land acquisition.

The committee notes that the Secretary concerned is already required to 

obtain a specific military construction authorization in accordance with section 2802 

of title 10, United States Code, and comply with National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) before any major land acquisition can be implemented.

Section 2812—Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases for Financial 

Institutions Operating on Military Installations

This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to enter into a sole 

source renewal, extension or succeeding lease for a financial institution operating 

on military installations.

Section 2813—Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority

This section would modify section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to 

provide the authorities to lease real or personal property contained in such section 

to the commander of military manufacturing arsenals or, if part of a larger military 

installation, the installation commander for the purposes of leveraging private 

investment at military manufacturing arsenals through long-term facility use 

contracts, property management contracts, leases, or other such agreements. This 

section does not supersede authorities in section 4544 of title 10, United States 

Code, and is designed to give the commander of military manufacturing arsenals or, 

if part of a larger military installation, the installation commander, greater 

flexibility to utilize unused administrative and warehouse space at military 

installations.

Section 2814—Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover Administrative Expenses 

Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions

This section would amend section 2695 of title 10, United States Code, and 

would provide flexibility to ensure that reimbursements eventually received by the 

military departments are not expired at the time of reimbursement. This section 

would provide for the merger of the reimbursed funds with those in the current 

appropriation, fund, or account used by the military departments for payment of 

administrative transaction-related expenses. Finally, this section would authorize 

the military departments to use operation and maintenance appropriations to pay 

for administrative expenses needed to complete other real property transactions. 

373
Section 2815—Special Easement Acquisition Authority, Pacific Missile Range 

Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to use the authority 

provided by section 2684a of title 10, United States Code, to acquire from willing 

sellers easements and other interests in real property in the vicinity of the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.

Section 2816—National Security Considerations for Inclusion of Federal Property 

on National Register of Historic Places or Designation as National Historic 

Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act

This section would prohibit the designation of Federal property as a 

National Historic Landmark or for nomination to the World Heritage List if the 

head of the agency managing the Federal property objects to such inclusion or 

designation for reasons of national security. This section would also authorize the 

expedited removal of Federal property listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places if the managing agency of that Federal property submits a request to the 

Secretary of Interior for such removal for reasons of national security.

SUBTITLE C—PROVISIONS RELATED TO ASIA-PACIFIC MILITARY REALIGNMENT

Section 2831—Repeal or Modification of Certain Restrictions on Realignment of 

Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region

This section would amend section 2822 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and strike 

certain restrictions limiting the movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, 

Japan to Guam.

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, La Jolla, 

California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without 

consideration, certain Department of the Navy property to the Mount Soledad 

Veterans Memorial Association in La Jolla, California, for public purposes.

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army Hospital, District of 

Columbia

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without 

consideration, certain Army facilities at the former Walter Reed Army Hospital to 

Children's Hospital for medical research purposes.

374
Section 2843—Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and 

Lake Lanier, Georgia

This section would require the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of 

Agriculture to exchange lands located Camp Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, 

Georgia, currently under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, for certain lands adjacent to Lake Lanier, Georgia, currently under the 

administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army.

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without 

consideration, approximately 1.2 acres of public land to the Honolulu Authority for 

Rapid Transportation for public purposes.

Section 2845—Modification of Conditions on Land Conveyance, Joliet Army 

Ammunition Plant, Illinois

This section would extend years of operations associated with certain 

landfill operations at the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois from 23 years to 

38 years.

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve Center, Kingston, 

New York

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without 

consideration, the former Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve Center to the City of 

Kingston, New York, for public purposes.

Section 2847—Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to perform a business 

case analysis to assess the requirements associated with reacquiring the former

Camp Gruber, Oklahoma. If the Secretary determines that a reversion of the former 

Camp Gruber is needed for national defense purposes, the Secretary shall exercise 

the reversionary rights and request the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife to 

reconvey Camp Gruber to the United States. The Secretary shall then convey, 

without consideration, the former Camp Gruber to the Oklahoma Military 

Department for military maneuver space.

Section 2848—Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington

This section would require the Secretary of the Energy to convey two 

parcels of real property to the Community Reuse Organization of the Hanford Site 

for fair market value by December 31, 2014. The Secretary of the Energy may 

375
convey the property below fair market value if the Community Reuse Organization 

agrees to provide the net proceeds from the sale or lease of the real property during 

a seven year period to support economic redevelopment at the Hanford Site, 

Washington.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2861—Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting Attack at the Washington 

Navy Yard

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to establish a 

memorial at the Washington Navy Yard in the District of Columbia. The memorial 

will be dedicated to the victims of the shooting attack that occurred on September 

16, 2013.

Section 2862—Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the 

Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies

This section would name the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at

Honolulu, Hawaii, as the "Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies", and would make other conforming changes.

Section 2863—Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii as the 

Pohakuloa Training Center

This section would change the designation of the Pohakuloa Training Area 

in Hawaii to the Pohakuloa Training Center. 

Section 2864—Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in 

Riverside, California

This section would authorize a memorial to members of the Armed Forces 

who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. The memorial is located at 

March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, and would hereby be designated 

as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial.

Section 2865—Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 

Park, Ohio

This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright 

Brothers Aviation Center, Dayton, Ohio, to the John W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers 

National Museum, Dayton, Ohio.

Section 2866—Manhattan Project National Historical Park

376
This section would authorize the Secretary of Interior to establish the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System.

TITLE XXIX—MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS 

TO SUPPORT READINESS AND SECURITY

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON, NEVADA

Section 2901—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air Station Fallon, 

Nevada

This section would transfer certain public lands adjacent to Naval Air 

Station Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada, from the Secretary of the Interior to 

the Secretary of the Navy.

Section 2902—Water Rights

This section would ensure that the United States does not acquire 

additional water rights as a result of the transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

authorized by this subtitle.

Section 2903—Withdrawal

This section would withdraw lands transferred by this subtitle from all 

forms of appropriation under public land laws so long as the land remains under the 

administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.

SUBTITLE B—MARINE CORPS AIR GROUND COMBAT CENTER TWENTYNINE PALMS,

CALIFORNIA

Section 2911—Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation 

Area, California

This section would rename the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation Area in California, as the Johnson Valley National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Recreation Area.

SUBTITLE C—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WITHDRAWN MILITARY LANDS 

EFFICIENCY AND SAVINGS

Section 2921—Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land Withdrawals and 

Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999

377
This section would extend the public lands withdrawn for military purposes 

listed in the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (title 30 of Public Law 106-65) 

until the Secretary of the military department determines a military purpose does 

not exist, or the Secretary of Interior permanently transfers the administrative 

jurisdiction to the Secretary of the military department concerned.

SUBTITLE D—NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA

Section 2931—Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for Naval Air Weapons 

Station China Lake, California

This section would amend section 2979 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and 

permanently extend the withdrawal and reservation of public land for Naval Air 

Weapons Station China Lake, California. This section would also permanently 

withdraw public lands known as Cuddeback Land Area for use by the Secretary of 

the Navy.

SUBTITLE E—WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, NEW MEXICO

Section 2941—Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land to Support 

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico

This section would amend section 2951 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and extend 

the withdrawal and reservation of public land of White Sands Missile Range, New 

Mexico, to include Federal lands located beneath the boundaries of the Special Use 

Airspace designated as R-5107C and R-5107H.

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER 

AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 

PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $17.7 billion for atomic 

energy defense activities. The committee recommends $17.4 billion, a decrease of 

$308.0 million to the budget request. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

378
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $11.7 billion for the programs of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends 

$11.8 billion, an increase of $143.7 million to the budget request. 

Weapons Activities

B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs

The budget request contained $643.0 million for the B61 Life Extension 

Program (LEP) and $259.2 million for the W76 LEP. The committee continues to 

believe that the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary focus 

must be its nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program, and within that 

broader program the deliverables directly supporting Department of Defense 

requirements must be paramount. Successfully delivering LEPs efficiently and on 

schedule must be NNSA's central focus.

The committee notes the considerable progress of the B61 LEP in the past 

year. With development engineering well underway, the Director of Sandia 

National Laboratories testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on 

April 9, 2014, that the design of the B61-12 bomb is 75 percent complete and all 

major schedule and cost milestones established in the program baseline, as adjusted 

for receipt of appropriations, have been met. The committee is encouraged by the 

progress of this critical program and believes continued success will help NNSA 

rebuild lost trust with the Department of Defense and Congress. The committee 

recommends $643.0 million for the B61 LEP, the amount of the budget request. 

The committee also notes that NNSA completed only 74 percent of the W76-

1 production build schedule in fiscal year 2013. The committee understands that a 

key cause of this was uncertainty in funding and delays at the Pantex site. The 

committee believes NNSA's plan to ramp up to the full, steady-state production rate 

for the W76 LEP in fiscal year 2015, and therefore meet the Navy's deliverable 

schedule, is at significant risk. Therefore, the committee recommends $273.8 

million for the W76 LEP, an increase of $14.6 million from the budget request. 

Deferral of the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program

The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to defer the W78/88-1 

Warhead Life Extension Program (LEP) by at least 5 years. This program would 

create an "interoperable" warhead containing key components that could be used on 

both submarine-launched ballistic missiles and land-based intercontinental ballistic 

missiles. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) believes the 

deferral of this program does not represent an abandonment of the Nuclear 

379
Weapons Council's long-term "3+2" strategy for the nuclear weapons stockpile, but 

does create a more realistic out-year funding profile for NNSA's Weapons Activities. 

The committee does not object to the proposed deferral in principle, and is 

aware of the challenges to this program related to costs, certification, and the 

potential need for increased missile flight tests. However, the committee is 

concerned about the implications of this deferral for the nuclear weapons stockpile 

and the nuclear security enterprise. Deferral will reduce opportunities for 

sustaining critical design and development skills at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, create significant production gaps at Pantex (coupled with the proposed 

deferral of the long-range standoff weapon warhead), require a reevaluation of the 

overall strategy for hedging against the risk through the non-deployed and inactive 

stockpiles, and reduce the ability to leverage development efforts between LEPs. 

The committee expects the Nuclear Weapons Council to consider these impacts in 

the months ahead and expects robust mitigation actions to be formulated and 

carried out. 

Furthermore, deferral places increased importance on surveillance efforts 

related to the existing W78 warhead. The budget request contained $62.7 million 

for W78 Stockpile Systems. The committee recommends $66.4 million for W78 

Stockpile Systems, an increase of $3.7 million, to support increased surveillance.

Finally, the committee notes that section 3118 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) remains in effect for the 

future and expects the comparative analysis required by that section to be 

submitted prior to the W78/88-1 LEP entering Phase 6.3 (development engineering).

Deferred maintenance

Within Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), the budget 

request contained $205.0 million for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities and 

$209.3 million for Recapitalization. These funds are intended to slow the rate of 

growth in the backlog of deferred maintenance at facilities across the nuclear 

security enterprise. 

Budget justification materials submitted by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) note that NNSA's deferred maintenance backlog is over 

$3.5 billion and growing. The materials highlight that, of NNSA's approximately 

3,800 facilities, almost 30 percent were built during the Manhattan Project era and 

over 50 percent are more than 40 years old. 

The committee agrees with NNSA that infrastructure risk, if left 

unaddressed, becomes safety risk and mission risk. The committee fears that, given 

NNSA's numerous high-priority programs and the termination of the Facilities and 

Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) in 2013, insufficient attention and 

funding will be applied to the deferred maintenance problem going forward. 

To support NNSA's efforts to continue mitigating infrastructure risks and 

buying down deferred maintenance, the committee recommends $220.0 million for 

Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, an increase of $15.0 million, and $248.3 

380
million for Recapitalization, an increase of $39.0 million. Of the funding provided 

for Recapitalization, the committee expects the Administrator for Nuclear Security 

to provide at least $60.0 million to the Capabilities Based Investment program to 

focus recapitalization efforts on the highest priority mission needs.

Implementation of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing

Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

establish a Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing 

(CSTART). In the wake of the security breach at the Y-12 National Security 

Complex in July 2012, the CSTART was established to provide the Administrator, 

the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, and the management and operating 

contractors of the nuclear security enterprise a wide-range of objective expertise on 

security technologies, systems, analysis, testing, and response forces. 

To better understand the Administrator's plan for the CSTART, the 

committee directs the Administrator to provide a briefing to the House Committee 

on Armed Services by September 30, 2014, on the Administrator's implementation 

plan for the CSTART. Such plan should be developed in consultation with the 

Department of Energy's Departmental Security Committee and should discuss the 

roles, missions, functions, responsibilities, and personnel assigned to the CSTART, 

as well as actions to be taken to implement the CSTART and timelines for such 

actions.

Plan for Public-Private Partnerships

The committee believes that recent experience at the Kansas City Plant, 

the Y-12 National Security Complex, and elsewhere around the nuclear security 

enterprise shows that public-private partnerships can be a useful tool in quickly 

and efficiently executing non-nuclear construction projects. However, the committee 

notes the October 2009 report by the Comptroller General of the United States on 

the Kansas City Plant concluded that National Nuclear Security Administration 

"officials acknowledge that while leasing a facility through the General Services 

Administration under a 20-year scenario is less costly than purchasing, it can be 

more costly over the longer term." The committee also notes the value of building 

new facilities through public-private partnerships, which can enable workers to 

quickly relocate from decaying, antiquated buildings to modern office and nonnuclear laboratory spaces while also enabling a reduction in deferred maintenance 

backlogs. 

The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit a 

plan to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2015, describing at 

least two public-private partnerships the Administrator will seek to enter into to 

build modern, non-nuclear facilities for the nuclear security enterprise. This plan 

should discuss the benefits, risks, costs and cost savings over the life of the facility, 

381
timelines, and effects on the deferred maintenance backlog associated with carrying 

out the projects as compared to a program plan that does not carry out the projects.

Weapons Activities and budget prioritization

The budget request contained $8.3 billion for the Weapons Activities of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These programs support 

NNSA's central mission of ensuring and sustaining the safety, security, reliability, 

and credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile. 

Within Weapons Activities, the committee continues to believe NNSA must 

emphasize programs and capabilities that directly support NNSA's deliverables to 

the Department of Defense. To ensure this emphasis, the committee recommends 

several adjustments to the budget request for Weapons Activities, as reflected in the 

accompanying tables. In particular, the committee recommends increases, discussed 

elsewhere in this title, for several life extension programs (LEP). Furthermore, the 

committee recommends $17.0 million, an increase of $7.6 million, to accelerate 

NNSA's cruise missile warhead life extension program.

The committee also recommends $166.6 million for the W88 Alt 370, an 

increase of $1.2 million to support the study of options for refresh of conventional 

high explosives required elsewhere in this title. 

The committee recommends $363.2 million for Production Support, an 

increase of $12.3 million, to support sustainment and recapitalization of key 

production equipment and $212.5 million for R&D Certification and Safety, an 

increase of $11.0 million, to support technology maturation for LEPs and limited life 

component development. The committee also recommends $172.9 million for 

Plutonium Sustainment, an increase of $28.3 million, to support efforts to deliver a 

responsive plutonium infrastructure as required elsewhere in this title. 

The committee recommends $54.4 million for Enhanced Surety, an increase 

of $2.4 million, to support continued development of safety, security, and use-control 

technologies and $41.4 million for Enhanced Surveillance, an increase of $3.6 

million, to accelerate development of tools and methods for predicting aging effects. 

The committee recommends $182.4 million for Nuclear Counterterrorism 

Incident Response, an increase of $9.0 million, to better support Department of 

Defense needs for NNSA's nuclear expertise in support of this critical national 

security mission. 

Overall, the committee recommends $8.5 billion for Weapons Activities, an 

increase of $147.7 million to the budget request.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements

The committee continues to support agreements made in accordance with 

section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703), which include 

“the Gold Standard” commitment, as exemplified by the nuclear cooperation 

382
agreement between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The Gold 

Standard represents a binding legal restriction on uranium enrichment and 

reprocessing as a condition for concluding nuclear cooperation agreements, and it 

remains an important component of effective nuclear nonproliferation leadership for 

reducing longer-term nuclear proliferation risks. However, the committee is 

concerned that the Administration no longer prioritizes the inclusion of this 

standard as a condition for nuclear cooperation agreements and has shifted to an ad 

hoc approach. 

The committee remains concerned that the Administration does not require 

the Gold Standard in all new and renegotiated 123 agreements. The committee 

believes this weakens U.S. nonproliferation leadership and leverage to limit the 

potential spread of the knowledge, technology, and material required to enrich 

uranium and reprocess plutonium. The committee notes that enriched uranium and 

reprocessed spent nuclear fuel can be used to produce significant stockpiles of fissile 

material for both peaceful and military purposes. The resulting increase of fissile 

material could be used by a state to make nuclear weapons or become vulnerable to 

diversion or theft by terrorists, increasing risks to international and regional 

security. To preclude such scenarios and the potential increase in the number of 

latent nuclear weapons states, the committee believes the Gold Standard represents 

an important legally binding commitment by a foreign country to forgo uranium 

enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, and is an important indicator of such 

country's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

The budget request contained $1.6 billion for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation (DNN). Of this amount, $333.5 million was requested for the 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), $360.8 million for Nonproliferation 

Research and Development (R&D), $141.4 million for Nonproliferation and 

International Security (NIS), $305.5 million for International Material Protection 

and Cooperation (IMPC), and $311.1 million for Fissile Materials Disposition 

(FMD).

The committee recommends $413.5 million for GTRI, an increase of $80.0 

million, to accelerate the clean-out and security upgrades in countries other than 

Russia to minimize the risk of theft of diversion of vulnerable fissile material. The 

committee recommends $430.8 million for Nonproliferation R&D, an increase of 

$70.0 million, and $177.8 million for NIS, an increase of $36.4 million, to support 

additional verification work, including research and development of next-generation 

verification and remote sensing technology, and the development of a national 

verification roadmap as recommended in the January 2014 Defense Science Board 

report on Assessment of Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies. 

The committee believes that no DNN funds for fiscal year 2015 should be 

authorized for activities with the Russian Federation based on ongoing Russian 

aggression towards Ukraine. Therefore, the committee recommends $129.1 million 

383
for IMPC, a decrease of $176.4 million. The decrease of $176.4 million for IMPC 

includes a reduction of $83.4 million for programs with Russia and a reduction of 

$93.0 million for Second Line of Defense (SLD). Also within IMPC, the committee 

recommends $21.5 million for SLD for mobile detection systems. The committee 

questions the value of fixed detection units at major border crossings and ports in 

deterring and intercepting nuclear weapons-usable material, and believes SLD 

funds could be better allocated towards mobile detection capabilities to reduce the 

risk of nuclear terrorism.

Therefore, the committee recommends a total of $1.6 billion for DNN. Of 

this amount, the committee recommends $413.5 million for GTRI, $430.8 million for 

Nonproliferation R&D, $177.8 million for NIS, $129.1 million for IMPC, and $311.1 

million for FMD. 

Nuclear Security Summit 2014

The committee recognizes the importance of the 2014 Nuclear Security 

Summit, which occurred in The Netherlands on March 24-25, 2014, in bringing 

together the international community to focus on and address efforts to reduce the 

risk of nuclear terrorism. Such efforts have resulted in 13 countries eliminating 

their stocks of nuclear weapons-grade materials. 

The committee commends the Government of Japan for its announcement 

at the 2014 summit that it plans to transfer more than 700 pounds of weaponsusable plutonium and a large quantity of highly enriched uranium to the United 

States for disposition. This material is sufficient to make dozens of nuclear weapons 

if stolen or diverted. The committee believes the increased participation of foreign 

governments in the summit is important, particularly to increase recognition of the 

threat of nuclear terrorism and the need to secure vulnerable nuclear material and 

radioactive sources, as well as develop nuclear forensics capabilities. 

The Nuclear Security Guidelines adopted at the summit are an important 

step toward adopting and implementing universal safety standards designed to 

secure nuclear and radioactive material. While the committee acknowledges that 35 

of the participating nations agreed to adopt the Nuclear Security Guidelines, the 

committee encourages the U.S. Government to continue engaging with the 

remaining 18 participating nations to also adopt the guidelines. The committee 

believes effective prevention of the threat of nuclear terrorism requires all nations 

to adopt and follow the Nuclear Security Guidelines.

Naval Reactors

Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the capability to study the use of 

Low-Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors

The committee notes that the report submitted in January 2014 by the 

Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, on the potential of using low-enriched 

uranium (LEU) in place of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in naval nuclear 

384
propulsion systems found that "while it may be feasible to replace HEU fuel with 

LEU fuel in current U.S. Naval reactor plants, it is not economical or practical to do 

so." The report notes that "substituting LEU for HEU would fundamentally 

decrease reactor energy density, increase lifecycle and operating costs, increase 

operational radiation exposure, and increase the volume of radioactive wastes."

The report also states that "recent work has shown that the potential exists 

to develop an advanced fuel system that could increase uranium loading beyond 

what is practical today while meeting the rigorous performance requirements for 

naval reactors" and that "the capability to develop advanced naval fuel resides 

within a small cadre of highly specialized, experienced, and qualified engineers and 

scientists." The report also notes that "the investment to develop a fuel technology 

and determine its viability is estimated to be up to $2 billion over at least 10 to 15 

years."

The committee directs the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, to 

provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by March 1, 2015, on the requirements and costs to 

maintain the capability to develop an advanced fuel system, including the nearterm gaps and investments in research and development that would be required to 

preserve the technical capability to do so once ongoing new design work is complete.

Naval Reactors

The budget request contained $1.4 billion for the Naval Reactors program. 

Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, 

including reactor plant technology design and development, reactor plant operation 

and maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program ensures the 

safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines and 

aircraft carriers that comprise over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants. 

The committee is concerned that, due to funding challenges, Naval Reactors 

may be unable to execute key aspects of its mission to enable the nuclear Navy. In 

particular, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on April 8, 

2014, the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that the program 

delayed purchase of a high-performance computer, "that is needed to deliver the 

Ohio-class Replacement reactor design on time...Cancelling this computer purchase 

in fiscal year 2014 has resulted in at least a 6-month delay to reactor core 

manufacturing, impacting the Ohio-class replacement lead-ship construction 

schedule." The Director also noted that, "Naval Reactors will be required to shut 

down one of the two prototype reactor plants in upstate New York during the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2015 due to insufficient maintenance funding. This shutdown 

results in 450 sailors that will not be trained and will not be sent to the Fleet next 

year." 

The committee believes that these impacts, if realized, would be 

unacceptable to Navy operations. Most critically, a 6-month delay to the Ohio-class 

replacement submarine jeopardizes the Navy's ability to fulfill U.S. Strategic 

385
Command's at-sea deterrence requirements in the 2030s. The committee notes that 

the Director has stated that the full fiscal year 2015 budget request for Naval 

Reactors is essential to mitigating these impacts.

The committee recommends $1.4 billion for the Naval Reactors program, an 

increase of $10.0 million the budget request. 

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project

The budget request for Naval Reactors includes $141.1 million for the Spent 

Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project (SFHP). Authorized in fiscal year 2014, this 

project will replace the Expended Core Facility (ECF) in Idaho currently used for 

receipt, inspection, and packaging of expended naval nuclear reactor cores. In 

testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on April 8, 2014, the 

Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that, "The existing ECF is 

more than 55 years old and the water pool that stores naval spent nuclear fuel is 

the oldest pool of its type in the nation. This old facility is showing accelerating 

signs of deterioration, including leaking water pool walls and cracked floors."

The committee is concerned that, while it continues to be operated in a safe 

and environmentally responsible manner, due to its age and accompanying 

sustainment challenges, the ECF may suffer an irreparable failure at any time. 

Such a failure would have major and immediate impacts on Naval Reactors' ability 

to support the Navy's nuclear reactor refueling and defueling schedules. 

Furthermore, the existing ECF is incapable of receiving and processing fulllength aircraft carrier spent nuclear fuel. Until the new facility is built, the Navy 

will be required to purchase additional M-290 shipping containers to temporarily 

store this spent fuel as it is removed from aircraft carriers. This will result in 

additional, unexpected costs to the Navy of $100.0 to $150.0 million per year for 

each year of delay. The committee believes the most cost-effective approach is to 

fully fund the SFHP and thereby avoid forcing this unnecessary expense on the 

Navy. 

The committee agrees with the Director's April 8, 2014, testimony when he 

said, "To put simply, it is costing the country more to delay this facility than it is to 

just get on with building it," and, "The fiscal year 2015 request for the SFHP is 

essential to the operational availability of aircraft carriers and submarines." 

Therefore, the committee recommends $141.1 million for the Spent Fuel Handling 

Recapitalization Project, the amount of the budget request.

Office of the Administrator

Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration budget structure

The committee notes the ongoing, collaborative effort between the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the White House Office of Management 

and Budget, and Congress to update and streamline NNSA's budget structure to 

provide better transparency, increased flexibility, and greater focus on NNSA's 

386
mission and priorities. The committee is encouraged by this effort and believes, if 

carefully considered with input from all stakeholders, increased efficiency and 

agility can be achieved for NNSA programs while also ensuring robust transparency 

and accountability. The committee expects the Administrator to consult closely with 

the committee as budget structure changes are considered during the development 

of the fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

Reorganization and reform

In the past year, the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) have continued to make organizational changes 

intended to more effectively and efficiently manage programs (particularly large 

nuclear infrastructure projects) and address chronic problems related to security, 

safety, duplicative and inconsistent inspections and policies, and confused lines of 

authority, responsibility, and accountability. These reorganization efforts are 

expected to continue into fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

The committee continues to be skeptical that reorganization efforts will 

lead to the fundamental and lasting change required to remedy the myriad 

problems with governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security 

enterprise. The committee notes that only 2 years ago, in March 2012, NNSA 

created the Office of Infrastructure and Operations (NA-00), and in 2013 assigned 

this office responsibilities related to security inspections, security operations, and 

security budgets. Subsequently, in December 2013 these security functions were 

removed from NA-00 and distributed among several new and reformed offices under 

the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, the new Department of Energy Office of 

Independent Enterprise Assessments, a new Departmental Security Committee, 

and supporting offices under the newly created Department of Energy Under 

Secretary for Management and Performance. 

The committee understands that these shifts resulted from new senior 

leaders at the Department of Energy and NNSA, and recognize and appreciate that 

active measures are being taken to address these longstanding problems. However, 

past experiences at Department of Energy and NNSA have shown that 

reorganizations initiated by time- and attention-constrained senior leaders have 

had little effect on the intractable bureaucratic culture within Department of 

Energy and NNSA. The committee continues to be concerned with the long-term 

failure to implement meaningful and effective changes when the problems and 

possible solutions have been so thoroughly studied by so many groups. 

On the other hand, the committee is guardedly hopeful to see Department 

of Energy/NNSA's security reforms include separation of security policy and 

security inspection functions, as well as clarification and simplification of lines of 

authority, responsibility, and accountability. Recommendations for these two 

actions have been a part of security reviews for over a decade, and the need for their 

implementation is urgent.

387
This summer, the committee expects to receive the final report of the 

Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

created by section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee encourages senior policymakers in the 

Administration and in Congress to keep sustained and in-depth attention on reform 

efforts. Strong leadership and robust actions are required now and into the 

foreseeable future. The committee will continue its oversight of these matters.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $6.1 billion for environmental and other 

defense activities for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends $5.6 billion, a 

decrease of $451.7 million to the budget request. 

Defense Environmental Cleanup

Environmental Management technology development program

The budget request contained $13.0 million for the technology development 

program of the Office of Environmental Management. This program provides key 

investments to mid- and long-term research and development projects that seek to 

develop and mature technologies to reduce cleanup costs and accelerate cleanup 

schedules. 

Because the defense environmental cleanup program is expected to cost 

approximately $200.0 billion and last until 2070, the committee believes that the 

small amounts of funding invested in this program have the potential to provide 

large cost savings in the decades to come. Therefore, the committee recommends 

$19.0 million for the technology development program, an increase of $6.0 million. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The committee remains concerned about the incidents and contamination 

that occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, 

related to the February 2014 radiological release and underground fire, and has 

been closely monitoring these events. The committee notes that WIPP remains 

closed to new waste shipments as various investigations and reviews continue to 

identify the source of the contamination, the risk of additional events, and potential 

options to address this issue. Those reviews that have concluded have recommended 

a variety of actions to improve operations, oversight, and emergency response at 

WIPP and across the Department of Energy complex. The committee expects the 

Department of Energy to seriously consider all such recommendations and take 

robust action to prevent a reoccurrence of either incident. 

388
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration

This section would authorize appropriations for the National Nuclear 

Security Administration for fiscal year 2015, including funds for weapons activities, 

defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal 

Salaries and Expenses (formerly known as the Office of the Administrator), at the 

levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act. This section would also 

authorize several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup

This section would authorize appropriations for defense environmental 

cleanup activities for fiscal year 2015, at the levels identified in section 4701 of 

division D of this Act. This section would also authorize several new plant projects 

for defense environmental cleanup. 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities

This section would authorize appropriations for other defense activities for 

fiscal year 2015, including funds for Health, Safety, and Security, the Office of 

Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy, of the funds identified in section 4701 of 

division D of this Act.

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance

This section would authorize appropriations for energy security and 

assurance programs for fiscal year 2015, at the levels identified in section 4701 of 

division D of this Act.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear Weapons for Intelligence 

Purposes

Section 3115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112-239) established the requirement to provide for the design 

and use of prototypes of nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with 

respect to foreign nuclear weapons activities. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee noted at the time 

389
that this requirement was consistent with the recommendations of the Bipartisan 

Congressional Commission of the Strategic Posture of the United States. The 

commission found that: "A particularly sensitive question is whether the 

laboratories should be permitted to do weapons design work in support of this 

intelligence mission. At issue is whether the United States should seek to improve 

its understanding of the feasibility of the weapons design efforts of others by 

replicating those designs in U.S. laboratories. In the commission's view, this is 

possible and this work should be permitted. At a time of rising concern about efforts 

by proliferators to develop and improve their nuclear weapons, and of nuclear 

terrorism, such work is indeed critical. Such work would not involve the design of 

new weapons with new military characteristics for deployment by the United 

States. It can and should be done in accordance with U.S. policies not to produce 

fissile materials and not to conduct nuclear explosive tests. It would be limited to 

assessing whether adversarial efforts in development of new nuclear weapons will 

result in operational capabilities, and what technical, military, political, and other 

consequences might follow from the potential new capabilities. Working with 

partners in the intelligence community, the laboratories should be in a position to 

advise national leadership on foreign nuclear weapons activities bearing on the 

interests of the United States and its allies. In short, the commission recommends 

that the laboratories be allowed to design, simulate, and experimentally assess 

foreign nuclear weapon designs for the purposes of defensive analysis."

This section would update that requirement consistent with the direction of 

the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration that such 

activity implicates a broader set of Department of Energy equities than those 

resident in the Administrator of that agency. 

Section 3112—Authorized Personnel Levels of National Nuclear Security 

Administration

This section would amend section 3241A of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a) to require that, by October 1, 2015, the total 

number of employees within the Office of the Administrator may not exceed 1,650.

With the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Administration proposes 

changing the name of the "Office of the Administrator" account to "Federal Salaries 

and Expenses". This section would also clarify that, for the purposes of section 

3241A, these terms are considered the same. The committee expects the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security to follow past practice for counting the number 

of employees for the purposes of section 3241A.

Section 3113—Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project

This section would express the sense of Congress that regarding the 

Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (UCRP):

(1) A series of statements and policy documents from the Administration 

have identified the UCRP as a critical nuclear modernization priority;

390
(2) The failure of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to successfully and efficiently execute and oversee the 

UCRP undermines national security and jeopardizes the long-term credibility of the 

nuclear deterrent; 

(3) The April 8, 2014, testimony of the Acting Administrator for Nuclear 

Security that "close to half" of the $1.2 billion taxpayers have spent on the design of 

such project has been wasted is a grievous misuse of limited taxpayer funds, and 

the appropriate officials of the Federal Government and contractors must be held 

accountable;

(4) The uranium capabilities and modern infrastructure that are to be 

provided by all three phases of the UCRP are critical to national security and 

Congress fully supports efforts to deliver all of these capabilities efficiently and 

expeditiously; 

(5) Focused attention and robust leadership from the highest levels of the 

executive branch and Congress are required to ensure that the UCRP delivers such 

critical national security capabilities; and

(6) The Secretary and the Administrator must ensure that lines of 

responsibility, authority, and accountability for the UCRP are clear going forward.

This section would also amend section 3123 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as amended by section 

3126 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 

113–66) to clarify that the Secretary of Energy may adjust the statutory cost cap of 

$4.2 billion for Phase I of the UCRP if, by March 15, 2015, the Secretary of Energy 

submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed justification for such 

adjustment. This justification would be required to include: the amount of the 

adjustment and the proposed total cost of Phase I; a description of the changes that 

would be required to the UCRP if Phase I were restricted to a total cost of $4.2 

billion; a detailed description of accountability actions taken with respect to 

contractors and Federal employees; a description of the clear lines of responsibility, 

authority, and accountability for UCRP going forward; and a detailed description of 

the structural reforms planned or implemented by the Secretary of Energy to 

ensure Phase I is executed on time and on schedule. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Energy to certify to the 

congressional defense committees and the Secretary of Defense by March 1 of each 

year through 2025 that Phase I of the UCRP will meet the cost limitation of $4.2 

billion (as adjusted) and that the UCRP will enable uranium operations in building 

9212 of the Y-12 National Security Complex to cease by 2025 while uranium 

operations begin in a new facility constructed under the UCRP by 2025. If the 

Secretary of Energy does not make such a certification by March 1 in any year, the 

Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council would be required to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees that identifies the resources of the 

Department of Energy that the chairman determines should be redirected to enable 

the Department of Energy to meet the cost and schedule targets.

391
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Energy and the 

Secretary of the Navy to jointly submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2015, on implementation of section 3123(e) of Public Law 

112-239, as amended. This report would be required to include a description of the 

program management, oversight, design, and other responsibilities for UCRP given 

to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the funding provided 

by the Secretary of Energy to NAVFAC to carry out these responsibilities. 

Section 3114—Plutonium Pit Production Capacity

This section would make a series of findings related to the Administration's 

projections to achieve the required capacity to produce 50 to 80 plutonium pits by 

certain years. This section would also state the sense of Congress that: (1) the 

requirement to create a modern, responsive nuclear infrastructure that includes the 

capability and capacity to produce, at minimum, 50 to 80 pits per year, is a national 

security priority; (2) delaying creation of a modern, responsive nuclear 

infrastructure until the 2030s is an unacceptable risk to the nuclear deterrent and 

the national security of the United States; and (3) timelines for creating certain 

capacities for production of plutonium pits and other nuclear weapons components 

must be driven by the requirement to hedge against technical and geopolitical risk 

and not solely by the needs of life extension programs. 

This section would also add a new section to title 42 of the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to require the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the 

nuclear security enterprise produces at least 30 war reserve pits during 2023, at 

least 50 war reserve pits during 2026, and, during a pilot period of at least 90 days 

during 2027, demonstrate the capability to produce war reserve pits at a rate 

sufficient to produce 80 pits per year. The Secretary of Energy would be required to 

certify to the congressional defense committees and the Secretary of Defense by 

March 1 of each year until 2027 that the programs and budget of the Department of 

Energy will meet these pit production milestones. If the Secretary of Energy is 

unable to make such a certification in any year, the Chairman of the Nuclear 

Weapons Council would be required to submit a plan to the congressional defense 

committees by May 1 of such year. This plan would be required to include 

identification of the resources of the Department of Energy that the chairman 

determines should be redirected to enable the nuclear security enterprise to meet 

the pit production milestones described by this section. 

The committee is concerned that, despite the President's policy to create a 

responsive nuclear infrastructure to enable nuclear stockpile reductions without 

undue risk, the Department of Energy continues to slip schedules and programs 

needed to achieve this critical national security goal. With the proposed deferral of 

the first interoperable warhead, the Department has concurrently proposed to defer 

plans to achieve the Secretary of Defense's revalidated requirement for a plutonium 

pit production capacity of 50 to 80 pits per year. As a key component of a responsive 

nuclear infrastructure, continued delay in achieving this pit production capacity is 

392
unacceptable. The committee believes that waiting over 15 years to achieve a 

responsive nuclear infrastructure is too great a risk to national security. 

Section 3115—Definition of Baseline and Threshold for Stockpile Life Extension 

Project

This section would amend section 4713 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act 

(50 U.S.C. 2753) to clarify that the cost and schedule baseline of a nuclear stockpile 

life extension project established pursuant to such section shall be the cost and 

schedule contained in the weapon design and cost report required prior to the 

project entering into the development engineering phase. 

This section would also lower the threshold for congressional notification on 

costs per warhead exceeding the baseline from 200 percent to 150 percent. 

Section 3116—Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range Standoff Weapon

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to deliver a first 

production unit for a nuclear warhead for the long-range standoff weapon not later 

than September 30, 2025. This section would also require the Secretary of Energy 

and the Secretary of Defense to jointly develop a plan to carry out this mandate and 

require the Secretaries to submit this plan to the congressional defense committees 

within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

This section would also require the Secretary of Energy, should the 

Secretary determine at any time that a first production unit will not be delivered by 

September 30, 2025, to notify the congressional defense committees, the Secretary 

of Defense, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command of such determination, 

including an explanation for why delivery will not occur by such date. If the 

Secretary of Energy makes such a notification, the Commander, U.S. Strategic 

Command would be required to submit an assessment to the congressional defense 

committees regarding the effects of such delay on national security and nuclear 

deterrence and assurance, as well as any mitigation options available.

Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act on the justification for the long-range standoff weapon.

The committee believes the proposed 3-year deferral of this cruise missile is 

contrary to the interests of national security. Therefore, the committee recommends 

this provision to ensure warhead production for this cruise missile is deferred only 1 

year. 

Section 3117—Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to specifically carry out 

construction and program support activities with fiscal year 2015 funds authorized 

for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) for construction and program 

393
support activities. Program support activities are defined as those activities in 

support of the design, long-lead equipment, procurement, and site preparation for 

the MFFF.

If the Secretary of Energy determines that fiscal year 2015 funds for 

construction and program support activities associated with MFFF should be used 

for a purpose other than construction and program support activities for MFFF, the 

Secretary may utilize reprogramming guidance in accordance with established 

procedures provided to the Department of Energy defense-related program in 

section 4702 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742).

This section would also require the Secretary to enter into a contract with a 

federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) not later than 30 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act to conduct a study to assess and validate 

the Department of Energy's analysis of options for the disposition of surplus 

weapons-grade plutonium. The Secretary shall then submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than 270 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. The report shall include the FFRDC assessment, as well as 

the Department's identification and discussion of the life-cycle cost analyses, and 

explanation of how the alternatives conform with the Plutonium Management and 

Disposition Agreement between the Governments of the United States and the 

Russian Federation.

Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the Administrator 

for Nuclear Security

This section would limit the availability of funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to 

not more than 75 percent until several statutorily required reports are submitted to 

certain congressional committees in 2015. These include:

(1) The report on stockpile assessments required under section 4205(f)(2) of 

the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2525(f)(2)); 

(2) The Secretary of Energy's portion of the report required by section 1043 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81); 

(3) The annual assessment required under section 3122 of Public Law 112-

81; and 

(4) The detailed report on the stockpile stewardship, management, and 

infrastructure plan required by section 4203(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act 

(50 U.S.C. 2523(b)).

The committee notes that in past years, the NNSA has not submitted 

several key statutorily required reports in a timely fashion, or in certain cases, at 

all. The committee is pleased that section 3115 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) appears to have 

provided NNSA the necessary incentive to submit these reports in a timely way in 

2014. The committee therefore recommends a similar section for inclusion in this 

394
Act to ensure timely submission is continued into 2015. The committee believes 

these reports are critical to effective congressional oversight of the safety, security, 

and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, NNSA programs, and the 

Administration's plans for the stockpile and enterprise. 

Section 3119—Additional Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security

This section would limit the availability of funds, in addition to a limitation 

included elsewhere in this title, authorized to be appropriated by this Act or 

otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to not more than 90 percent 

until the date on which the Administrator for Nuclear Security submits to the 

congressional defense committees a report on the efficiencies proposed by the 2012 

Joint Department of Energy/Department of Defense Study on Potential NNSA 

Management and Work Force Prioritization Efficiencies. The report would be 

required to include details on how the Administrator will carry out each efficiency 

measure proposed by the joint study during fiscal year 2015. 

This section would also require the Nuclear Weapons Council to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, on the efficiencies 

that the Council recommends the Administrator carry out during fiscal year 2016. 

The council would also be required to include in the report the council's assessment 

of the reports submitted by the Administrator and the Comptroller General of the 

United States pursuant to section 3123 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as well as the council's assessment of each 

of the matters contained in subsection 3123(a)(2) of Public Law 112-81.

The committee notes that, in the fiscal year 2014 budget request, NNSA 

proposed to find $320.0 million in management and workforce prioritization 

efficiencies and use these savings to fund high priority nuclear modernization 

programs. These proposed efficiencies were based upon a joint study conducted by, 

and agreed to by, both the Department of Defense and NNSA. On May 9, 2013, the 

Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security testified before the Subcommittee on 

Strategic Forces that, "if we were unable to realize all of the efficiencies that we 

have assumed in fiscal [year] 2014, 5-year budget, we definitely would have to...go 

back and rethink how we are going to execute the programs we have." In the 

committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee expressed its concern that 

these efficiencies would not be achieved and major impacts to critical nuclear 

modernization programs would result. 

The most recent information provided to the committee by NNSA indicates 

that only $80.0 million of these efficiencies will actually be realized in fiscal year 

2014, while $240.0 million will not. The committee believes NNSA's inability or 

unwillingness to aggressively pursue savings through efficiencies it agreed to in 

2012 have directly contributed to forcing schedule slips in critical programs due to 

395
insufficient funding. Therefore, the committee recommends this section and expects 

NNSA and the Nuclear Weapons Council to aggressively seek efficiencies in fiscal 

year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 to ensure high priority defense programs stay on 

track.

Section 3120—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-Proliferation Activities 

Between the United States and the Russian Federation

This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015 funds for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration for any contact, cooperation, or transfer 

of technology between the United States and the Russian Federation until the 

Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State and Secretary of 

Defense, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the Russian

Federation is respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer acting 

inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and in 

compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The section 

would include a waiver for the Secretary of Energy, pending a notification, in 

coordination with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, to the 

appropriate congressional committees that such contact, cooperation, or technology 

transfer is in the national interests of the United States and a period of 30 days has 

elapsed following the notification.

The committee notes that at the time that this report was filed, in response 

to ongoing Russian aggression toward Ukraine, the Secretary of Energy has 

suspended nuclear security cooperation. Similar to the position the committee has 

stated elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that U.S.-Russia nuclear 

security cooperation must remain suspended so long as Russia continues its 

aggression toward Ukraine and continues to take actions inconsistent with its 

treaty obligations. 

Section 3121—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in Russian Federation

This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015 funds for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration for any defense nuclear nonproliferation 

activities at sites in the Russian Federation until at least 30 days have elapsed 

following the date that the Secretary of Energy certifies to the appropriate 

congressional committees that such sites are not actively engaged in Russian 

nuclear weapons, intelligence, or defense activities. This section would include a 

waiver for the President to submit a notification that such a waiver is in the 

national interests of the United States and that none of the funds will be 

contributed to Russia’s nuclear weapons program, and a period of 30 days has 

elapsed following the date of the notification.

SUBTITLE C—PLANS AND REPORTS

396
Section 3131—Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by National Nuclear 

Security Administration

This section would amend section 3221(h) of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2411) to clarify that the term "Administration", with 

respect to any authority, duty, or responsibility provided by section 3211, does not 

include the Office of Naval Reactors.

Section 3132—Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program High Explosives 

Options

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, the Administrator for 

Nuclear Security, and the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council to submit a 

joint report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act on the W88 Alt 370 nuclear warhead program. The report 

would be required to contain analysis of the costs, benefits, risks, and feasibility of 

both including and not including a refresh of the conventional high explosives of the 

W88 warhead as part of the W88 Alt 370 program. 

The report would be required to include, for each option:

(1) Near-term and lifecycle cost estimates, including costs to both the Navy 

and the National Nuclear Security Administration; 

(2) Potential cost avoidance; 

(3) Operational effects to the Navy and to the capacity and throughput of 

the nuclear security enterprise of the National Nuclear Security Administration; 

(4) The expected longevity of the W88 warhead; 

(5) Near-term and long-term safety and security risks, as well as potential 

risk-mitigation measures; and 

(6) Any other matters the Secretary, the Administrator, or the Chairman 

considers appropriate.

The committee expects the Nuclear Weapons Council to arrive at a decision 

regarding whether or not to include a refresh of the conventional high explosives as 

part of the W88 Alt 370 program in time to inform the budget request for fiscal year 

2016. 

Section 3133—Analysis of Existing Facilities

This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 270 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act containing analysis of using or modifying 

existing facilities across the nuclear security enterprise to support the plutonium 

strategy of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The report would be 

required to include an analysis of the costs, benefits, cost-savings, risks, and effects 

of using or modifying existing facilities as compared to the carrying out all phases of 

the Administrator's current plan for the plutonium strategy. The report may also 

include such other matters as the Administrator determines appropriate. 

397
SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 3141—Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy Defense Act

This section would make technical corrections to the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501).

Section 3142—Technical Corrections to National Nuclear Security Administration 

Act

This section would make technical corrections to section 3220 (50 U.S.C. 

2410) and section 3236 (50 U.S.C. 2426) of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration Act. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $30.2 million for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends $30.2 

million, the amount of the budget request.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3201—Authorization

This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board for fiscal year 2015. 

Section 3202—Inspector General of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

This section would amend section 322 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 

U.S.C. 2286k(a)) to mandate that the Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission shall serve as the Inspector General of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board, in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App).

Section 3203—Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

This section would amend section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286b(b)(1)(A)) to limit the number of full-time employees of the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to 120. This section would specify that this 

limit would take effect on October 1, 2015. 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

398
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize $19.9 million for fiscal year 2015 for operation 

and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Obsolete Vessel "Best Value" Contracts

The committee notes that the Maritime Administration (MARAD) disposes 

of obsolete vessels pursuant to “best value” contracts. On February 12, 2014, the 

Government Accountability Office released a report assessing MARAD's ship 

disposal program which indicated, “(a)lmost all of the contractors were unsure as to 

how MARAD determines best value under sales contracts. Most of the contractors 

told us that they did not always understand why they lost a ship recycling contract. 

Three contractors noted it was particularly confusing when they offered the best 

price with what they believed to be a reasonable schedule compared to other 

contractors, yet still lost the contract. A couple admitted that there were instances 

where they did not understand why they won a contract.” The committee believes 

that MARAD should provide better definition as to the selection procedures 

associated with “best value” contracts. 

The committee is also concerned about the lack of transparency associated 

with the amounts of appropriated funds expended and sales accrued and disbursed 

through the ship disposal program. 

Therefore, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2015 a report on the 

ship disposal program that:

(1) Provides a 5 year program projection for vessel scrapping under the ship 

disposal program, and an estimate of the vessels remaining at the end of that 5 year 

period;

(2) Compares the MARAD ship disposal program with other federal ship 

disposal programs; 

(3) Explains the criteria MARAD uses in determining “best value” when 

evaluating ship disposal procurement proposals, and the relative ranking of the 

importance of each of those criteria;

(4) Provides a detailed explanation of amounts appropriated and expended 

in carrying out in the ship disposal program, and of amount received and disbursed 

399
from the sales of vessels disposed of through that program over the previous 5 fiscal 

years. 

Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force Fleet

The committee believes it is in the interest of U.S. national security that 

the U.S. merchant marine, both ships and mariners, serve as a national auxiliary in 

times of war or national emergency. The Ready Reserve Force of the U.S. Maritime 

Administration, a component of the National Defense Reserve Fleet, plays an 

important role in U.S. national security by providing necessary readiness and 

efficiency in the form of a government-owned sealift fleet. The committee believes it 

is important that the Ready Reserve Force fleet remains capable, modern, and 

efficient in order to best serve the national security needs of the United States in 

times of war or national emergency. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

Commander, U.S. Transportation Command to brief the House Committee on 

Armed Services by September 1, 2014, on the options considered to modernize and 

recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force fleet and on the Commander's recommended 

path forward.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National Security Aspects of the 

Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2015

This section would authorize appropriations for the national security 

aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal year 2015.

Section 3502—Special Rule for DD-17

This section would limit the application of section 55102 of title 46, United 

States Code to Drydock-17 (formerly known as USN-YFD-17) in the waters of the 

State of Alabama.

Section 3503—Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic Maritime Industry in 

National Security

This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the role of 

domestic maritime industry in national security.

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES

Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables

400
This section would provide for the allocation of funds among programs, 

projects, and activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, 

subject to reprogramming guidance in accordance with established procedures.

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, this 

section would also require that a decision by an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or 

expend funds to a specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on 

merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 

2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable 

provisions of law.

401
2 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request 

Function 051, Department of Defense-Military 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

Title I—Procurement 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ..................................................... 5,102,685 147,400 5,250,085 

Missile Procurement, Army ...................................................... 1,017,483 1,017,483 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .......................... 1,471,438 230,298 1,701,736 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ......................................... 1,031,477 –23,400 1,008,077 

Other Procurement, Army ........................................................ 4,893,634 –192,400 4,701,234 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ...................... 115,058 –115,058 0 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ..................................................... 13,074,317 411,600 13,485,917 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ................................................... 3,217,945 63,000 3,280,945 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ............... 771,945 771,945 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy ............................................ 14,400,625 659,600 15,060,225 

Other Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 5,975,828 222,300 6,198,128 

Procurement, Marine Corps ..................................................... 983,352 –25,100 958,252 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ............................................... 11,542,571 –122,671 11,419,900 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ................................................ 4,690,506 132,000 4,822,506 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ................................... 677,400 677,400 

Other Procurement, Air Force .................................................. 16,566,018 –64,000 16,502,018 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 4,221,437 172,100 4,393,537 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ..................................... 20,000 –20,000 0 

Prior Year Rescissions ............................................................. –265,685 265,685 0 

Undistributed General Provisions ............................................ 0 –265,685 –265,685 

Subtotal, Title I—Procurement ............................................. 89,508,034 1,475,669 90,983,703 

Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army ................. 6,593,898 –13,896 6,580,002 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy .................. 16,266,335 –82,500 16,183,835 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force ........... 23,739,892 125,500 23,865,392 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide .... 16,766,084 223,348 16,989,432 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ................................. 167,738 5,000 172,738 

Subtotal, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation .................................................................................. 63,533,947 257,452 63,791,399 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 33,240,148 –369,100 32,871,048 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ............................... 2,490,569 11,300 2,501,869 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ................... 6,030,773 182,800 6,213,573 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ............................................. 39,025,857 –143,052 38,882,805 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 5,909,487 –56,700 5,852,787 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................ 1,007,100 –2,800 1,004,300 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................. 268,582 –2,600 265,982 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 35,331,193 –180,129 35,151,064 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ......................... 3,015,842 –16,900 2,998,942 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\P_TSUMM.LOC

May 9, 2014 (6:49 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

402
3 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ....................... 6,392,859 –19,800 6,373,059 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 31,198,232 –550,096 30,648,136 

US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense ............. 13,723 13,723 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid .................... 100,000 4,500 104,500 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ................................................. 365,108 –10,500 354,608 

Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund ................. 212,875 –3,500 209,375 

Environmental Restoration, Army ............................................ 201,560 201,560 

Environmental Restoration, Navy ............................................ 277,294 277,294 

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ...................................... 408,716 408,716 

Environmental Restoration, Defense ....................................... 8,547 8,547 

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites .................... 208,353 208,353 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ................... 5,000 –5,000 0 

Support Of International Sporting Competitions, Defense ..... 10,000 –4,800 5,200 

Subtotal, Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................. 165,721,818 –1,166,377 164,555,441 

Title IV—Military Personnel 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 128,957,593 49,430 129,007,023 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............. 6,236,092 1,000 6,237,092 

Subtotal, Title IV—Military Personnel .................................. 135,193,685 50,430 135,244,115 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations 

Working Capital Fund, Army ................................................... 13,727 13,727 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ............................................. 61,717 61,717 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide ...................................... 44,293 44,293 

Working Capital Fund, DECA ................................................... 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction ............................. 828,868 828,868 

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ....................... 820,687 820,687 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................... 311,830 311,830 

Defense Health Program ......................................................... 31,833,061 –387,400 31,445,661 

Subtotal, Title XIV—Other Authorizations ............................ 35,028,914 –287,400 34,741,514 

Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations ... 488,986,398 329,774 489,316,172 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Military Construction 

Army ......................................................................................... 539,427 203,000 742,427 

Navy ......................................................................................... 1,018,772 –20,000 998,772 

Air Force .................................................................................. 811,774 811,774 

Defense-Wide ........................................................................... 2,061,890 –29,000 2,032,890 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense ................... 38,715 38,715 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................ 199,700 199,700 

Army National Guard ............................................................... 126,920 34,800 161,720 

Army Reserve ........................................................................... 103,946 60,300 164,246 

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve ............................................. 51,528 51,528 

Air National Guard .................................................................. 94,663 94,663 

Air Force Reserve ..................................................................... 49,492 49,492 

Subtotal, Military Construction .............................................. 5,096,827 249,100 5,345,927 

Family Housing 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\P_TSUMM.LOC

May 9, 2014 (6:49 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

403
4 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Construction, Army .................................................................. 78,609 78,609 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ............................................. 350,976 350,976 

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps .................................... 16,412 16,412 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ............... 354,029 354,029 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 327,747 327,747 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ............................... 61,100 61,100 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ......................................... 1,662 1,662 

Subtotal, Family Housing ....................................................... 1,190,535 1,190,535 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Base Realignment and Closure—Army .................................. 84,417 84,417 

Base Realignment and Closure—Navy .................................. 94,692 94,692 

Base Realignment and Closure—Air Force ............................ 90,976 90,976 

Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure ............................. 270,085 270,085 

Undistributed Adjustments 

Prior Year Savings ................................................................... 0 –204,577 –204,577 

General Reductions ................................................................. 0 –69,000 –69,000 

Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments ..................................... 0 –273,577 –273,577 

Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations ....... 6,557,447 –24,477 6,532,970 

Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military ......................... 495,543,845 305,297 495,849,142 

Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Nuclear Energy ........................................................................ 104,000 0 104,000 

Weapons Activities .................................................................. 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................ 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................ 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100 

Office of the Administrator ..................................................... 410,842 –24,000 386,842 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................. 5,327,538 –457,000 4,870,538 

Other Defense Activities .......................................................... 753,000 5,300 758,300 

Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ........ 17,842,538 –308,000 17,534,538 

Independent Federal Agency Authorization 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................. 30,150 30,150 

Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization ......... 30,150 30,150 

Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations .................... 17,872,688 –308,000 17,564,688 

Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................. 17,872,688 –308,000 17,564,688 

Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request ..... 513,416,533 –2,703 513,413,830 

National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request ................. 79,445,000 79,445,000 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\P_TSUMM.LOC

May 9, 2014 (6:49 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

404
5 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Total, National Defense .......................................................... 592,861,533 –2,703 592,858,830 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ... 63,400 63,400 

Title XIV—Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700) .......... 45,800 16,081 61,881 

Title XXXIV—Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 

(Function 270) .................................................................... 19,950 19,950 

Title XXXV—Maritime Administration (Function 400) ............ 148,400 148,400 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority ........................................ [5,000,000 ] [4,000,000 ] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority ...................................... [3,000,000 ] 

MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD) 

Defense Production Act ........................................................... 21,638 21,638 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\P_TSUMM.LOC

May 9, 2014 (6:49 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

405
2 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2015 

Request 

House 

Change 

House 

Authorized 

Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ................................. 495,543,845 305,297 495,849,142 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) .............. 17,872,688 –308,000 17,564,688 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)—BASE BILL .............................. 513,416,533 –2,703 513,413,830 

TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .............................. 79,445,000 79,445,000 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE ................................................ 592,861,533 –2,703 592,858,830 

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services 

Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization 

Defense Production Act Purchases ................................................. 22,000 22,000 

Indefinite Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property ....................... 8,000 8,000 

Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property ............................ 31,000 31,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .............................................. 61,000 61,000 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .......................... 100,000 100,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .............................................. 100,000 100,000 

Other Discretionary Programs ......................................................... 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .............................................. 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050) ........................... 7,842,000 7,842,000 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ........................................... 575,049,845 305,297 575,355,142 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .......................................... 17,972,688 –308,000 17,664,688 

Defense-Related Activities (054) .................................................... 7,681,000 7,681,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary ................ 600,703,533 –2,703 600,700,830 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 

Fund ............................................................................................ 7,071,000 7,071,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory .................................... 1,169,000 1,169,000 

Offsetting receipts ........................................................................... –1,591,000 –1,591,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .............................................. 6,649,000 6,649,000 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs 

and other .................................................................................... 1,197,000 1,197,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .............................................. 1,197,000 1,197,000 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ................................. 59,000 59,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other .................................... 514,000 514,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .............................................. 573,000 573,000 

Total National Defense Mandatory (050) ...................................... 8,419,000 8,419,000 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ........................................... 581,698,845 305,209 582,004,054 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .......................................... 19,169,688 –308,000 18,861,688 

Defense-Related Activities (054) .................................................... 8,254,000 8,254,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory ......................................................................................... 609,122,533 –2,791 609,119,742 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\P_TIMP.LOC

May 12, 2014 (11:44 a.m.)

406
2 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

002 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................... 1 13,617 1 13,617 003 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) ................................................................. 16 185,090 16 185,090 004 MQ–1 UAV ............................................................................................................. 19 190,581 49,000 19 239,581 

Extended range modifications Per Army UFR .............................................. [49,000 ] 

005 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ..................................................................................................... 3,964 3,964 

ROTARY 

006 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ........................................................................ 55 416,617 55 416,617 007 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN ...................................................................... 25 494,009 25 494,009 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 157,338 157,338 

012 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ................................................................... 79 1,237,001 98,400 79 1,335,401 

ARNG Modernization–6 additional UH–60M aircraft ................................... [98,400 ] 

013 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 132,138 132,138 

014 CH–47 HELICOPTER .............................................................................................. 32 892,504 32 892,504 015 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 102,361 102,361 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

016 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ........................................................................................... 2 26,913 2 26,913 018 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ........................................................................................ 14,182 14,182 

019 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ........................................................................ 131,892 131,892 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

407
3 

020 AH–64 MODS ......................................................................................................... 181,869 181,869 

021 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ............................................................ 32,092 32,092 022 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ........................................................................... 15,029 15,029 023 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ................................................................................... 76,515 6,800 83,315 

ARNG Modernization-UH–60A to UH–60L conversions ................................ [6,800 ] 

025 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ............................................................................... 114,182 114,182 

026 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE ................................................................................ 115,795 115,795 

027 GATM ROLLUP ........................................................................................................ 54,277 54,277 028 RQ–7 UAV MODS ................................................................................................... 125,380 125,380 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

029 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 66,450 32,400 98,850 

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [32,400 ] 

030 SURVIVABILITY CM ................................................................................................ 7,800 7,800

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [7,800 ] 

031 CMWS .................................................................................................................... 107,364 –47,000 60,364 

Army requested reduction ............................................................................ [–47,000 ] 

OTHER SUPPORT 

032 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 6,847 6,847 

033 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 29,231 29,231 

034 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 48,081 48,081 035 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................................... 127,232 127,232 036 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .......................................................................................... 1,203 1,203 037 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ...................................................................................... 387 2,931 387 2,931 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 616 5,102,685 147,400 616 5,250,085 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

002 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ................................................... 110,300 110,300 

003 MSE MISSILE ......................................................................................................... 70 384,605 70 384,605 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 4,452 4,452 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

408
4 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

005 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ................................................................. 338 77,668 338 77,668 006 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................................... 1,008 50,368 1,008 50,368 

007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 19,984 19,984 

008 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ........................................................................... 534 127,145 534 127,145 009 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .......................................... 2,994 21,274 2,994 21,274 

MODIFICATIONS 

012 PATRIOT MODS ...................................................................................................... 131,838 131,838 

013 STINGER MODS ...................................................................................................... 1,355 1,355 

014 AVENGER MODS ..................................................................................................... 5,611 5,611 

015 ITAS/TOW MODS ..................................................................................................... 19,676 19,676 

016 MLRS MODS ........................................................................................................... 10,380 10,380 

017 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 6,008 6,008 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

018 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 36,930 36,930 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

019 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS .......................................................................................... 3,657 3,657 

020 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MISSILES) .................................................................... 1,522 1,522 

021 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 4,710 4,710 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................... 4,944 1,017,483 4,944 1,017,483 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 STRYKER VEHICLE ................................................................................................. 385,110 385,110 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

002 STRYKER (MOD) ..................................................................................................... 39,683 50,000 89,683 

Unfunded requirement-Fourth DVH Brigade Set .......................................... [50,000 ] 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

409
5 

003 FIST VEHICLE (MOD) .............................................................................................. 26,759 26,759 004 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ................................................................................... 107,506 107,506 005 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ................................................... 45,411 45,411 

006 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ........................................................... 18 247,400 18 247,400 007 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ........................................... 15 50,451 15 50,451 008 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................ 2,473 2,473 009 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ............................................................................... 7 36,583 7 36,583 010 M88 FOV MODS ..................................................................................................... 1,975 72,000 73,975 

Unfunded requirement-Industrial Base Initiative ........................................ [72,000 ] 

011 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ......................................................................................... 8 49,462 8 49,462 012 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ...................................................................................... 237,023 237,023 013 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ............................................................................... 120,000 120,000 

Industrial Base initiative ............................................................................. [120,000 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

014 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 6,478 6,478 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

016 MORTAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 5,012 5,012 

017 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ....................................................... 8,959 28,390 8,959 28,390 018 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ....................................................... 148 148 

019 CARBINE ................................................................................................................ 38,234 29,366 –8,750 38,234 20,616 

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [–8,750 ] 

021 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ............................................ 8,409 8,409 022 HANDGUN ............................................................................................................... 4,811 3,957 –2,000 4,811 1,957 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–2,000 ] 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

024 M777 MODS ........................................................................................................... 18,166 18,166 

025 M4 CARBINE MODS ............................................................................................... 3,446 3,000 6,446 

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [3,000 ] 

026 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ......................................................................... 25,296 25,296 027 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .......................................................................... 5,546 5,546 

028 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS .................................................................... 4,635 –2,000 2,635 

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [–2,000 ] 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

410
6 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

029 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 4,079 4,079 030 M119 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 72,718 72,718 031 M16 RIFLE MODS .................................................................................................. 1,952 –1,952 0 

Army requested realignment ........................................................................ [–1,952 ] 

032 MORTAR MODIFICATION ......................................................................................... 8,903 8,903 033 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................ 2,089 2,089 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

034 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................... 2,005 2,005 

035 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ........................................................ 8,911 8,911 036 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................. 414 414 037 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) .................................................. 1,682 1,682 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................................... 52,052 1,471,438 230,298 52,052 1,701,736 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 34,943 34,943 

002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 12,418 12,418 003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 9,655 –1,500 8,155 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................ [–1,500 ] 

004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 29,304 29,304 

006 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 8,181 8,181 

007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 52,667 52,667 

008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 40,904 40,904 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 41,742 41,742 

010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 42,433 42,433 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

411
7 

011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................. 39,365 39,365 

TANK AMMUNITION 

012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................... 101,900 101,900 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ....................................... 37,455 37,455 

014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 47,023 47,023 

015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ................................................................. 416 35,672 416 35,672 016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL .......................................... 94,010 –20,000 74,010 

Precision Guided Kits Schedule Delay ......................................................... [–20,000 ] 

ROCKETS 

019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .................................................... 945 945 

020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 27,286 27,286 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

021 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 22,899 22,899 

022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 22,751 22,751 023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 7,082 7,082024 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 11,638 11,638 

MISCELLANEOUS 

025 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 3,594 3,594 

027 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 5,430 5,430 028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) ................................................................ 8,337 8,337 029 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 14,906 14,906 030 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) .................................................... 14,349 14,349 

031 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES ........................................................................................... 111 111 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

032 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .................................................................. 148,092 –1,900 146,192 

Unjustified request ....................................................................................... [–1,900 ] 

033 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ..................................................... 113,881 113,881 034 ARMS INITIATIVE .................................................................................................... 2,504 2,504 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................................... 416 1,031,477 –23,400 416 1,008,077 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

412
8 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

001 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .......................................................................... 7,987 7,987 002 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: ...................................................................................... 1 160 1 160 004 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ............................................................................ 176 164,615 176 164,615 005 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) ........................................................... 50,000 50,000 

Additional FMTVs – Industrial Base initiative ............................................ [50,000 ] 

006 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................ 19 8,415 19 8,415 007 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ..................................................... 444 28,425 50,000 444 78,425 

Additional HEMTT ESP Vehicles-Industrial Base initiative .......................... [50,000 ] 

008 PLS ESP ................................................................................................................. 198 89,263 198 89,263 013 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ................................................... 735 38,226 735 38,226 014 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP ........................................................................... 768 91,173 –8,000 768 83,173 

Early to need ................................................................................................ [–8,000 ] 

015 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ......................................... 1 14,731 1 14,731 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

016 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ....................................................................................... 1 175 1 175 017 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 25 1,338 25 1,338 018 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ........................................................................... 11,101 11,101 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

019 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK .................................................... 1,280 763,087 –125,000 1,280 638,087 

Unobligated balances .................................................................................. [–125,000 ] 

020 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 69 21,157 69 21,157 021 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ........................................... 7,915 7,915 

022 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ............................................................................. 5,440 5,440 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

023 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .......................................... 18 118,085 18 118,085 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

413
9 

024 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ................................... 21 13,999 21 13,999 025 SHF TERM .............................................................................................................. 6,494 6,494 026 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................ 1,635 1,635 

027 SMART-T (SPACE) .................................................................................................. 13,554 13,554 028 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ................................................................................. 18,899 18,899 

029 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ......................................................................... 2,849 2,849 

030 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) .................................................................... 100,000 100,000 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

033 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ............................................................................ 2,674 175,711 –50,000 2,674 125,711 

Unobligated balances .................................................................................. [–50,000 ] 

034 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) .............................................. 9,692 –5,000 4,692 

Unobligated balances .................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

035 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) ...................................................................... 620 17,136 620 17,136 037 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................ 3,081 22,099 3,081 22,099 038 TRACTOR DESK ...................................................................................................... 3,724 3,724 

039 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT .................................................................. 969 969 040 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS .................................... 294 294 041 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM ...................................... 8,344 24,354 8,344 24,354 042 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ..................................................................................... 17,445 17,445 

043 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ................................................................... 1,028 1,028 

044 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ....................................... 974 22,614 974 22,614 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

046 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................ 1,519 1,519 

047 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 305 12,478 305 12,478 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

050 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP ................................................ 2,113 2,113 

051 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) ............................................................... 2,750 69,646 2,750 69,646 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

052 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................... 28,913 28,913 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

053 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 97,091 97,091 

054 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) ...................................................................... 246 246 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

414
10 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

055 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................... 5,362 5,362 056 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ........................................ 79,965 79,965 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

060 JTT/CIBS-M ............................................................................................................ 870 870 

061 PROPHET GROUND ................................................................................................. 11 55,896 11 55,896 063 DCGS-A (MIP) ........................................................................................................ 2,423 128,207 2,423 128,207 064 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .......................................................... 2 5,286 2 5,286 065 TROJAN (MIP) ......................................................................................................... 12,614 12,614 066 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ............................................................ 3,901 3,901 067 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ................................................. 358 7,392 358 7,392 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

068 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR .............................................................. 3 24,828 3 24,828 

070 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) ............................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 072 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ...................................... 1,285 1,285 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

075 SENTINEL MODS .................................................................................................... 81 44,305 81 44,305 

076 NIGHT VISION DEVICES .......................................................................................... 9,700 160,901 9,700 160,901 078 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF ................................................ 1,935 18,520 1,935 18,520 080 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ............................................... 173 68,296 173 68,296 081 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ....................................................................... 1,716 49,205 –15,000 1,716 34,205 

Early to need ................................................................................................ [–15,000 ] 

082 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................ 137 4,896 137 4,896083 PROFILER ............................................................................................................... 3,115 3,115 084 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ..................................................... 4,186 4,186 085 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) .................................................... 2,622 97,892 –10,000 2,622 87,892 

Schedule delay ............................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

415
11 

086 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) ........................................................... 41 27,450 41 27,450 087 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .............................................................................. 34 14,085 34 14,085088 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .......................................................................... 255 29,040 255 29,040 089 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .......................................................................................... 13 209,050 –50,000 13 159,050 

Excessive LRIP/concurrency costs ................................................................ [–50,000 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

092 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ..................................................................................... 13,823 13,823 

095 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS ................................................ 5 27,374 5 27,374 097 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) .............................................................. 2,508 2,508 099 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ........................................ 21,524 21,524 

100 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ................................................................... 3,748 95,455 3,748 95,455 101 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) ........................................... 118,600 118,600 102 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP ....................................... 32,970 32,970 104 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ......................................... 56 10,113 56 10,113 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

105 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ......................................................................... 9,015 9,015 

106 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................................. 155,223 155,223 

107 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ....................................... 16,581 16,581 108 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ........................................................ 65,252 65,252 

110 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) ................................................. 17,631 17,631 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

112 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................ 51 5,437 51 5,437 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

113 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) ...................................................................... 426 426 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

114A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 3,707 3,707 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

115 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ......................................................... 937 937 

116 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................ 1,930 1,930 

117 CBRN DEFENSE ..................................................................................................... 14,506 17,468 14,506 17,468 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

119 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ........................................................................ 6 5,442 6 5,442 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

416
12 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

120 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP .................................................... 11,013 11,013 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

121 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ............................................ 37,649 –4,400 33,249 

Early to need ................................................................................................ [–4,400 ] 

122 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) .................................................... 84 18,545 84 18,545 123 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ....................................................... 1 4,701 1 4,701 124 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 6,346 6,346 125 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) ...................................... 133 15,856 133 15,856 126 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 4,485 4,485 127 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 92 4,938 92 4,938 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

128 HEATERS AND ECU’S ............................................................................................. 628 9,235 628 9,235 

130 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ....................................................................................... 1 1,677 1 1,677 131 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ............................................... 12,273 16,728 12,273 16,728 132 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM .................................................................................... 3,581 84,761 3,581 84,761 134 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 141 15,179 141 15,179 135 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM .................................... 1,386 28,194 1,386 28,194 137 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ......................................... 336 41,967 336 41,967 138 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................ 859 20,090 859 20,090 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

139 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 1,435 1,435 

140 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER .................................................. 599 40,692 599 40,692 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

141 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ................................................................................. 2,388 46,957 2,388 46,957 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS ...................................................... 60 23,758 60 23,758 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

417
13 

143 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ................................................................... 585 2,789 585 2,789 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) ................................................................ 22 5,827 22 5,827 

145 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING .................................................................................... 22 14,926 22 14,926 147 COMPACTOR .......................................................................................................... 617 4,348 617 4,348 148 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ........................................................................................ 14 4,938 14 4,938 149 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ...................................................................................... 95 34,071 95 34,071 150 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ........................................................................................... 4 4,938 4 4,938 151 PLANT, ASPHALT MIXING ....................................................................................... 667 667 153 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ............................................. 14,924 14,924 

154 CONST EQUIP ESP ................................................................................................. 79 15,933 79 15,933 155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ............................................................. 53 6,749 53 6,749 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

156 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ....................................................................................... 10,509 10,509 

157 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) ................................................................. 2,166 2,166 

GENERATORS 

158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................................. 3,882 115,190 –10,000 3,882 105,190 

Cost savings from new contract ................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ........................................................................................... 146 14,327 146 14,327 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

161 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT ................................................................. 1 65,062 1 65,062 

162 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ........................................................................... 43 101,295 43 101,295163 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER ...................................................................... 13,406 13,406 164 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER .................................................... 14,440 14,440 165 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING ...................................... 10,165 10,165 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

166 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 5,726 5,726 

167 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ................................................. 1,657 37,482 1,657 37,482 168 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ........................................................ 415 16,061 415 16,061 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

170 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................... 2,380 2,380 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

418
14 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

171 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) .................................................................. 30,686 30,686 172 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 1,008 1,008 173 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ................................................... 3,209 98,559 –15,000 3,209 83,559 

Early to need—watercraft C4ISR ................................................................ [–15,000 ] 

174 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ...................................................................... 1,697 1,697 175 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ............................................................. 25,394 25,394 176 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS OPA3 ................................................................................... 963 12,975 963 12,975 

OPA2 

180 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .......................................................................................... 11 50,032 11 50,032 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ...................................................... 94,760 4,893,634 –192,400 94,760 4,701,234 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

004 OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 115,058 –115,058 0 

Transfer of JIEDDO to Overseas Contingency Operations ........................... [–65,558 ] Unjustified request ....................................................................................... [–49,500 ] 

TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ................................ 115,058 –115,058 0 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

001 EA–18G .................................................................................................................. 43,547 5 450,000 5 493,547 

Additional EA–18G aircraft .......................................................................... [5] [450,000 ] 

005 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ..................................................................................... 2 610,652 2 610,652 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 29,400 29,400 007 JSF STOVL .............................................................................................................. 6 1,200,410 6 1,200,410 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 143,885 143,885 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

419
15 

009 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ............................................................................................. 19 1,487,000 19 1,487,000 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 45,920 45,920 

011 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) ........................................................................... 26 778,757 26 778,757 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 80,926 80,926 

013 MH–60S (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 8 210,209 8 210,209 015 MH–60R (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 29 933,882 –53,400 29 880,482 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [–53,400 ] 

016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 106,686 106,686 

017 P–8A POSEIDON .................................................................................................... 8 2,003,327 8 2,003,327 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 48,457 48,457 

019 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ............................................................................................. 4 819,870 4 819,870 020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 225,765 225,765 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

023 KC–130J ................................................................................................................ 1 92,290 1 92,290 

026 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 37,445 37,445 

027 MQ–8 UAV ............................................................................................................. 40,663 40,663 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

029 EA–6 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 10,993 10,993 

030 AEA SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 34,768 34,768 031 AV–8 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 65,472 65,472 032 ADVERSARY ........................................................................................................... 8,418 8,418 033 F–18 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 679,177 679,177 034 H–46 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 480 480036 H–53 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 38,159 38,159 

037 SH–60 SERIES ....................................................................................................... 108,850 108,850 

038 H–1 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 45,033 45,033 039 EP–3 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 32,890 18,000 50,890 

Obsolescence issues .................................................................................... [5,000 ] SIGINT Architecture Modernization Common Configuration ........................ [13,000 ] 

040 P–3 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 2,823 2,823 

041 E–2 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 21,208 21,208 042 TRAINER A/C SERIES ............................................................................................. 12,608 12,608 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

420
16 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

044 C–130 SERIES ....................................................................................................... 40,378 40,378 

045 FEWSG ................................................................................................................... 640 640 046 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................ 4,635 4,635 047 E–6 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 212,876 212,876 048 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ......................................................................... 71,328 71,328 049 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ................................................................................. 21,317 21,317 050 T–45 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 90,052 90,052 051 POWER PLANT CHANGES ....................................................................................... 19,094 19,094 

052 JPATS SERIES ........................................................................................................ 1,085 1,085 

054 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 155,644 155,644 

055 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ............................................................................... 157,531 157,531 056 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM ................................................................ 1,958 1,958 

057 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 38,880 38,880 058 P–8 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 29,797 29,797 059 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION ...................................................................................... 14,770 14,770 060 MQ–8 SERIES ........................................................................................................ 8,741 8,741 061 RQ–7 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 2,542 2,542 062 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ........................................................................ 135,584 135,584 063 F–35 STOVL SERIES .............................................................................................. 285,968 285,968 

064 F–35 CV SERIES .................................................................................................... 20,502 20,502 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

065 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 1,229,651 –3,000 1,226,651 

Program decrease ........................................................................................ [–3,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

066 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 418,355 418,355 

067 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 23,843 23,843 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

421
17 

068 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 15,939 15,939 069 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 5,630 5,630 070 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 65,839 65,839 

071 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 1,768 1,768 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 103 13,074,317 5 411,600 108 13,485,917 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

001 TRIDENT II MODS ................................................................................................... 1,190,455 1,190,455 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

002 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................ 5,671 5,671 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

003 TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................................ 100 194,258 96 82,000 196 276,258 

Minimum sustaining rate increase .............................................................. [96] [82,000 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

004 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 32,165 –10,000 22,165 

Program decrease ........................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

005 SIDEWINDER .......................................................................................................... 167 73,928 167 73,928 006 JSOW ...................................................................................................................... 200 130,759 200 130,759 007 STANDARD MISSILE ............................................................................................... 110 445,836 110 445,836 008 RAM ....................................................................................................................... 90 80,792 90 80,792 011 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .......................................... 14 1,810 14 1,810 012 AERIAL TARGETS .................................................................................................... 48,046 48,046 

013 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 3,295 3,295 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

014 ESSM ..................................................................................................................... 104 119,434 104 119,434 

015 HARM MODS .......................................................................................................... 111,739 111,739 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

016 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 2,531 2,531 

017 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON .................................................................... 208,700 –9,000 199,700 

Excess to need ............................................................................................. [–9,000 ] 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

422
18 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

018 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 73,211 73,211 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

019 SSTD ...................................................................................................................... 6,562 6,562 

020 MK–48 TORPEDO ................................................................................................... 14,153 14,153 021 ASW TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 2,515 2,515 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

022 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ........................................................................................ 98,928 98,928 

023 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ............................................................................ 46,893 46,893 024 QUICKSTRIKE MINE ................................................................................................ 6,966 6,966

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

025 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 52,670 52,670 

026 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 3,795 3,795 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

027 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 3,692 3,692 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

028 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ................................................................................. 13,240 13,240 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

029 CIWS MODS ........................................................................................................... 75,108 75,108 

030 COAST GUARD WEAPONS ....................................................................................... 18,948 18,948 031 GUN MOUNT MODS ................................................................................................ 62,651 62,651033 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ........................................................ 15,006 15,006 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

035 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 74,188 74,188 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 785 3,217,945 96 63,000 881 3,280,945 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

423
19 

NAVY AMMUNITION 

001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 107,069 107,069 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................... 70,396 70,396 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION .................................................................................. 20,284 20,284 004 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 26,701 26,701 005 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................ 53,866 53,866 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................. 59,294 59,294 007 JATOS ..................................................................................................................... 2,766 2,766 008 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ....................................................... 113,092 113,092 009 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................ 35,702 35,702 010 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .......................................................... 36,475 36,475 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 43,906 43,906 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ............................................................... 51,535 51,535 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ........................................................................... 11,652 11,652 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................... 4,473 4,473 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION .................................................................................... 31,708 31,708 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 692 692 

017 40 MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 13,630 13,630 

018 60MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 2,261 2,261019 81MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 1,496 1,496020 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 14,855 14,855 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 16,853 16,853024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 14,772 14,772026 FUZE, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 9,972 9,972 027 NON LETHALS ........................................................................................................ 998 998 

028 AMMO MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................... 12,319 12,319 

029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 11,178 11,178 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ....................................... 771,945 771,945 

SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

424
20 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER WARSHIPS 

001 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 1,300,000 1,300,000 002 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ................................................................................. 2 3,553,254 2 3,553,254 003 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 2,330,325 2,330,325 004 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS ................................................................................ 1 483,600 1 483,600 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [1] [483,600 ] 

006 DDG 1000 .............................................................................................................. 419,532 –54,000 365,532 

DDG–1000 .................................................................................................... [–54,000 ] 

007 DDG–51 ................................................................................................................. 2 2,671,415 2 2,671,415 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 134,039 134,039 

009 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ........................................................................................ 3 1,427,049 –1 –450,000 2 977,049 

Reduction of 1 LCS ...................................................................................... [–1] [–450,000 ] 

009A ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 100,000 100,000 

Program requirement ................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

010 LPD–17 .................................................................................................................. 12,565 1 800,000 1 812,565 

Incremental funding for LPD–28 ................................................................. [1] [800,000 ] 

014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 29,093 29,093 

015 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ................................................................................... 4,590 4,590 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

016 MOORED TRAINING SHIP ....................................................................................... 1 737,268 –220,000 1 517,268 

Moored Training Ship ................................................................................... [–220,000 ] 

017 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 64,388 64,388 018 OUTFITTING ............................................................................................................ 546,104 546,104 019 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR ................................................................................ 2 123,233 2 123,233 020 LCAC SLEP ............................................................................................................. 2 40,485 2 40,485 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

425
21 

021 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS .................................................... 1,007,285 1,007,285 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY ......................................... 12 14,400,625 1 659,600 13 15,060,225 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

001 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ........................................................................................ 7,822 7,822 

002 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE ................................................................................. 2,155 2,155 003 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ............................................................................ 22,704 –7,000 15,704

Hybrid Electric Drive .................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

GENERATORS 

004 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E ................................................................................ 29,120 –7,000 22,120 

Surface Combatant HM&E ........................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

005 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 45,431 45,431 

PERISCOPES 

006 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP .................................................................... 60,970 –8,300 52,670 

Submarine Periscopes and Imaging Equipment ......................................... [–8,300 ] 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

007 DDG MOD ............................................................................................................... 338,569 338,569 

008 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 15,486 15,486 009 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ............................................................. 2,219 2,219 010 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ................................................................................................... 17,928 17,928 

011 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM ................................................... 22,025 22,025 012 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 12,607 12,607 013 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 16,492 16,492 014 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 74,129 74,129 

015 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 36,206 36,206 

016 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ......................................................................................... 37,352 37,352 017 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 49,095 49,095 018 ELECTRONIC DRY AIR ............................................................................................ 2,996 2,996 019 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 11,558 11,558 020 DSSP EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 5,518 5,518

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

426
22 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

022 LCAC ...................................................................................................................... 7,158 7,158 023 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 58,783 –5,000 53,783 

Underwater EOD programs ........................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

024 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 68,748 68,748 025 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ......................................................................... 2,937 2,937 026 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 8,385 8,385 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

027 REACTOR POWER UNITS ........................................................................................ 298,200 298,200 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [298,200 ] 

028 REACTOR COMPONENTS ........................................................................................ 288,822 288,822 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

029 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 10,572 10,572 

SMALL BOATS 

030 STANDARD BOATS .................................................................................................. 129,784 –49,000 80,784 

Standard Boats ............................................................................................ [–49,000 ] 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

031 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 17,152 17,152 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

032 OPERATING FORCES IPE ........................................................................................ 39,409 39,409 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

033 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ......................................................................................... 118,129 118,129

034 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ..................................................... 37,413 37,413 035 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ............................................................................... 15,270 15,270 036 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES ................................................................................ 2,729 2,729 037 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES ................................................................................ 44,208 44,208 038 REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) ................................................................. 42,276 42,276 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

427
23 

SHIP SONARS 

040 SPQ–9B RADAR ..................................................................................................... 28,007 28,007 041 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ............................................................. 79,802 79,802 

042 SSN ACOUSTICS ..................................................................................................... 165,655 165,655 043 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 9,487 9,487 044 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ................................................................. 11,621 11,621 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

046 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................ 24,221 24,221 047 SSTD ...................................................................................................................... 12,051 12,051 048 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 170,831 170,831 049 SURTASS ................................................................................................................ 9,619 9,619 050 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE ............................................... 14,390 14,390 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

051 AN/SLQ–32 ............................................................................................................ 214,582 214,582 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

052 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ........................................................................................ 124,862 124,862

053 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .......................................................... 164 164 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

054 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ............................................................. 45,362 45,362 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

055 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .............................................................. 33,939 33,939 056 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) .................................................................. 324 324 

057 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ..................................... 18,192 18,192 

058 ATDLS .................................................................................................................... 16,768 16,768 059 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ................................................. 5,219 5,219 060 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ............................................................... 42,108 42,108 062 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) ....................................................................... 15,232 15,232 063 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ........................................................ 4,524 4,524 064 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 6,382 6,382 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

065 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 46,122 46,122 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

428
24 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

066 MATCALS ................................................................................................................ 16,999 16,999 067 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................... 9,366 9,366 068 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ............................................................... 21,357 21,357 

069 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 26,639 26,639 

070 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................ 9,214 9,214 071 LANDING SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 13,902 13,902 

072 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 34,901 34,901 073 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .................................................................... 13,950 13,950 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

074 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL .......................................................... 1,205 1,205 

075 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ....................................................... 3,447 3,447 076 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 16,766 16,766 

077 DCGS-N .................................................................................................................. 23,649 23,649 078 CANES .................................................................................................................... 357,589 357,589 079 RADIAC .................................................................................................................. 8,343 8,343 080 CANES-INTELL ........................................................................................................ 65,015 65,015 

081 GPETE .................................................................................................................... 6,284 6,284 082 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY ................................................................ 4,016 4,016 

083 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ......................................................................... 4,113 4,113 084 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 45,053 45,053 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

085 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................. 14,410 14,410 

086 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ................................................................... 20,830 20,830 

088 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ................................................................. 14,145 14,145 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

089 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ....................................................................... 11,057 11,057 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

429
25 

090 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 67,852 67,852 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

091 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 13,218 50 13,268 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [50 ] 

092 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) ...................................................................... 272,076 272,076 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

093 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 4,369 4,369 

094 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 1,402 1,402 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

095 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) .......................................................... 110,766 110,766 

096 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ............................................................................ 979 979 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

097 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ............................................................... 11,502 11,502 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

098 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 2,967 2,967 

SONOBUOYS 

100 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 182,946 182,946 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

101 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 47,944 47,944 

103 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 76,683 76,683 

106 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 12,575 300 12,875 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [300 ] 

107 DCRS/DPL .............................................................................................................. 1,415 1,415 109 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................... 23,152 23,152 114 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 52,555 52,555 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

115 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 5,572 5,572 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

118 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 165,769 165,769 

123 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 61,462 61,462 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

126 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP .................................................................... 229,832 229,832 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

430
26 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

127 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 66,020 66,020 128 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 7,559 7,559 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

132 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .............................................................. 20,619 20,619 133 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 11,251 11,251 

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

137 TRAINING DEVICE MODS ........................................................................................ 84,080 84,080 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

138 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 2,282 2,282 139 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ................................................................................. 547 547 140 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP ............................................................... 8,949 8,949 141 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 14,621 14,621 142 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 957 957 143 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 8,187 8,187 144 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 2,942 2,942 145 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION .................................................................................... 17,592 17,592 146 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ............................................................................. 1,177 1,177 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

147 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 10,937 10,937 148 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 10,374 10,374 149 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 5,668 5,668 150 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ................................................................... 90,921 90,921 

TRAINING DEVICES 

151 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 22,046 22,046 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

431
27 

152 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 24,208 24,208 153 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 874 874 154 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 2,634 2,634 156 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 3,573 3,573 157 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 3,997 3,997 

158 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 9,638 9,638

159 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 21,001 21,001 

160 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 94,957 94,957 161 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 87,214 87,214 

OTHER 

164 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ............................................................. 116,165 116,165 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

164A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 10,847 10,847 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

165 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 325,084 50 325,134 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ...................................... [50 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ....................................................... 5,975,828 222,300 6,198,128 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 AAV7A1 PIP ............................................................................................................ 16,756 16,756 

002 LAV PIP .................................................................................................................. 77,736 77,736 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

003 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................... 5,742 –5,100 642 

Per Marine Corps excess to need ................................................................ [–5,100 ] 

004 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .............................................................. 4,532 4,532 005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ........................................................ 19,474 19,474 

006 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ....................................... 7,250 7,250 

OTHER SUPPORT 

007 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 21,909 21,909 

008 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................... 3,208 3,208 

GUIDED MISSILES 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

432
28 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

009 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .............................................................................. 31,439 31,439 010 JAVELIN .................................................................................................................. 343 343 011 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ........................................................................................... 4,995 4,995 012 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ............................................... 1,589 1,589 

OTHER SUPPORT 

013 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 5,134 5,134

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

014 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER .................................................................................... 9,178 9,178 

015 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C .................................. 12,272 12,272 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

016 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 30,591 30,591 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

017 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 2,385 2,385 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

019 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ......................................................... 4,205 4,205 

020 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 8,002 8,002 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

021 RADAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 19,595 19,595 

022 U ............................................................................................................................ 2 89,230 2 89,230 023 RQ–21 UAS ............................................................................................................ 3 70,565 3 70,565 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

024 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 11,860 11,860 

025 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 44,340 44,340 028 RQ–11 UAV ............................................................................................................ 2,737 2,737 030 DCGS-MC ............................................................................................................... 20,620 20,620 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

433
29 

031 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 9,798 9,798 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

032 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .............................................. 2,073 2,073 

033 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................ 33,570 33,570 034 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 38,186 38,186 035 RADIO SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 64,494 64,494 036 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................. 72,956 72,956 037 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ......................................................... 43,317 43,317 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

037A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 2,498 2,498 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

038 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES .................................................................... 332 332 

039 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................ 11,035 11,035 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

040 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) .................................................................................. 57,255 –20,000 37,255 

Early to need ................................................................................................ [–20,000 ] 

041 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 938 938 044 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ............................................................................ 7 7,500 7 7,500 045 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ............................................................................. 10,179 10,179 

OTHER SUPPORT 

046 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 11,023 11,023 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

047 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT ........................................................... 994 994 

048 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 1,256 1,256 049 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 3,750 3,750 050 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ............................................................................. 8,985 8,985 051 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 4,418 4,418 052 EOD SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 6,528 6,528 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

053 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 26,510 26,510 

054 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .............................................. 1,910 1,910 055 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP .................................................................................. 8,807 8,807 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

434
30 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

056 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 128 128 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

058 TRAINING DEVICES ................................................................................................ 3,412 3,412

059 CONTAINER FAMILY ............................................................................................... 1,662 1,662 060 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 3,669 3,669 

OTHER SUPPORT 

062 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 4,272 4,272 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

063 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 16,210 16,210 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS .................................................. 12 983,352 –25,100 12 958,252 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

001 F–35 ...................................................................................................................... 26 3,553,046 26 3,553,046 

002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 291,880 291,880 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

003 KC–46A TANKER .................................................................................................... 7 1,582,685 –1 –226,100 6 1,356,585 

LRIP 1 Ramp Rate ....................................................................................... [–1] [–226,100 ] 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

004 C–130J .................................................................................................................. 7 482,396 7 482,396 

005 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 140,000 140,000 

006 HC–130J ................................................................................................................ 4 332,024 4 332,024 007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 50,000 50,000 

008 MC–130J ................................................................................................................ 2 190,971 2 190,971 

009 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 80,000 80,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

435
31 

012 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ........................................................................................... 6 2,562 6 2,562 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

013 TARGET DRONES .................................................................................................... 37 98,576 37 98,576 

016 RQ–4 ..................................................................................................................... 54,475 –10,000 44,475 

MPRTIP Sensor Trainer reduction ................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

017 AC–130J ................................................................................................................ 1 1 018 MQ–9 ..................................................................................................................... 12 240,218 8 120,000 20 360,218 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [8] [120,000 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

020 B–2A ...................................................................................................................... 23,865 23,865 

021 B–1B ..................................................................................................................... 140,252 140,252 022 B–52 ...................................................................................................................... 180,148 180,148 023 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES ................................................ 13,159 13,159 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

025 F–15 ...................................................................................................................... 387,314 387,314 

026 F–16 ...................................................................................................................... 12,336 12,336 027 F–22A .................................................................................................................... 180,207 180,207 028 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 187,646 187,646 

029 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 28,500 28,500 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

030 C–5 ........................................................................................................................ 14,731 14,731 

031 C–5M ..................................................................................................................... 331,466 –50,000 281,466 

Program execution delay .............................................................................. [–50,000 ] 

033 C–17A .................................................................................................................... 127,494 127,494 034 C–21 ...................................................................................................................... 264 264 035 C–32A .................................................................................................................... 8,767 8,767 036 C–37A .................................................................................................................... 18,457 18,457 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

038 GLIDER MODS ........................................................................................................ 132 132 

039 T–6 ........................................................................................................................ 14,486 14,486 040 T–1 ........................................................................................................................ 7,650 7,650 041 T–38 ...................................................................................................................... 34,845 34,845 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

436
32 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

044 KC–10A (ATCA) ...................................................................................................... 34,313 34,313 045 C–12 ...................................................................................................................... 1,960 1,960 048 VC–25A MOD ......................................................................................................... 1,072 1,072 

049 C–40 ...................................................................................................................... 7,292 7,292 050 C–130 .................................................................................................................... 35,869 73,802 109,671 

8.33kHz radios ............................................................................................. [–7,447 ] C–130 8–Bladed Propeller upgrade ............................................................ [30,000 ] C–130 AMP .................................................................................................. [35,800 ] CVR/DVR ....................................................................................................... [–7,151 ] T–56 3.5 Engine Mod .................................................................................. [22,600 ] 

051 C–130J MODS ........................................................................................................ 7,919 7,919 052 C–135 .................................................................................................................... 63,568 63,568 053 COMPASS CALL MODS ........................................................................................... 57,828 57,828 054 RC–135 ................................................................................................................. 152,746 152,746 055 E–3 ........................................................................................................................ 16,491 12,857 29,348 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [12,857 ] 

056 E–4 ........................................................................................................................ 22,341 22,341 058 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ....................................................... 160,284 160,284 

059 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ................................................... 32,026 32,026 

060 H–1 ........................................................................................................................ 8,237 8,237 061 H–60 ...................................................................................................................... 60,110 60,110 062 RQ–4 MODS ........................................................................................................... 21,354 21,354 

063 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 1,902 1,902 

064 OTHER AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................... 32,106 32,106 065 MQ–1 MODS .......................................................................................................... 4,755 –3,200 1,555 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

437
33 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–3,200 ] 

066 MQ–9 MODS .......................................................................................................... 155,445 155,445 

069 CV–22 MODS ......................................................................................................... 74,874 74,874 

069A EJECTION SEAT RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................ 7,000 7,000 

Initial aircraft installation ........................................................................... [7,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

070 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 466,562 –42,030 424,532 

Program decrease ........................................................................................ [–42,030 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

071 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ........................................................... 22,470 22,470 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

074 B–2A ...................................................................................................................... 44,793 44,793 075 B–52 ...................................................................................................................... 5,249 5,249 077 C–17A .................................................................................................................... 20,110 –5,000 15,110 

Program execution delay .............................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

078 CV–22 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT .................................................................... 16,931 16,931 

080 C–135 .................................................................................................................... 4,414 4,414 081 F–15 ...................................................................................................................... 1,122 1,122 082 F–16 ...................................................................................................................... 10,994 10,994 083 F–22A .................................................................................................................... 5,929 5,929 084 OTHER AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................... 27 27 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

085 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .............................................................................. 21,363 21,363 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

086 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 82,906 82,906 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

087 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 1,007,276 1,007,276 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

087A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 69,380 69,380 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................ 101 11,542,571 7 –122,671 108 11,419,900 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

438
34 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

001 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC .................................................................. 80,187 80,187 

TACTICAL 

003 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ............................................................... 224 337,438 224 337,438 004 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .......................................................................................... 303 132,995 303 132,995 005 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 200 329,600 200 329,600 006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ............................................................................... 283 33,878 283 33,878 007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 246 70,578 246 70,578 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

008 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION ........................................................... 749 749 

CLASS IV 

009 MM III MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 28,477 28,477010 AGM–65D MAVERICK ............................................................................................. 276 276 

011 AGM–88A HARM .................................................................................................... 297 297 012 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ................................................................... 16,083 16,083 013 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 6,924 6,924 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

014 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 87,366 87,366 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

015 ADVANCED EHF ...................................................................................................... 298,890 298,890 016 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ........................................................... 38,971 –3,000 35,971 

Unjustified growth ........................................................................................ [–3,000 ] 

017 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ....................................................................................... 1 235,397 1 235,397 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 57,000 57,000 019 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ............................................................................ 16,201 16,201 020 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .............................................................................. 52,090 52,090 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

439
35 

021 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ............................................................ 87,000 87,000 022 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH (INFRAST.) .................................................. 750,143 750,143 

023 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ....................................................... 3 630,903 135,000 3 765,903 

DMSP 20 launch/Additional competition launch ......................................... [135,000 ] 

024 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 450,884 450,884 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

028 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 60,179 60,179 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

028A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 888,000 888,000 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................... 1,260 4,690,506 132,000 1,260 4,822,506 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

001 ROCKETS ................................................................................................................ 4,696 4,696 

CARTRIDGES 

002 CARTRIDGES .......................................................................................................... 133,271 133,271 

BOMBS 

003 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 31,998 31,998 

004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 148,614 148,614 005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .......................................................................... 2,973 101,400 2,973 101,400 

OTHER ITEMS 

006 CAD/PAD ................................................................................................................ 29,989 29,989 

007 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ............................................................... 6,925 6,925 008 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 494 494 

009 MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 1,610 1,610 

010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 4,237 4,237 

FLARES 

011 FLARES .................................................................................................................. 86,101 86,101 

FUZES 

012 FUZES .................................................................................................................... 103,417 103,417 

SMALL ARMS 

013 SMALL ARMS ......................................................................................................... 24,648 24,648 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

440
36 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............................. 2,973 677,400 2,973 677,400 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 6,528 –4,000 2,528 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–4,000 ] 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE .................................................................................. 7,639 –5,000 2,639

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–5,000 ] 

003 CAP VEHICLES ....................................................................................................... 961 961 

004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 11,027 –6,000 5,027

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–6,000 ] 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

005 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................... 4,447 4,447 006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 693 693 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

007 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ............................................................ 10,152 10,152 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 15,108 –10,000 5,108 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ......................................................... 10,212 –4,000 6,212 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–4,000 ] 

010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 57,049 –25,000 32,049 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–25,000 ] 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

441
37 

011 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................. 106,182 106,182 

012 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) .................................................................................... 1,363 1,363 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

013 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 2,832 2,832 

014 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 32,329 32,329 016 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 15,649 15,649 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

017 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................ 42,200 42,200 

018 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 6,333 6,333 019 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ....................................................................... 2,708 2,708 020 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... 50,033 –10,000 40,033 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

021 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ...................................................................... 16,348 16,348 022 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................... 139,984 139,984 023 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX ........................................................................... 20,101 20,101 026 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ........................................ 9,060 9,060 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 39,100 39,100 

028 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ............................................................... 19,010 19,010 029 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ..................................................................... 11,462 11,462 

030 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ............................................................. 37,426 37,426 031 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .................................................................................. 26,634 26,634 

032 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ......................................................... 1,289 1,289 

033 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................................................ 11,508 11,508 

034 GCSS-AF FOS ......................................................................................................... 3,670 3,670 

035 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING AND MGMT SYSTEM .................................... 15,298 15,298 036 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ....................................................................... 9,565 9,565 037 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ............................................................ 25,772 25,772 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

038 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 81,286 31,300 112,586 

Air Force requested program transfer from AFNET ..................................... [31,300 ] 

039 AFNET .................................................................................................................... 122,228 –31,300 90,928 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

442
38 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Air Force requested program transfer to BITI ............................................. [–31,300 ] 

041 USCENTCOM .......................................................................................................... 16,342 16,342 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

042 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ................................................... 60,230 60,230 043 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE ................................................................. 26,100 26,100 044 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ............................................................................................ 2,075 2,075 045 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ............................................................................. 4,656 4,656 046 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ............................................................ 54,630 54,630 

047 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................ 69,713 69,713 

048 MILSATCOM SPACE ................................................................................................ 41,355 41,355 049 SPACE MODS SPACE ............................................................................................. 31,722 31,722 

050 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 61,603 61,603 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

051 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 50,335 50,335 053 RADIO EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 14,846 14,846 

054 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3,635 3,635 

055 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................. 79,607 79,607 

MODIFICATIONS 

056 COMM ELECT MODS .............................................................................................. 105,398 105,398 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

057 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ........................................................................................ 12,577 12,577 

058 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 31,209 31,209 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

059 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ............................................................ 7,670 7,670 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

060 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 14,125 14,125 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

443
39 

061 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 16,744 16,744 062 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT .................................................................... 2,495 2,495 063 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 10,573 10,573064 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 5,462 5,462 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

066 DARP RC135 .......................................................................................................... 24,710 24,710 

067 DCGS-AF ................................................................................................................ 206,743 206,743 069 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM .................................................................................. 537,370 537,370 070 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. ........................................................... 77,898 77,898 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

070A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 13,990,196 13,990,196 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

072 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 32,813 32,813 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................. 16,566,018 –64,000 16,502,018 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

001 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,594 1,594 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 4,325 4,325 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

003 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................... 17,268 17,268 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

008 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................ 10,491 10,491 

010 TELEPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 80,622 80,622 

011 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 14,147 14,147 012 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ...................................................... 1,921 1,921 013 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .......................................................... 80,144 80,144 

015 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................. 8,755 8,755 016 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ............................................................. 33,737 33,737 

017 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ........................................................................ 32,544 32,544 

018 JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................... 13,300 13,300 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

444
40 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 7,436 7,436 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

021 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 3 11,640 3 11,640 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

022 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ............................................. 1,269 1,269 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

024 VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 025 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 1,039 1,039 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

026 VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 1 50 1 50 027 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 3 7,639 3 7,639 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

028 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 68,880 68,880 029 THAAD .................................................................................................................... 31 464,424 31 464,424 030 AEGIS BMD ............................................................................................................ 30 435,430 30 435,430 031 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ...................................................................................... 48,140 48,140 032 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III ...................................................................................... 225,774 225,774034 IRON DOME ............................................................................................................ 1 175,972 176,000 1 351,972 

Program increase for Iron Dome .................................................................. [176,000 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

041 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ........................................... 3,448 3,448 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

042 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ....................................................................................... 43,708 43,708 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

044 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ........................................................................................ 10,783 10,783 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

445
41 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

046 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS ...................................................................................... 29,599 29,599 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

046A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 540,894 540,894 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

047 MC–12 ................................................................................................................... 40,500 40,500 048 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT ...................................................... 112,226 112,226 

049 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 3,021 3,021 

050 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ..................................................................................... 48,200 48,200 

052 MH–47 CHINOOK ................................................................................................... 22,230 22,230 

053 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ..................................................................... 6,397 6,397 054 CV–22 MODIFICATION ............................................................................................ 25,578 25,578056 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ...................................................................... 15,651 15,651 

057 STUASL0 ................................................................................................................ 1,500 1,500 058 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE ................................................................................. 145,929 145,929 

059 AC/MC–130J .......................................................................................................... 65,130 65,130 

061 C–130 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 39,563 39,563 

SHIPBUILDING 

063 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 25,459 25,459 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

065 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ....................................................................................... 144,336 144,336 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

068 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 81,001 81,001 

070 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ........................................... 17,323 –3,900 13,423 

Reduction of PED Ground Systems .............................................................. [–3,900 ] 

071 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .............................................................................................. 84,852 84,852

072 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 51,937 51,937 074 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .............................................................................................. 31,017 31,017

075 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 63,134 63,134 

076 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M .................................................................................... 192,448 192,448 

078 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 19,984 19,984 081 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 5,044 5,044 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

446
42 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

082 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ...................................................... 38,126 38,126 088 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ............................................................................. 243,849 243,849 

CBDP 

095 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ............................................... 170,137 170,137 

096 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION ............................................................... 150,392 150,392 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................. 69 4,221,437 172,100 69 4,393,537 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .......................................................... 20,000 –20,000 0 

Unjustified request ....................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ................................. 20,000 –20,000 0 

PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS 

001 PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS .................................................................................... –265,685 265,685 0 

Denied Prior Year Rescission request .......................................................... [265,685 ] 

TOTAL PRIOR YEAR RESCISSIONS ........................................................... –265,685 265,685 0 

UNDISTRIBUTED GENERAL PROVISIONS 

001 UNDISTRIBUTED GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................ –265,685 –265,685 

Undistributed FY15 reduction ...................................................................... [–265,685 ] 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................... –265,685 –265,685 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................. 158,103 89,508,034 109 1,475,669 158,212 90,983,703 

E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\XML\CORRECTIONS_BY_TB\L_T4101.LOC

May 12, 2014 (12:33 p.m.)

447
2 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH .................................................................................... 13,464 13,464 002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 238,167 238,167 003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 69,808 69,808 004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS ..................................................................................... 102,737 102,737 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 424,176 424,176 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 28,006 28,006 

006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................... 33,515 33,515 007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ............................................................................................................................................... 16,358 16,358 008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 63,433 63,433 009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 18,502 18,502 010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 46,194 46,194 011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 28,528 28,528 012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................... 27,435 27,435 013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 72,883 72,883 014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 85,597 85,597 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

448
3 

015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 3,971 3,971 016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 6,853 6,853 017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 38,069 38,069 018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES .................................................................................................. 56,435 56,435 019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 38,445 38,445 020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................. 25,939 25,939 021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 23,783 23,783 022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 15,659 15,659 023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 33,817 33,817 024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 10,764 10,764 025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 63,311 63,311 026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................... 23,295 23,295 027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 25,751 2,579 28,330 

Joint Service Combat Feeding Technology ........................................................................................ [2,579 ] 

028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 76,068 76,068 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 862,611 2,579 865,190 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 65,139 674 65,813 

Joint Service Combat Feeding Tech Demo ........................................................................................ [674 ] 

030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 67,291 67,291 031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 88,990 88,990 032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 57,931 57,931 033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 110,031 110,031 034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 6,883 6,883 035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 13,580 13,580 036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 44,871 44,871 037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ............................................................................................................................................. 7,492 7,492 038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 16,749 16,749 039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ........................................................................................................................................... 14,483 14,483 041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 24,270 24,270 042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL ............................................................................................................................................. 3,440 3,440 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

449
4 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ........................................................................................................................................... 2,406 2,406 044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 26,057 26,057 045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 44,957 44,957 046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 11,105 11,105 047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .................................................................. 181,609 181,609 048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 13,074 13,074 049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 7,321 7,321 050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 44,138 44,138 051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ...................................................................... 9,197 9,197 052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 17,613 17,613 053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 39,164 39,164 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 917,791 674 918,465 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................ 12,797 12,797 055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ......................................................................................................... 13,999 13,999 058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ................................................................................................ 29,334 29,334 060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ...................................................................................................... 9,602 1,587 11,189 

Food Advanced Development ............................................................................................................. [1,587 ] 

061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ...................................................................... 8,953 8,953 062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 3,052 3,052 063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL .................................................................................. 7,830 7,830 065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 2,954 2,954 067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV .................................................................................... 13,386 13,386 069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ................................................................................................................... 23,659 23,659 070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 6,830 3,000 9,830 

Army requested realignment—Caliber Config Study ........................................................................ [3,000 ]


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

450
5 

072 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................... 9,913 9,913 073 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................... 74,740 74,740 074 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ............................................................................ 9,930 9,930 076 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ............................................ 96,177 –25,000 71,177 

Schedule delay ................................................................................................................................... [–25,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 323,156 –20,413 302,743 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

079 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS .................................................................................................................................... 37,246 37,246 081 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 6,002 6,002 082 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ................................................................................................................................ 9,832 9,832 083 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................................................... 9,730 9,730 084 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 5,532 5,532 

085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 19,929 19,929 086 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS .................................................................................................................... 27,884 6,702 34,586 

Army requested realignment .............................................................................................................. [6,702 ] 

087 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................................................................... 210 210 088 0604611A JAVELIN ........................................................................................................................................................ 4,166 4,166 089 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................................................... 12,913 12,913 090 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ................................................................................................................................ 16,764 16,764 091 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ....................................................................................... 6,770 6,770 092 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ............................................................................................................ 65,333 65,333 093 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 1,335 562 1,897 

Military Subsistence Systems ............................................................................................................ [562 ] 

094 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV ............................................................................................. 8,945 8,945 096 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV ......................................................... 15,906 15,906 097 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 4,394 4,394 098 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 11,084 11,084 099 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ...................................................................... 10,027 10,027 100 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ................................................................................... 42,430 42,430 101 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................................. 105,279 105,279 102 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ....................................................................................................... 15,006 15,006 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

451
6 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

103 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................................................................... 24,581 24,581 104 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................ 4,433 4,433 105 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................... 30,397 30,397 106 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ................................................................................................. 57,705 57,705 108 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ........................................................... 29,683 29,683 109 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5,224 5,224 111 0604823A FIREFINDER ................................................................................................................................................. 37,492 37,492 112 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL .................................................................................................... 6,157 6,157 113 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ........................................................................................................................ 1,912 1,912 116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 69,761 69,761 117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) ..................................................................... 138,465 138,465 118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ............................................................................................. 92,353 92,353 119 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ................................................................................................. 8,440 8,440 120 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ................................................................................................................. 17,999 17,999 121 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................................................... 145,409 145,409 122 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3—FULL NETWORKING ................................................................................................. 113,210 113,210 123 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) .............................................................................................. 6,882 6,882 124 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ...................................................................................................... 83,838 83,838 125 0605456A PAC–3/MSE MISSILE ................................................................................................................................... 35,009 35,009 126 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ........................................................................... 142,584 142,584 127 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ......................................................................................................................... 49,160 49,160 128 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR ........................................................................................................................... 17,748 17,748 129 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) .............................................................................................. 15,212 15,212 130 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH ............. 45,718 45,718 131 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................... 10,041 10,041 132 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ................................................................................................ 83,300 83,300 133 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ........................................................................................................................................... 983 983 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

452
7 

134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 8,961 8,961 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 1,719,374 7,264 1,726,638 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 18,062 18,062 136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 10,040 10,040 137 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 60,317 60,317 138 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ............................................................................................................................... 20,612 20,612 139 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL ............................................................................................................................. 176,041 176,041 140 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 19,439 19,439 142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 275,025 275,025 143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ........................................................................ 45,596 45,596 144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 33,295 33,295 

145 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ 4,700 4,700 146 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 6,413 6,413 147 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 20,746 20,746 148 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS .............................................................................................................. 7,015 7,015 149 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING .......................................................................................................... 49,221 49,221 150 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ........................................................................................................................ 55,039 55,039 151 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ....................................................................... 1,125 1,125 152 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................... 64,169 64,169 153 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 32,319 32,319 154 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ................................................................... 49,052 49,052 155 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT ......................................................................... 2,612 2,612 156 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ............................................................................................................................ 49,592 49,592 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 1,000,430 1,000,430 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

158 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 17,112 17,112 159 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION .............................................................................................................................. 3,654 3,654 

160 0607664A BIOMETRIC ENABLING CAPABILITY (BEC) ................................................................................................... 1,332 1,332 161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 152,991 152,991 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

453
8 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE .............................................................................................................. 54,076 –25,000 29,076 

Unobligated balances ........................................................................................................................ [–25,000 ] 

163 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 22,374 22,374 164 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) .................................................. 24,371 24,371 165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................................................................ 295,177 26,000 321,177 

Stryker ECP risk mitigation ............................................................................................................... [26,000 ] 

166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 45,092 45,092 167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .............................................................. 264,887 264,887 168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 381 381 169 0203758A DIGITIZATION ............................................................................................................................................... 10,912 10,912 170 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................... 5,115 5,115 171 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 49,848 –5,000 44,848 

Contract delay for ATACMS ................................................................................................................ [–5,000 ] 

172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ........................................................................................................................................... 22,691 22,691 173 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ....................................................................... 4,364 4,364 174 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................................. 834 834 175 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV .................................................... 280 280

176 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ........................................................................... 78,758 78,758 177 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .............................................................................. 45,377 45,377 178 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 10,209 10,209 181 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 12,525 12,525 182 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 14,175 14,175 183 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 4,527 4,527 184 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ................................................................................................. 11,011 11,011 185 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................... 2,151 2,151 187 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................... 22,870 22,870 188 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 20,155 20,155 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

454
9 

189 0305219A MQ–1C GRAY EAGLE UAS ........................................................................................................................... 46,472 46,472 191 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 16,389 16,389 192 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ......................................................................................................... 1,974 1,974 193 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2—INITIAL NETWORKING ............................................................................................. 3,249 3,249 194 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 76,225 76,225 

194A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 4,802 4,802 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 1,346,360 –4,000 1,342,360 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .............................................................. 6,593,898 –13,896 6,580,002 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 113,908 5,000 118,908 

DURIP program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH .................................................................................... 18,734 18,734 003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 443,697 443,697 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 576,339 5,000 581,339 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 95,753 95,753 

005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 139,496 139,496 006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 45,831 45,831 007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 43,541 43,541 008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 46,923 46,923 009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 107,872 107,872 010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 45,388 20,000 65,388 

Service Life extension for the AGOR ships ....................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 5,887 5,887 012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................. 86,880 86,880 013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 170,786 170,786 014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................ 32,526 32,526 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 820,883 20,000 840,883 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

455
10 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 37,734 37,734 

016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 25,831 25,831 017 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 64,623 64,623 018 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ........................................................................... 128,397 128,397 019 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 11,506 11,506 020 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 256,144 256,144 021 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 4,838 4,838 022 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 9,985 9,985 023 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ....................................................................... 53,956 53,956 024 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................ 2,000 2,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 595,014 595,014 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

025 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 40,429 40,429 026 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 4,325 4,325 

027 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ........................................................................................... 2,991 2,991 028 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 12,651 12,651 029 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7,782 7,782 030 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE ..................................................................................................... 5,275 5,275 031 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 1,646 1,646 032 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 100,349 100,349 033 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ............................................................................................................. 52,781 52,781 034 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 5,959 5,959 035 0603525N PILOT FISH ................................................................................................................................................... 148,865 148,865 036 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .......................................................................................................................................... 25,365 25,365 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

456
11 

037 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ....................................................................................................................................... 80,477 80,477 038 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ............................................................................................................................. 669 669 039 0603553N SURFACE ASW ............................................................................................................................................. 1,060 1,060 040 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 70,551 70,551 041 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 8,044 8,044 042 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 17,864 17,864 043 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES .................................................................................. 23,716 23,716 044 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 499,961 499,961 045 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 21,026 21,026 046 0603576N CHALK EAGLE .............................................................................................................................................. 542,700 542,700 047 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) .................................................................................................................... 88,734 88,734 048 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .................................................................................................................. 20,881 20,881 049 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 849,277 849,277 050 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES .............................................................................................................................. 196,948 196,948 051 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST (ATRT) ..................................................................................................... 8,115 8,115 052 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 7,603 7,603 053 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 105,749 85,100 190,849 

Acceleration of the ACV Increment 1.1 Program .............................................................................. [85,100 ] 

054 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................ 1,342 1,342 055 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 21,399 21,399 056 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 43,578 43,578 057 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 7,764 7,764 058 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .................................................................................................................... 13,200 13,200 059 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 69,415 69,415 060 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 2,588 2,588 061 0603734N CHALK CORAL .............................................................................................................................................. 176,301 176,301 062 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY .................................................................................................................... 3,873 3,873 063 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .......................................................................................................................................... 376,028 376,028 064 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 272,096 272,096 065 0603751N RETRACT ELM .............................................................................................................................................. 42,233 42,233 066 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ........................................................................................................................................ 46,504 46,504 067 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ................................................................................................................................... 25,109 25,109 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

457
12 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

068 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 9,659 9,659 069 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 318 318 070 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ....................................................................................................... 40,912 40,912 071 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ............................................................ 54,896 –27,000 27,896 

Program delay .................................................................................................................................... [–27,000 ] 

073 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 58,696 58,696 074 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) .................................................... 43,613 43,613 075 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) ...................................................................................................... 21,110 21,110 076 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ................................................... 5,657 5,657 077 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ........................................................................................................ 8,033 8,033 078 0604454N LX (R) .......................................................................................................................................................... 36,859 36,859 079 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) .............................................. 15,227 15,227 081 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ................................. 22,393 22,393 082 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 202,939 202,939 083 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH ............. 11,450 11,450 084 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP .......................................................................................................... 6,495 6,495 085 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................. 332 332 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 4,591,812 58,100 4,649,912 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

086 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ...................................................................................................................... 25,153 25,153 087 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 46,154 46,154 088 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ...................................................................................................................... 25,372 25,372 089 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................... 53,712 53,712 090 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 11,434 11,434 

091 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................ 2,164 2,164 092 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 1,710 1,710 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

458
13 

093 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 9,094 9,094 094 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 70,248 70,248 095 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE .................................................................................................................................. 193,200 193,200 096 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ........................................................................................................................................... 44,115 44,115 097 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 23,227 23,227 098 0604262N V–22A .......................................................................................................................................................... 61,249 61,249 099 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................... 15,014 15,014 100 0604269N EA–18 .......................................................................................................................................................... 18,730 18,730 101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 28,742 28,742 102 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 388,086 388,086 103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) .............................................................................................................. 246,856 246,856 104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ................................................................................ 7,106 7,106 105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ............................................................................. 189,112 189,112 106 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ...................................................................................................... 376 376 107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ................................................................................................................... 71,849 71,849 108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 53,198 53,198 109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM .......................................................................................................................................... 38,941 38,941 110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION ........................ 7,832 7,832 111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ........................................... 15,263 15,263 112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM .................. 403,017 –203,000 200,017 

Program delay .................................................................................................................................... [–203,000 ] 

113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 20,409 20,409 114 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 71,565 71,565 115 0604504N AIR CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................. 29,037 29,037 116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 122,083 122,083 118 0604522N ADVANCED MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ............................................................................. 144,706 144,706 119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ........................................................................................................................................ 72,695 72,695 120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 38,985 38,985 121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ................................................................................................... 48,470 48,470 122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 3,935 3,935 123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE (VPM) ............................................................................................................. 132,602 132,602 124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 19,067 19,067 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

459
14 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 25,280 25,280 126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 8,985 8,985 127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS .................................................................... 7,669 7,669 128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) ............................................................................................... 56,889 56,889 130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) ................................................................................................ 96,937 96,937 131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ........................................................................................... 134,564 134,564 132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ....................................................................................................................... 200 200 133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................. 8,287 8,287 134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................... 29,504 29,504 135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ........................................................................................................... 513,021 513,021 136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ............................................................................................................ 516,456 516,456 137 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 2,887 2,887 138 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 66,317 66,317 139 0605212N CH–53K RDTE ............................................................................................................................................. 573,187 573,187 140 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ............................................................................................................ 67,815 67,815 141 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ...................................................................................................... 6,300 6,300 142 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) .............................................................................................. 308,037 15,000 323,037 

Wideband Communication Development ........................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

143 0204202N DDG–1000 ................................................................................................................................................... 202,522 202,522 144 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ........................................................................................................... 1,011 1,011 145 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................. 10,357 10,357 146 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 23,975 23,975 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 5,419,108 –188,000 5,231,108 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

147 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 45,272 45,272 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

460
15 

148 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 79,718 79,718 149 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 123,993 123,993 150 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ...................................................................... 4,960 4,960 151 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ................................................................................................. 8,296 8,296 152 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ................................................................................................................... 45,752 45,752 154 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 876 876 155 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ............................................................................ 72,070 72,070 156 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 3,237 3,237 157 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 73,033 73,033 158 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 138,304 138,304 159 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 336,286 336,286 160 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY ..................................................................................... 16,658 16,658 161 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ....................................................................... 2,505 2,505 162 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 8,325 8,325 163 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 17,866 17,866 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 977,151 977,151 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

168 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT ..... 35,949 35,949 

169 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 215 215 170 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY (COD) FOLLOW ON ..................................................................................... 8,873 8,873 172 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 96,943 96,943 173 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 30,057 30,057 174 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 4,509 4,509 175 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 13,676 13,676 176 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION (RTT) ...................................................................................................... 12,480 12,480 177 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS .................................................................................................................................... 76,216 76,216 179 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) .................................................................................................. 27,281 27,281 180 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 2,878 2,878 181 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ............................................................ 32,385 32,385 182 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 39,371 39,371 183 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) ............................................................. 4,609 4,609 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

461
16 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

184 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ......................................................................................... 99,106 –10,000 89,106 

Unjustified cost growth ..................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

185 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 39,922 39,922 186 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 1,157 1,157 187 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ................................................................................... 22,067 22,067 188 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 17,420 17,420 189 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ................................................................................................................................. 151,208 151,208 190 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .......................................................................................... 26,366 26,366 191 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP ............................................................................................................................................. 25,952 25,952 192 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 106,936 106,936 194 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 104,023 104,023 195 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 77,398 77,398 196 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ............................................................... 32,495 32,495 197 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .............................................................. 156,626 156,626 198 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 20,999 20,999 199 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ................................................................... 14,179 14,179 200 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES .............................................................................................................................. 47,258 47,258 201 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) ..................................................................... 10,210 10,210 206 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ....................................................................................................... 41,829 41,829 207 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) ......................................................... 22,780 22,780 208 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 23,053 23,053 209 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................... 296 296 212 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) .............................................................. 359 359 213 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 6,166 6,166 214 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................... 8,505 8,505 216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 11,613 11,613 217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 18,146 18,146 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

462
17 

218 0305220N RQ–4 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 498,003 32,400 530,403 

Triton Sensor Development Acceleration ........................................................................................... [32,400 ] 

219 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 47,294 47,294 220 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................................................. 718 718 221 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 851 851 222 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ............................................................................................... 4,813 4,813 223 0305239M RQ–21A ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,192 8,192 224 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 22,559 22,559 225 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) ............................................................................... 2,000 2,000 226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 4,719 4,719 227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ................................................................................................................... 21,168 21,168 228 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ....................................................................................................................... 37,169 37,169 229 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .......................................................................................................... 4,347 4,347 

229A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 1,162,684 1,162,684 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 3,286,028 22,400 3,308,428 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .............................................................. 16,266,335 –82,500 16,183,835 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 314,482 314,482 002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 127,079 127,079 003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................ 12,929 12,929 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 454,490 454,490 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602102F MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 105,680 105,680 005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................................... 105,747 105,747 006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................................. 81,957 81,957 

007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ............................................................................................................................ 172,550 197,000 369,550 

RD–180 replacement ......................................................................................................................... [220,000 ] 

Reduction for liquid engine combustion technologies and advanced liquid engine technologies .. [–23,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

463
18 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................................................. 118,343 118,343 009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 98,229 98,229 010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 87,387 87,387 011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 125,955 125,955 012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS .................................................................................. 147,789 147,789 013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 37,496 37,496 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 1,081,133 197,000 1,278,133 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 32,177 10,000 42,177 

Metals Affordability Initiative ............................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) ...................................................................................... 15,800 15,800 016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS .............................................................................................................. 34,420 34,420 017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ........................................................................................................ 91,062 91,062 018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 124,236 124,236 019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 47,602 47,602 020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 69,026 69,026 021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ............................................................................................ 14,031 14,031 022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 21,788 21,788 023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 42,046 42,046 024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 23,542 10,000 33,542 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 42,772 42,772 026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................ 35,315 35,315 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 593,817 20,000 613,817 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

464
19 

027 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 5,408 5,408 031 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 6,075 6,075 032 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 10,980 10,980 033 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 2,392 2,392 034 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D ................................................................................................ 833 833 035 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 32,313 32,313 037 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ................................................................................... 30,885 30,885 039 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ........................................................................................................... 1,798 1,798 040 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ................................................................................................................................... 913,728 913,728 042 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ............................................................................................................................. 2,669 2,669 045 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ................................................................................................................... 39,901 –34,900 5,001 

Realigned to DMSP–20 launch .......................................................................................................... [–34,900 ] 

049 0604800F F–35—EMD ................................................................................................................................................ 4,976 4,976 050 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .......................................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 

ORS Office and ORS–5 Competition Launch .................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

051 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 59,004 59,004 054 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ........................................................................................................... 15,722 15,722 055 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) ............................................................................... 88,825 88,825 056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) ...................................................... 156,659 156,659 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES .................................................... 1,372,168 –4,900 1,367,268 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

059 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING ...................................................................................... 13,324 13,324 060 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 1,965 1,965 061 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE .................................................................................................... 39,110 39,110 062 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................ 3,926 3,926 

063 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ....................................................................................................... 68,759 68,759 064 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................... 23,746 23,746 065 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 9,462 10,000 19,462 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

066 0604426F SPACE FENCE .............................................................................................................................................. 214,131 214,131 067 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ................................................................................................................. 30,687 30,687 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

465
20 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

068 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD ............................................................................... 319,501 319,501 069 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 31,112 31,112 070 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,543 2,543 071 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................ 46,340 46,340 072 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................. 8,854 8,854 073 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ........................................................................................................................ 10,129 10,129 075 0604800F F–35—EMD ................................................................................................................................................ 563,037 563,037 078 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ............................................................................................................... 4,938 4,938 079 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ....................................................................................................................... 59,826 59,826 080 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ................................................................................................. 78 78 081 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ................................................................................................... 173,647 173,647 082 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 5,332 5,332 083 0605221F KC–46 ......................................................................................................................................................... 776,937 776,937 084 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ........................................................................................................................ 8,201 8,201 086 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ......................................................................................................................... 7,497 7,497 087 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) ......................................................................................................... 314,378 314,378 088 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ....................................................................................................................... 103,552 103,552 089 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ........................................................................................................ 31,425 31,425 090 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 RDT&E .................................................................................................... 85,938 85,938 091 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 98,768 98,768 092 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................... 198,357 198,357 094 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ............................................................................................................... 8,831 8,831 095 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS ......................................................................................................................................... 73,088 73,088 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................ 3,337,419 10,000 3,347,419 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

097 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 24,418 24,418 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

466
21 

098 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ............................................................................................................................ 47,232 47,232 099 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE ......................................................................................................................... 30,443 30,443 101 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 12,266 12,266 102 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................................ 689,509 689,509 103 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 34,364 34,364 104 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) ...................................................................................................................... 21,161 21,161 105 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................ 46,955 46,955 106 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ................................................................... 32,965 32,965 107 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ............................................................................................. 13,850 13,850 108 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 19,512 19,512 110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ...................................................................... 181,727 181,727 111 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) .................................................................................................. 4,938 4,938 112 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 18,644 18,644 113 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................... 1,425 1,425 114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 3,790 3,790 

114A XXXXXXXF EJECTION SEAT RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................. 3,500 3,500 

Initial Aircraft Qualification ............................................................................................................... [3,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 1,183,199 3,500 1,186,699 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ..................................................... 299,760 299,760 

116 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE ......................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

Implementation of the Secretary’s Cruise Missile Defense Program ............................................... [2,000 ] 

118 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ................................................................................................................ 2,469 2,469 119 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) ......................................................................... 90,218 90,218 120 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ....................................................................................... 34,815 34,815 122 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ...................................................................................................................................... 55,457 55,457 123 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) .................................................................................................... 450 450 124 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ...................................................................................................................................... 5,353 5,353 125 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................................ 131,580 –29,400 102,180 

Flexible Strike execution delay ........................................................................................................... [–29,400 ] 

126 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 139,109 139,109 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

467
22 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

127 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ........................................................................................ 35,603 35,603 128 0101314F NIGHT FIST—USSTRATCOM ......................................................................................................................... 32 32 130 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ............................................ 1,522 1,522 131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 3,134 3,134 133 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 170,396 170,396 136 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ....................................................................................................................................... 133,105 133,105 137 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS ..................................................................................................................................... 261,969 261,969 138 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ........................................................................................................ 14,831 14,831 139 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS ..................................................................................................................................... 156,962 156,962 140 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ....................................................................................................................................... 43,666 43,666 141 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES .............................................................................................................................. 29,739 29,739 142 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) ..................................................................... 82,195 82,195 144 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .............................................................................................................................................. 68,944 –15,500 53,444 

EPAWSS contract delays .................................................................................................................... [–15,500 ] 

145 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY .............................................................................................................. 5,095 5,095 146 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE ............................................................................................................... 883 883 147 0207247F AF TENCAP .................................................................................................................................................. 5,812 10,000 15,812 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

148 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................ 1,081 1,081 149 0207253F COMPASS CALL ........................................................................................................................................... 14,411 14,411 150 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 109,664 109,664 151 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ................................................................................. 15,897 15,897 152 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ................................................................................................. 41,066 41,066 153 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ................................................................................................. 552 552 154 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) .............................................................................. 180,804 180,804 155 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 3,754 3,754 157 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 7,891 7,891 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

468
23 

158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .......................................................................................................... 5,891 5,891 159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ........................................................................................................................ 1,782 1,782 161 0207452F DCAPES ....................................................................................................................................................... 821 821 163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................................ 23,844 23,844 164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION ............................................................................................................. 16,723 16,723 165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS .................................................................................................... 5,956 5,956 166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES .................................................................................................... 4,457 4,457 167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................... 60,679 60,679 169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 67,057 67,057 170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .................................................................................................. 13,355 13,355 171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .................................................................................................. 5,576 5,576 179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................................ 12,218 12,218 180 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ......................................................................... 28,778 28,778 181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) ............................................... 81,035 81,035 182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 70,497 70,497 183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 692 692 185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS .............................................................................................................................. 55,208 55,208 187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ................................................................................................................... 106,786 106,786 190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) .............................................................................................. 4,157 4,157 193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ..................................................................................................... 20,806 20,806 194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................... 25,102 25,102 195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ...................................................... 23,516 23,516 196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS ......................................................................................................................................... 8,639 8,639 199 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 498 498 200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 13,222 13,222 201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 360 360 206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER ................................................................................ 3,674 3,674 207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 2,480 2,480 208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ................................................................................................... 8,592 8,592 209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ........................................................................................................... 13,462 13,462 210 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ............................................................................................................................................... 5,511 5,511 212 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 28,113 10,000 38,113 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

469
24 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Per Air Force UFR ............................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

213 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 13,516 13,516 214 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 27,265 27,265 215 0305219F MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV ............................................................................................................................. 1,378 1,378 216 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 244,514 244,514 217 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ....................................................................................... 11,096 11,096 218 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL) ......................................................................................................................... 36,137 36,137 219 0305238F NATO AGS .................................................................................................................................................... 232,851 232,851 220 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ................................................................................................................. 20,218 20,218 221 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 212,571 212,571 222 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................. 73,779 73,779 223 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ......................................................................................................................... 4,102 4,102 225 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) .......................................................................................................... 20,468 20,468 226 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 11,596 11,596 227 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 4,938 4,938 228 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ................................................................................................................. 1,212 1,212 230 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ..................................................................................................................... 38,773 38,773 231 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) .................................................................................................................................... 83,773 83,773 232 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 26,715 26,715 233 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) .................................................................................. 5,172 5,172 234 0401219F KC–10S ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,714 2,714 235 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ................................................................................................................. 27,784 27,784 236 0401318F CV–22 ......................................................................................................................................................... 38,719 38,719 237 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT (PAR) .......................................................................................... 11,006 11,006 238 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 8,405 8,405 239 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ................................................................................................................... 1,407 1,407 241 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) ......................................................................................... 109,685 109,685 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

470
25 

242 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 16,209 16,209 243 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................. 987 987 244 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 126 126 245 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ...................................................................................................... 2,603 2,603 246 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 1,589 1,589 247 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................................... 5,026 5,026 248 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY ............................................................................................. 1,394 1,394 249 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION—ADMINISTRATIVE .................................................................................................. 3,798 3,798 250 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 107,314 107,314 

250A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 11,441,120 –77,200 11,363,920 

Classified program increase .............................................................................................................. [25,000 ] Classified program reduction ............................................................................................................ [–102,200 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 15,717,666 –100,100 15,617,566 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ................................................................... 23,739,892 125,500 23,865,392 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37,778 37,778 002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................................................................. 312,146 312,146 003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ..................................................................................................................... 44,564 –10,000 34,564 

National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship program ......................................... [–10,000 ] 

004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE .................................................................................. 49,848 49,848 005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 45,488 10,000 55,488 

Pre-Kindergarten to 12th Grade STEM Programs ............................................................................. [10,000 ] 

006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .......................................... 24,412 10,000 34,412 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities ..................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 48,261 48,261 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 562,497 10,000 572,497 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 20,065 20,065 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

471
26 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 112,242 112,242 011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 51,875 51,875 012 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ............................................................ 41,965 41,965 013 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 334,407 334,407 015 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ................................................................................................................. 44,825 44,825 016 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 226,317 226,317 018 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 020 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 305,484 305,484 021 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 160,389 160,389 022 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 179,203 179,203 023 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 151,737 151,737 024 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................. 9,156 9,156 025 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 39,750 39,750 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 1,692,415 1,692,415 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

026 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 26,688 26,688 

027 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 8,682 8,682 028 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 69,675 20,000 89,675 

Program emphasis for CT and Irregular Warfare Programs ............................................................. [20,000 ] 

029 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ................................................................................................................ 30,000 –6,000 24,000 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–6,000 ] 

030 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ................................. 283,694 283,694 032 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 8,470 8,470 033 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 45,110 45,110 034 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 14,068 13,348 27,416 

MDA DE Ballistic Missile Kill Capability Development ..................................................................... [13,348 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

472
27 

035 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR ........................................................................................................................................ 15,329 15,329 036 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................ 16,584 16,584 037 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 19,335 19,335 038 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ................................... 2,544 2,544 039 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 51,033 51,033 040 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 129,723 129,723 041 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 179,883 179,883 042 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 12,000 12,000 043 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS .................................................................................... 60,000 –10,000 50,000 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

044 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 25,639 25,639 045 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 132,674 132,674 

046 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 10,965 10,965 047 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ................................................................................... 131,960 –10,000 121,960 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

052 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................ 91,095 91,095 053 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 33,706 33,706 054 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ....................................................................... 16,836 16,836 055 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 29,683 29,683 056 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................... 57,796 57,796 057 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ............................................................ 72,144 72,144 058 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 7,405 7,405 059 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................................. 92,246 92,246 060 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 243,265 243,265 062 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 386,926 386,926 063 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 312,821 312,821 064 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 10,692 10,692 065 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ........................................................................................................... 15,776 15,776 066 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ......................................................................................................... 69,319 –5,000 64,319 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

068 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE .......................................................................... 3,000 3,000 071 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 81,148 81,148 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

473
28 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

072 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................... 31,800 31,800 073 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................................... 46,066 46,066 074 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 57,622 57,622 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 2,933,402 2,348 2,935,750 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

077 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P ..................................... 41,072 41,072 

079 0603600D8Z WALKOFF ...................................................................................................................................................... 90,558 90,558 080 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS APPLICATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 15,518 15,518 081 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ........................................................... 51,462 51,462 082 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ..................................................................... 299,598 299,598 083 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ................................................................. 1,003,768 40,000 1,043,768 

BMD program increase ...................................................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

084 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL .................................................................... 179,236 179,236 085 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ...................................................................................................... 392,893 392,893 086 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 410,863 410,863 087 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ........................................................................................................................ 310,261 310,261 088 0603892C AEGIS BMD .................................................................................................................................................. 929,208 929,208 089 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 31,346 31,346 090 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 6,389 6,389 091 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI ...... 443,484 443,484 092 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ...................................................................... 46,387 46,387 093 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ........................................................... 58,530 58,530 094 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ................................................................................................................................... 16,199 16,199 095 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .............................................................................................................. 64,409 64,409 096 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 96,803 172,000 268,803 

Program increase for Israeli Cooperative Programs ......................................................................... [172,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

474
29 

097 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST ............................................................................................................. 386,482 386,482 098 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ....................................................................................................... 485,294 485,294 099 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ........................................................................................................................... 10,194 10,194 100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ................................................................................................................................... 10,139 10,139 101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,907 2,907 102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 190,000 –20,000 170,000 

Program decrease .............................................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT .......... 3,702 3,702 104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE ......................................................................................................................... 53,000 53,000 107 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ..................................................................................................................... 7,002 7,002 108 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM ......................................................................... 7,102 7,102 109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ...................................................................................................................... 123,444 123,444 110 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 263,695 263,695 113 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ........................................................................ 12,500 12,500 114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM .......................................................................... 2,656 2,656 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 961 961 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ................................................ 6,047,062 192,000 6,239,062 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .......................................... 7,936 7,936 

117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 70,762 70,762 118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ........................................................................... 345,883 345,883 119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO) .................................................................... 25,459 25,459 120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) .................................................................. 17,562 17,562 121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES ......................................................................... 6,887 6,887 122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 12,530 12,530 123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................ 286 286 124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 3,244 3,244 125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ........................................................... 15,326 15,326 127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................... 19,351 19,351 128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM ......................................................................... 41,465 41,465 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

475
30 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) ......................................................................... 10,135 10,135 130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ....................................................................... 9,546 9,546 131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 14,241 14,241 132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) ............................................................... 3,660 3,660 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION .................................................................... 610,773 610,773 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) .................................................................................... 5,616 5,616 134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 3,092 3,092 

135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) ..................................................... 254,503 254,503 136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS .............................................................................................................. 21,661 21,661 138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .......................................................................... 27,162 27,162 139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 24,501 24,501 142 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ................................................. 43,176 43,176 145 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING .............................................................................................................................. 44,246 44,246 146 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ................................................................................................... 2,665 2,665 147 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ................................................................................................... 4,366 4,366 148 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ........................................................................ 27,901 27,901 149 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) ............................................................................................. 2,855 2,855 150 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 105,944 105,944 156 0605502KA SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 400 400 

159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ............... 1,634 1,634 160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 12,105 12,105 161 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) .................................................................................. 50,389 50,389 162 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION ......................................................... 8,452 8,452 163 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 15,187 4,000 19,187 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................... [4,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

476
31 

164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ............................................................................................................................ 71,362 71,362 165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4,100 4,100 166 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) .................................................................................. 1,956 1,956 167 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................................ 10,321 10,321 170 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES ...................................................................... 11,552 11,552 172 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................................................. 6,748 6,748 174 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2) ............................................ 44,005 44,005 175 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ............................................................................................................................ 36,998 36,998 176 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS ........................................................................................................... 612 612 

177A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 44,367 44,367 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 887,876 4,000 891,876 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ....................................................................................................... 3,988 3,988 179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA .......... 1,750 1,750 180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) .................................. 286 286 181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................... 14,778 14,778 182 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 2,953 2,953 183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) ............. 10,350 10,350 184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) ..................................... 28,496 28,496 185 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY .............................................................................................. 11,968 11,968 

186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) .......................................................................................... 1,842 1,842 187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 63,558 63,558 189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ....................................................................................... 3,931 3,931 193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 924 924 194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION .......................................................... 9,657 9,657 195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ........................................................................................................ 25,355 25,355 196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) ............................................... 12,671 12,671 197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) .......................................................................................................... 222 222 198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) ............................................................................................... 32,698 32,698 199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 11,304 11,304 200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 125,854 20,000 145,854 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

477
32 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Accelerate SHARKSEER deployment ................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

202 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 33,793 33,793 203 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................................... 13,423 13,423 204 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ............................................................................................ 3,774 3,774 205 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) ..................................................................... 951 951 206 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 2,697 2,697 208 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES ............................................................................................ 19,294 19,294 212 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 3,234 3,234 213 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) ......................................................................................... 8,846 8,846 217 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................. 7,065 7,065 218 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY .......................................................................................................................................... 23,984 23,984 221 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 5,286 5,286 224 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 3,400 3,400 229 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .......................................................................................................................................... 8,670 8,670 230 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM ......................................................................... 2,110 2,110 239 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ....................................................................................................................... 22,366 22,366 240 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 1,574 1,574 241 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ............................................................................................................................ 4,409 4,409 242 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ................................................................................................................................................... 9,702 9,702 243 1105232BB RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................................................. 259 259 245 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 164,233 164,233 247 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 9,490 9,490 248 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 75,253 75,253 252 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 24,661 24,661 253 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 20,908 20,908 259 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................................................. 3,672 3,672 262 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 57,905 57,905 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

478
33 

264 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 3,788 3,788 265 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ........................................................................................... 16,225 16,225 

265A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 3,118,502 –5,000 3,113,502 

Classified adjustment ........................................................................................................................ [–5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 4,032,059 15,000 4,047,059 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ................................................................. 16,766,084 223,348 16,989,432 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 74,583 74,583 

002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 45,142 45,142 003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES ......................................................................................... 48,013 5,000 53,013 

Information Assurance Testing and Exercises .................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 167,738 5,000 172,738 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE .............................................................................. 167,738 5,000 172,738 

TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................. 63,533,947 257,452 63,791,399 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4201.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:56 p.m.)

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

479
2 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 969,281 100,000 1,069,281 

Restore Critical Operations Tempo .......................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 61,990 61,990 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 450,987 –500 450,487 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 545,773 –2,000 543,773 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 1,057,453 –11,000 1,046,453 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,409,347 138,600 1,547,947 

Restore Critical Aviation Readiness ........................................................................................................................ [100,000 ] 

UH–60A to UH–60L Conversions/ARNG Modernization ........................................................................................... [38,600 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 3,592,334 –25,000 3,567,334 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–19,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–5,500 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 411,388 411,388 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 1,001,232 99,500 1,100,732 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

480
3 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [100,000 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 7,428,972 –82,000 7,346,972 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–27,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–55,000 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 2,066,434 –90,000 1,976,434 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–7,000 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–58,000 ] Transfer to Arlington National Cemetery ................................................................................................................. [–25,000 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .......................................................................................................... 411,863 –500 411,363 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 179,399 –500 178,899 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 432,281 –2,500 429,781 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 20,018,734 124,100 20,142,834 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 316,776 –1,000 315,776 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ........................................................................................................................................ 187,609 –1,500 186,109 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................................................. 6,463 80,000 86,463 

Industrial Base Intiative-Body Armor ...................................................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 510,848 77,500 588,348 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 124,766 –1,000 123,766 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

220 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 51,968 –500 51,468 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

481
4 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................ 43,735 43,735 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ................................................................................................................. 456,563 –500 456,063 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 886,529 –10,500 876,029 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–8,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

260 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 890,070 890,070 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 193,291 –3,000 190,291 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

280 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 552,359 –1,000 551,359 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 466,927 –5,500 461,427 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–5,500 ] 

300 EXAMINING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 194,588 194,588 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 205,782 –8,000 197,782 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–8,000 ] 

320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 150,571 –1,500 149,071 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS ................................................................................................................... 169,784 –7,000 162,784 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–7,000 ] SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 4,386,933 –38,500 4,348,433 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 541,877 541,877 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 722,291 722,291 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

482
5 

370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 602,034 2,000 604,034 

Corrosion Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 422,277 –2,500 419,777 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

390 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 405,442 –500 404,942 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,624,742 –2,000 1,622,742 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 289,771 –500 289,271 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 390,924 –5,500 385,424 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–5,500 ] 

430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................ 1,118,540 –1,500 1,117,040 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 241,234 –1,500 239,734 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 243,509 –1,000 242,509 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ............................................................................................................ 200,615 –1,500 199,115 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ...................................................................................................................... 462,591 –500 462,091 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 27,375 27,375 

520A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,030,411 –1,000 1,029,411 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 8,323,633 –16,000 8,307,633 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

483
6 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

530 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –516,200 –516,200 

Civilian personnel underexecution ........................................................................................................................... [–80,000 ] Foreign Currency adjustments ................................................................................................................................. [–48,900 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–387,300 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –516,200 –516,200 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................................................................................... 33,240,148 –369,100 32,871,048 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 15,200 15,200 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 502,664 29,500 532,164 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] Restore Critical Operations Tempo .......................................................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 107,489 107,489 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 543,989 543,989 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 72,963 72,963 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 360,082 –2,000 358,082 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 72,491 72,491 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 58,873 35,000 93,873 

Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [35,000 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 388,961 –2,500 386,461 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 228,597 –9,500 219,097 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

484
7 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–9,000 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .......................................................................................................... 39,590 39,590 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 2,390,899 50,500 2,441,399 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 10,608 10,608 140 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 18,587 18,587 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 6,681 6,681 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 9,192 9,192 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 54,602 –500 54,102 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 99,670 –500 99,170 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

180 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –38,700 –38,700 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–38,700 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –38,700 –38,700 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................................................................................... 2,490,569 11,300 2,501,869 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 660,648 249,100 909,748 

National Guard combat training center rotations activities .................................................................................. [70,000 ] National Guard critical operations tempo activities ............................................................................................... [99,600 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] Restore Critical Operations Tempo .......................................................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 165,942 165,942 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 733,800 733,800 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 83,084 83,084 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 22,005 22,005 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

485
8 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 920,085 920,085 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 680,887 –7,000 673,887 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 69,726 69,726 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 138,263 47,600 185,863 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,500 ] Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [49,600 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 804,517 –12,500 792,017 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 490,205 –18,500 471,705 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–18,500 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS .......................................................................................................... 872,140 –1,000 871,140 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 5,641,302 257,700 5,899,002 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 6,690 6,690 140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,765 1,765 150 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 63,075 2,000 65,075 

National Guard State Partnership Program ............................................................................................................ [2,000 ] 

160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 37,372 37,372 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 6,484 6,484 180 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 274,085 –4,500 269,585 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–4,500 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

486
9 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 389,471 –2,500 386,971 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

190 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –72,400 –72,400 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–72,400 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –72,400 –72,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................................................................................... 6,030,773 182,800 6,213,573 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4,947,202 55,000 5,002,202 

FHP Unit Level Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... [56,000 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,647,943 11,500 1,659,443 

FHP Unit Level Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... [12,000 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................... 37,050 37,050 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 96,139 –500 95,639 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 363,763 –1,000 362,763 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 814,770 121,100 935,870 

Aviation Depot Maintenance .................................................................................................................................... [111,000 ] 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [10,100 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 36,494 36,494 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 350,641 122,500 473,141 

Aviation Logistics ................................................................................................................................................ [123,000 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3,865,379 94,500 3,959,879 

Joint High Speed Vessel Operations ................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

CLF steaming days .................................................................................................................................................. [13,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

487
10 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Corrosion Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–5,500 ] T-AKEs to Full Operational Status .......................................................................................................................... [72,000 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 711,243 –1,500 709,743 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 5,296,408 31,200 5,327,608 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [33,700 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 1,339,077 –3,200 1,335,877 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [300 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–3,500 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 708,634 –2,000 706,634 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 91,599 –500 91,099 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................................. 207,038 –500 206,538 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

160 WARFARE TACTICS ............................................................................................................................................................ 432,715 –1,000 431,715 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 338,116 –500 337,616 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 892,316 –1,000 891,316 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 128,486 128,486 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 2,472 2,472 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

488
11 

210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 101,200 –500 100,700 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 188,920 –2,500 186,420 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

230 CRUISE MISSILE ................................................................................................................................................................ 109,911 109,911 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ................................................................................................................................................. 1,172,823 1,172,823 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 104,139 104,139 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 490,911 –500 490,411 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 324,861 –1,000 323,861 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

290 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................... 936,743 –2,500 934,243 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

300 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 1,483,495 –60,500 1,422,995 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–60,500 ] 

310 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 4,398,667 –34,500 4,364,167 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–34,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 31,619,155 322,100 31,941,255 

MOBILIZATION 

320 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE .................................................................................................................................. 526,926 526,926 330 READY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................................... 195 195 

340 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 6,704 6,704 350 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 251,538 –46,000 205,538 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [–46,000 ] 

360 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 124,323 124,323 370 INDUSTRIAL READINESS .................................................................................................................................................... 2,323 2,323 380 COAST GUARD SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 20,333 20,333 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 932,342 –46,000 886,342 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

390 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 156,214 –500 155,714 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

489
12 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

400 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 8,863 100 8,963 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [100 ] 

410 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS .............................................................................................................................. 148,150 148,150 420 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 601,501 2,700 604,201 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [7,200 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–4,500 ] 

430 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 8,239 8,239 440 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 164,214 1,148 165,362 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [1,000 ] 

Naval Sea Cadets .................................................................................................................................................... [1,148 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

450 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 182,619 400 183,019 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [900 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

460 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 230,589 –500 230,089 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

470 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 115,595 –1,500 114,095 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

480 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 79,606 –500 79,106 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

490 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 41,664 –2,000 39,664 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 1,737,254 –652 1,736,602 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

500 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 858,871 –6,000 852,871 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

490
13 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–6,000 ] 

510 EXTERNAL RELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 12,807 12,807 520 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 119,863 119,863 530 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 356,113 –3,100 353,013 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [900 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–4,000 ] 

540 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 255,605 –500 255,105 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

550 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 339,802 –2,000 337,802 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 172,203 172,203 590 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 283,621 –1,000 282,621 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1,111,464 –1,000 1,110,464 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

610 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 43,232 43,232 620 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................ 25,689 25,689 630 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 73,159 –500 72,659 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 548,640 –500 548,140 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

700 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES ............................................................................................................. 4,713 4,713 

720A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 531,324 –1,000 530,324 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 4,737,106 –15,600 4,721,506 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

730 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –402,900 –402,900 

Civilian personnel underexecution ........................................................................................................................... [–80,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

491
14 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Foreign Currency adjustments ................................................................................................................................. [–74,200 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–248,700 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –402,900 –402,900 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................................................................................ 39,025,857 –143,052 38,882,805 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 905,744 38,300 944,044 

Corrosion Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Crisis Response Operations Unfunded Requirement .............................................................................................. [33,800 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 921,543 –1,000 920,543 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 229,058 51,000 280,058 

Restore Critical Depot Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ [51,000 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING .............................................................................................................................................. 87,660 87,660 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................ 573,926 –17,000 556,926 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–16,000 ] 

060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 1,983,118 –5,500 1,977,618 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–4,000 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 4,701,049 65,800 4,766,849 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

492
15 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 18,227 18,227 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 948 948 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 98,448 98,448 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 42,305 42,305 110 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 330,156 –2,000 328,156 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 161,752 161,752 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 19,137 –500 18,637 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

140 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 23,277 23,277 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 694,250 –2,500 691,750 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 36,359 36,359 160 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 362,608 –10,100 352,508 

Marine Museum Unjustified Growth ........................................................................................................................ [–9,100 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 70,515 70,515 

180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 44,706 44,706 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 514,188 –10,100 504,088 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

190 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –109,900 –109,900 

Foreign Currency adjustments ................................................................................................................................. [–28,400 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–81,500 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –109,900 –109,900 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ....................................................................................... 5,909,487 –56,700 5,852,787 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

493
16 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 565,842 7,900 573,742 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [7,900 ] 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 5,948 5,948 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 82,636 2,300 84,936 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ................................................................................................. [2,300 ] 

050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 353 353 060 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 7,007 7,007 070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 8,190 8,190 080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 556 556 090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 4,571 4,571 100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 14,472 14,472 110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 119,056 119,056 120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 1,852 1,852 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................... 25,354 25,354 140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 48,271 –2,000 46,271 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 101,921 –500 101,421 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 986,029 7,700 993,729 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,520 1,520 170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 12,998 12,998 

180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 3,395 3,395 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3,158 3,158 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 21,071 21,071 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

494
17 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

210 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –10,500 –10,500 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–10,500 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –10,500 –10,500 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................................................................................ 1,007,100 –2,800 1,004,300 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 93,093 93,093 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 18,377 18,377 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 29,232 –1,500 27,732 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 106,447 –1,000 105,447 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 247,149 –2,500 244,649 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 914 914 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 11,831 11,831 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 8,688 8,688 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 21,433 21,433 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

080 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –100 –100 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–100 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –100 –100 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................................................................................... 268,582 –2,600 265,982 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

495
18 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 3,163,457 93,100 3,256,557 

Corrosion Prevention ................................................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Cyber Weapon System Ops ...................................................................................................................................... [50,000 ] Cyberspace Defense Weapon System and Cyber Mission Forces ........................................................................... [30,000 ] Nuclear Force Improvement Program—Security Forces .......................................................................................... [8,600 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 1,694,339 –8,000 1,686,339 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–8,000 ] 

030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ........................................................................................................ 1,579,178 –4,500 1,574,678 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,500 ] 

040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,119,522 –8,000 6,111,522 

RC/OC–135 Contractor Logistics Support Unjustified Growth ................................................................................ [–8,000 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 1,453,589 –5,600 1,447,989 

Nuclear Force Improvement Program—Installation Surety .................................................................................... [3,400 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–9,000 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,599,419 –12,000 2,587,419 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ................................................................................................................................... 908,790 11,071 919,861 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [14,571 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 856,306 6,600 862,906 

Nuclear Force Improvement Program—ICBM Training Hardware .......................................................................... [9,600 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–3,000 ] 

090 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 800,689 –500 800,189 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

496
19 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

100 LAUNCH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 282,710 282,710 110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................... 397,818 –500 397,318 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 871,840 12,600 884,440 

PACOM Prepositioned Munition Shortfall Mitigation ............................................................................................... [19,100 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–6,000 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 237,348 237,348 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 20,965,005 84,271 21,049,276 

MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,968,810 –2,500 1,966,310 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,500 ] 

150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ......................................................................................................................................... 139,743 –500 139,243 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,534,560 1,534,560 170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 173,627 –2,000 171,627 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

180 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 688,801 –2,500 686,301 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,000 ] SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 4,505,541 –7,500 4,498,041 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

190 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 82,396 82,396 200 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 19,852 19,852 210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ................................................................................................................. 76,134 –3,000 73,134 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–3,000 ] 

220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 212,226 –3,500 208,726 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–3,500 ] 

230 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 759,809 –5,500 754,309 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

497
20 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–4,500 ] 

240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 356,157 356,157 250 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 697,594 –3,000 694,594 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,500 ] 

260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 219,441 –1,000 218,441 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

270 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 91,001 91,001 280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 316,688 316,688 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 73,920 73,920 300 EXAMINING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,121 3,121 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 181,718 –7,500 174,218 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–7,500 ] 

320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................................. 147,667 –500 147,167 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

330 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 63,250 –3,000 60,250 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–3,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 3,300,974 –27,000 3,273,974 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,003,513 40,500 1,044,013 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] SDT Program ............................................................................................................................................................ [41,000 ] 

350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 843,449 –2,000 841,449 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 78,126 78,126 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

498
21 

370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 247,677 –3,500 244,177 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–3,500 ] 

380 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,103,442 –7,000 1,096,442 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–5,500 ] 

390 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 597,234 –1,000 596,234 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 506,840 506,840 410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 892,256 –3,000 889,256 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

420 CIVIL AIR PATROL ............................................................................................................................................................. 24,981 24,981 450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 92,419 –500 91,919 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

450A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,169,736 –10,500 1,159,236 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–9,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 6,559,673 13,000 6,572,673 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

460 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –242,900 –242,900 

Civilian personnel underexecution ........................................................................................................................... [–80,000 ] Foreign Currency adjustments ................................................................................................................................. [–51,900 ] Readiness support ................................................................................................................................................... [221,500 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–332,500 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –242,900 –242,900 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .............................................................................................. 35,331,193 –180,129 35,151,064 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

499
22 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 1,719,467 1,719,467 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 211,132 211,132 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 530,301 530,301 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 85,672 –1,000 84,672 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 367,966 –2,500 365,466 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–2,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 2,914,538 –3,500 2,911,038 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 59,899 59,899 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 14,509 14,509 

080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) .............................................................................................................. 20,345 20,345 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ...................................................................................................................... 6,551 6,551 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 101,304 101,304 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

110 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –13,400 –13,400 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–13,400 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –13,400 –13,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................................................................................ 3,015,842 –16,900 2,998,942 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,367,729 –1,000 3,366,729 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

500
23 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 718,295 –1,000 717,295 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,528,695 1,528,695 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 137,604 –4,000 133,604 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 581,536 –12,500 569,036 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–12,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 6,333,859 –18,500 6,315,359 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 27,812 27,812 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 31,188 –500 30,688 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 59,000 –500 58,500 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

080 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –800 –800 

Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–800 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –800 –800 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................................................................................... 6,392,859 –19,800 6,373,059 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF .................................................................................................................................................... 462,107 –1,500 460,607 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES .................................................................................................... 4,762,245 –54,300 4,707,945 

MSV—USSOCOM Maritime Support Vessel ............................................................................................................. [–20,300 ] 

NCR—USSOCOM National Capitol Region Office ................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] POTFF—Human Performance .................................................................................................................................. [–23,300 ] Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–26,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

501
24 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

RSCC—Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers ........................................................................ [–3,600 ] USSOCOM Flight Operations (Flight Hours) ............................................................................................................ [31,460 ] USSOCOM Joint Special Operations University ........................................................................................................ [–2,560 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 5,224,352 –55,800 5,168,552 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

030 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY .................................................................................................................................. 135,437 135,437 040 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ....................................................................................................................................... 80,082 80,082 050 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ......................................................................................... 371,620 371,620 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................... 587,139 587,139 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................................. 119,888 21,000 140,888 

STARBASE ................................................................................................................................................................. [21,000 ] 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ................................................................................................................................ 556,493 556,493 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY ................................................................................................................... 1,340,374 –500 1,339,874 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

100 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................................... 633,300 –20,000 613,300 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

110 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ...................................................................................................................... 1,263,678 –5,000 1,258,678 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–4,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

130 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 26,710 26,710 140 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................... 381,470 –1,000 380,470 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

150 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................................. 194,520 –11,500 183,020 

Program decrease .................................................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

502
25 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

160 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE ............................................................................................................................................... 21,485 21,485 170 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY .................................................................................................................... 544,786 –21,000 523,786 

Global Security Contingency Fund ........................................................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership For Peace ....................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

180 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 527,812 –500 527,312 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

200 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................ 32,787 32,787 230 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 2,566,424 –14,500 2,551,924 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–6,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–8,500 ] 

240 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................... 416,644 –1,500 415,144 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–500 ] 

260 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................................. 186,987 –80,596 106,391 

Office of Economic Adjustment ............................................................................................................................... [–80,596 ] 

265 OFFICE OF NET ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 18,944 18,944 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Transfer from line 270 ............................................................................................................................................ [8,944 ] 

270 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ........................................................................................................................ 1,891,163 –100,744 1,790,419 

BRAC 2015 Round Planning and Analyses ............................................................................................................. [–4,800 ] 

Corrosion Prevention Program Office ...................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] DOD Rewards Program Underexecution ................................................................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–51,500 ] 

Reduction in service contracts for facilities maintenance ..................................................................................... [–36,500 ] Transfer funding for Office of Net Assessment to new line 265 ........................................................................... [–8,944 ] 

280 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 87,915 87,915 290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 610,982 –1,000 609,982 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–1,000 ] 

290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 13,983,323 4,000 13,987,323 

Classified adjustment ............................................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

503
26 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–6,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 25,386,741 –213,896 25,172,845 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

300 UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. –280,400 –280,400 

Civilian personnel underexecution ........................................................................................................................... [–75,000 ] Foreign Currency adjustments ................................................................................................................................. [–17,500 ] Impact Aid ............................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] Unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................................. [–212,900 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................... –280,400 –280,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................ 31,198,232 –550,096 30,648,136 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE .......................................................................................... 13,723 13,723 

020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ..................................................................................................... 100,000 4,500 104,500 

Humanitarian Mine Action ....................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 365,108 –10,500 354,608 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–10,500 ] 

040 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ................................................................................................................................................. 212,875 –3,500 209,375 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–3,500 ] 

050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ............................................................................................................................ 201,560 201,560 060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ............................................................................................................................. 277,294 277,294 070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE .................................................................................................................... 408,716 408,716 080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ....................................................................................................................... 8,547 8,547 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ................................................................................................. 208,353 208,353 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

504
27 

100 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND ................................................................................................ 5,000 –5,000 

Program decrease .................................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

110 SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS, DEFENSE ................................................................................. 10,000 –4,800 5,200 

Reduction in contracts for Other Services .............................................................................................................. [–500 ] 

Unjustified program increase .................................................................................................................................. [–4,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 1,811,176 –19,300 1,791,876 

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1,811,176 –19,300 1,791,876 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 165,721,818 –1,166,377 164,555,441 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4301.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

505
2 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................................................................................................................ 128,957,593 49,430 129,007,023 

Air Force airborne warning and control system personnel ................................................................................ 12,200 CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ............................................................................................. [48,000 ] Foreign Currency Adjustments ............................................................................................................................ [–193,200 ] Military Personnel unobligated balances ............................................................................................................ [–360,470 ] Recalcualtion from CPI–1 to CPI ........................................................................................................................ [534,900 ] Special training and exercises for National Guard State Partnership Program ................................................ [8,000 ] 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ........................................................................................................ 6,236,092 1,000 6,237,092 

CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ............................................................................................. [1,000 ] 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4401.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

506
2 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS ................................................................................................................................ 13,727 13,727 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................... 13,727 13,727 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL) ...................................................................................................................... 61,717 61,717 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................ 61,717 61,717 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ....................................................................................................................................... 44,293 44,293 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................... 44,293 44,293 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .............................................................................................................................................. 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731 

Working Capital Fund, DECA .............................................................................................................................. [100,000 ] 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................... 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 222,728 222,728 RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 595,913 595,913 PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10,227 10,227 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4501.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

507
3 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION .................................................................................. 828,868 828,868 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ......................................................................................... 719,096 719,096 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 101,591 101,591 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ..................................................................... 820,687 820,687 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 310,830 310,830 PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ........................................................................................... 311,830 311,830 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE IN-HOUSE CARE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8,799,086 85,300 8,884,386 

Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal ...................................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

Restoration of MHS Modernization ...................................................................................................................... [92,000 ] USSOCOM Behavioral Health and Warrior Care Management Program ............................................................. [23,300 ] 

PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,412,599 –58,000 15,354,599 

Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal ...................................................................................................... [–58,000 ] 

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 2,462,096 2,462,096 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,557,347 1,557,347 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 366,223 366,223 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................... 750,866 750,866 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1,683,694 1,683,694 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT R&D RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10,317 10,000 20,317 

Surgical Critical Care Research ......................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 49,015 49,015 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 226,410 226,410 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ......................................................................................................................................... 97,787 97,787 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4501.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

508
4 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 217,898 217,898 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................................... 38,075 38,075 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 15,092 15,092 PROCUREMENT PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,057 13,057 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................................... 283,030 283,030 PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 3,145 3,145 PROC IEHR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9,181 9,181 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................................................................... –161,857 –424,700 –586,557 

Foreign Currency adjustments ............................................................................................................................ [–13,100 ] Unobligated balances ......................................................................................................................................... [–411,600 ] 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 31,833,061 –387,400 31,445,661 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................................................................................. 35,028,914 –287,400 34,741,514 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4501.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

509
2 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

Army CALIFORNIA Concord Access Control Point .................................................. 9,900 9,900 

Army CALIFORNIA Concord General Purpose Maintenance Shop .......................... 5,300 5,300 

Army CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar .............................. 45,000 45,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 60,000 60,000 Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar .............................. 29,000 29,000 

Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Dining Facility ............................................................ 12,000 12,000 

Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Health Clinic .............................................................. 11,800 11,800 

Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay High Value Detainee Complex ................................... 0 69,000 69,000 Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility (SCIF) ....................... 96,000 –13,000 83,000 Army JAPAN Kadena AB Missile Magazine ....................................................... 10,600 10,600 Army KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Shipping and Receiving Building .............................. 0 15,000 15,000 

Army KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar .............................. 23,000 23,000 

Army NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar .............................. 27,000 27,000 Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cadet Barracks, Incr 3 .............................................. 58,000 58,000 Army PENNSYLVANIA Letterkenny Army Depot Rebuild Shop .............................................................. 16,000 16,000 Army SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks Complex 3, Ph1 ............................. 52,000 52,000 Army Texas Fort Hood Simulations Center .................................................... 0 46,000 46,000 

Army VIRGINIA Fort Lee Adv. Individual Training Barracks Complex, Phase 3 0 86,000 86,000 Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Tactical Vehicle Hardstand ........................................ 7,700 7,700 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Host Nation Support FY15 ......................................... 33,000 33,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Minor Construction FY15 ........................................... 25,000 25,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design FY15 ........................................ 18,127 18,127 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

510
3 

Total Military Construction, Army ......................................................................................................................................................... 539,427 203,000 742,427 

Navy ARIZONA Yuma Aviation Maintenance and Support Complex ............ 16,608 16,608 

Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia P–8A Hangar .............................................................. 27,826 27,826 Navy CALIFORNIA Bridgeport E-LMR Communications Towers ................................ 16,180 16,180 Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Steam Distribution System Decentralization ............. 47,110 47,110 Navy DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District Of Columbia Electronics Science and Technology Laboratory ........ 31,735 31,735 Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Entry Control Point ..................................................... 9,923 9,923 Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville MH60 Parking Apron .................................................. 8,583 8,583 Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville P–8A Runway Thresholds and Taxiways ................... 21,652 21,652 Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS Operational Training Facility .............................. 20,520 20,520 

Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas GSE Shops at North Ramp ........................................ 21,880 21,880 Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas MWSS Facilities at North Ramp ................................ 28,771 28,771 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Facility Modifications for VMU, MWSD, & CH53E ..... 51,182 51,182 Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Road and Infrastructure Improvements .................... 2,200 2,200 

Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Submarine Maneuvering Room Trainer Facility ......... 9,698 9,698 Navy JAPAN Iwakuni Security Mods DPRI MC167–T (CVW–5 E2D EA–18G) 6,415 6,415 

Navy JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maint Hangar Alterations and SAP-F ........... 19,411 19,411 

Navy JAPAN MCAS Futenma Hangar & Rinse Facility Modernizations ................... 4,639 4,639 

Navy JAPAN Okinawa LHD Practice Site Improvements ............................... 35,685 35,685 Navy MARYLAND Annapolis Center for Cyber Security Studies Building ............... 120,112 –20,000 100,112 

Navy MARYLAND Indian Head Advanced Energetics Research Lab Complex Ph 2 ... 15,346 15,346 Navy MARYLAND Patuxent River Atlantic Test Range Facility ...................................... 9,860 9,860 Navy NEVADA Fallon Air Wing Training Facility .......................................... 27,763 27,763 Navy NEVADA Fallon Facility Alteration for F–35 Training Mission ............ 3,499 3,499 Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps Air 

Station 

Water Treatment Plant Replacement ......................... 41,588 41,588 

Navy PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Ohio Replacement Power & Propulsion Facility ........ 23,985 23,985 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston Nuclear Power Operational Support Facility .............. 35,716 35,716 Navy SPAIN Rota Ship Berthing Power Upgrades .................................. 20,233 20,233 Navy VIRGINIA Dahlgren Missile Support Facility ............................................. 27,313 27,313 

Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk EOD Consolidated Ops & Logistics Facilities ............ 39,274 39,274 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

511
4 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

Navy VIRGINIA Portsmouth Submarine Maintenance Facility ............................... 9,743 9,743 Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Ammunition Supply Point Expansion ......................... 12,613 12,613 Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ........................................ 19,152 19,152 Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown FAST Company Training Facility ................................ 7,836 7,836 

Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Integrated Water Treatment Syst. DD 1, 2, & 5 ....... 16,401 16,401 Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Explosives Handling Wharf #2 (INC) ......................... 83,778 83,778 

Navy WASHINGTON Port Angeles TPS Port Angeles Forward Operating Location .......... 20,638 20,638 Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island P–8A Aircraft Apron and Supporting Facilities ......... 24,390 24,390 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations F–35C Facility Addition and Modification ................. 16,594 16,594 

Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations F–35C Operational Training Facility .......................... 22,391 22,391 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCON Design Funds .................................................. 33,366 33,366 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 7,163 7,163 

Total Military Construction, Navy .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,018,772 –20,000 998,772 

AF ALASKA Clear AFS Emergency Power Plant Fuel Storage ........................ 11,500 11,500 

AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Hangar—Sqdn #2 ......................... 11,200 11,200 AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35 Flightline Fillstands .......................................... 15,600 15,600 

AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas Guam Strike Fuel Systems Maint.Hangar Inc 2 ........ 64,000 64,000 AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—Combat Comm Infrastr Facility .................... 3,750 3,750 

AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—RED HORSE Logistics Facility ....................... 3,150 3,150 

AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC—Satellite Fire Station ..................................... 6,500 6,500 AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Mobility Bag Strg Expansion .............. 2,300 2,300 

AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Regional Mx Tng Facility .................... 16,100 16,100 

AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Alter Composite Mx Shop ............................. 4,100 4,100 

AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Alter Taxiway Foxtrot .................................... 5,500 5,500 

AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC–46A Fuselage Trainer .......................................... 6,400 6,400 

AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations Center, Increment 2 .... 166,000 166,000 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

512
5 

AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Dormitory (72 RM) ..................................................... 13,500 13,500 AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement Facility- Incr 4 .............. 180,000 180,000 

AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–22 Flight Simulator Facility ................................... 14,000 14,000 

AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Aircraft Mx Unit—4 Bay Hangar ..................... 31,000 31,000 

AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35 Weapons School Facility ................................... 8,900 8,900 

AF NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-DixLakehurst Fire Station ................................................................ 5,900 5,900 

AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot Maint Complex Spt Infrastr ............... 48,000 48,000 

AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Two-Bay Depot Mx Hangar .......................... 63,000 63,000 

AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Fire Station ................................................................ 5,800 5,800 AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation—Phase 1 .................................... 92,223 92,223 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 10,738 10,738 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ................... 22,613 22,613 

Total Military Construction, Air Force .................................................................................................................................................. 811,774 0 811,774 

Def-Wide ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Building 52120 Renovation ............................... 1,871 1,871 

Def-Wide AUSTRALIA Geraldton Combined Communications Gateway Geraldton ........ 9,600 9,600 

Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels Brussells Elementary/High School Replacement ....... 41,626 41,626 

Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters Facility ....................................... 37,918 37,918 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California SOF Comm/Elec Maintenance Facility ....................... 11,841 11,841 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit 1 Ops Facility #1 .......... 41,740 41,740 

Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Support Activity Ops Facility #2 ........................ 28,600 28,600 

Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Lemoore Replace Fuel Storage & Distribution Fac. ................. 52,500 52,500 Def-Wide COLORADO Peterson AFB Dental Clinic Replacement ........................................ 15,200 15,200 Def-Wide CONUS Various Locations East Coast Missile Site Planning and Design .......... 0 20,000 20,000 

Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location SOF Skills Training Facility ........................................ 53,073 53,073Def-Wide GEORGIA Hunter Army Airfield SOF Company Operations Facility .............................. 7,692 7,692 Def-Wide GEORGIA Robins AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System .................................... 19,900 19,900 Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Incr 4 .......................... 259,695 –70,000 189,695 Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Replace Fuel Tank ..................................................... 11,100 11,100 Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay W.T. Sampson E/M and HS Consolid./Replacement .. 65,190 65,190 Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Replace Fuel Tanks .................................................... 3,000 3,000 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

513
6 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Upgrade Fire Supression & Ventilation Sys. ............. 49,900 49,900 Def-Wide JAPAN Misawa AB Edgren High School Renovation ................................ 37,775 37,775 Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Killin Elementary Replacement/Renovation ............... 71,481 71,481 

Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Kubasaki High School Replacement/Renovation ....... 99,420 99,420 Def-Wide JAPAN Sasebo E.J. King High School Replacement/Renovation ........ 37,681 37,681 Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky SOF System Integration Maintenance Office Fac ...... 18,000 18,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 1 ............................... 54,207 54,207 Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #1/Site M Inc 3 ............ 45,521 45,521 Def-Wide MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................. 18,300 18,300 Def-Wide MICHIGAN Selfridge Angb Replace Fuel Distribution Facilities ........................... 35,100 35,100 Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Applied Instruction Facility ................................ 10,323 10,323 Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Land Acquisition Western Maneuver Area ......... 17,224 17,224 

Def-Wide NEVADA Fallon SOF Tactical Ground Mob. Vehicle Maint Fac. .......... 20,241 20,241 

Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF Squadron Operations Facility (STS) ................... 23,333 23,333 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Lejeune High School Addition/Renovation ................. 41,306 41,306 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Carolina SOF Intel/Ops Expansion ............................................ 11,442 11,442 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Operations Facility .............................. 37,074 37,074 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility .......... 8,000 8,000 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Training Command Building .............................. 48,062 48,062 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System .................................... 8,500 8,500 Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Replace Fuel Distibution Facilities ............................ 40,600 40,600 Def-Wide SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB Construct Hydrant System ......................................... 8,000 8,000 Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 6 ..................................... 131,500 70,000 201,500 Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Medical Clinic Replacement ...................................... 38,300 38,300 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Craney Island Replace & Alter Fuel Distibution Facilities ............... 36,500 36,500 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Def Distribution Depot Richmond Replace Access Control Point .................................... 5,700 5,700 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Parking Lot ................................................................. 7,239 7,239 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

514
7 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Hopsital Addition/CUP Replacement .......................... 41,200 41,200 Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base Little 

Creek—Story 

SOF Human Performance Center ............................... 11,200 11,200 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base Little 

Creek—Story 

SOF Indoor Dynamic Range ....................................... 14,888 14,888 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base Little 

Creek—Story 

SOF Mobile Comm Det Support Facility .................... 13,500 13,500 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Redundant Chilled Water Loop .................................. 15,100 15,100 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Contingency Construction .......................................... 9,000 –9,000 0 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations ECIP Design ............................................................... 10,000 10,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Energy Conservation Investment Program ................. 150,000 150,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Exercise Related Minor Construction ......................... 8,581 8,581 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 745 745 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 38,704 –20,000 18,704 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 1,183 1,183 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 42,387 42,387 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 599 599 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 24,425 –20,000 4,425 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 5,932 5,932 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 6,846 6,846 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 10,334 10,334 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 2,700 2,700 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 2,000 2,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 4,100 4,100 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Milcon .......................................... 2,994 2,994 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 24,197 24,197 

Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide ........................................................................................................................................... 2,061,890 –29,000 2,032,890 

Chem Demil KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization Ph XV .......................... 38,715 38,715 

Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense ...................................................................................................................... 38,715 0 38,715 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

515
8 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment Program Nato Security Investment Program ............................ 199,700 199,700 

Total NATO Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................................................ 199,700 0 199,700 

Army NG DELAWARE Dagsboro National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 0 10,800 10,800 

Army NG MAINE Augusta National Guard Reserve Center ................................. 30,000 30,000 Army NG MARYLAND Havre De Grace National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 12,400 12,400 Army NG MONTANA Helena National Guard Readiness Center Add/Alt ................ 38,000 38,000 

Army NG NEW MEXICO Alamogordo National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 0 5,000 5,000 Army NG NORTH DAKOTA Valley City National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 10,800 10,800 Army NG VERMONT North Hyde Park National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 4,400 4,400 Army NG WASHINGTON Yakima Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ....................... 0 19,000 19,000 

Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 17,600 17,600 Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 13,720 13,720 

Total Military Construction, Army National Guard ............................................................................................................................... 126,920 34,800 161,720 

Army Res CALIFORNIA Fresno Army Reserve Center/AMSA ........................................ 22,000 22,000 Army Res CALIFORNIA March (Riverside) Army Reserve Center .................................................. 0 25,000 25,000 Army Res COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Training Building Addition ......................................... 5,000 5,000 

Army Res ILLINOIS Arlington Heights Army Reserve Center .................................................. 0 26,000 26,000 Army Res MISSISSIPPI Starkville Army Reserve Center .................................................. 0 9,300 9,300 Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-DixLakehurst Army Reserve Center .................................................. 26,000 26,000 Army Res NEW YORK Mattydale Army Reserve Center/AMSA ........................................ 23,000 23,000 

Army Res VIRGINIA Fort Lee TASS Training Center ................................................. 16,000 16,000 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 8,337 8,337 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 3,609 3,609 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

516
9 

Total Military Construction, Army Reserve .......................................................................................................................................... 103,946 60,300 164,246 

N/MC Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh Reserve Training Center—Pittsburgh, PA ................. 17,650 17,650 N/MC Res WASHINGTON Whidbey Island C–40 Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .......................... 27,755 27,755 N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCNR Planning & Design .......................................... 2,123 2,123 N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCNR Unspecified Minor Construction ...................... 4,000 4,000 

Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve ............................................................................................................ 51,528 0 51,528 

Air NG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct C–130 Fuel Cell and Corrosion Contr ...... 16,306 16,306 Air NG IOWA Des Moines Map REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT AND TARGETING 

GROUP.

8,993 8,993 

Air NG MICHIGAN W. K. Kellog Regional Airport RPA Beddown ............................................................. 6,000 6,000 Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade Port KC–46A ADAL Airfield Pavements & Hydrant Syst .... 7,100 7,100 Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade Port KC–46A ADAL Fuel Cell Building 253 ....................... 16,800 16,800 Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade Port KC–46A ADAL Maint Hangar Building 254 ............... 18,002 18,002 Air NG PENNSYLVANIA Willow Grove ARF RPA Operations Center .............................................. 5,662 5,662 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 7,700 7,700 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 8,100 8,100 

Total Military Construction, Air National Guard ................................................................................................................................... 94,663 0 94,663 

AF Res GEORGIA Robins AFB AFRC Consolidated Mission Complex, Ph I ............... 27,700 27,700 AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–135 Tanker Parking Apron Expansion ................. 9,800 9,800 AF Res TEXAS Fort Worth EOD Facility ................................................................ 3,700 3,700 

AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 6,892 6,892 AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ................... 1,400 1,400 

Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 49,492 0 49,492 

FH Con Army ILLINOIS Rock Island Family Housing New Construction ............................. 19,500 19,500 

FH Con Army KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New Construction ............................. 57,800 57,800 FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing P & D ............................................... 1,309 1,309 

Total Family Housing Construction, Army ............................................................................................................................................ 78,609 0 78,609 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

517
10 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ................................................................ 14,136 14,136 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leased Housing .......................................................... 112,504 112,504 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property Facilities .................... 65,245 65,245 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ................................................ 43,480 43,480 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ................................................ 3,117 3,117 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Military Housing Privitization Initiative ..................... 20,000 20,000 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous ............................................................. 700 700 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services ...................................................................... 9,108 9,108 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ....................................................................... 82,686 82,686 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army ....................................................................................................................... 350,976 0 350,976 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................. 38,543 38,543 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization ................................................. 40,761 40,761 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ....................................................................... 43,651 43,651 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ............................................................... 99,934 99,934 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ................................................ 47,834 47,834 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ............................................... 1,993 1,993 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ........................................................ 12,709 12,709 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ......................................................... 42,322 42,322 

Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force ..................................................................................................................................... 327,747 0 327,747 

FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Design ........................................................................ 472 472 FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements ............................................................. 15,940 15,940 

Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................................................................................................. 16,412 0 16,412 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................. 17,881 17,881 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ....................................................................... 65,999 65,999 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

518
11 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ................................... 97,612 97,612 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ................................................ 55,124 55,124 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ............................................... 366 366 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Privatization Support Costs ....................................... 27,876 27,876 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ........................................................ 18,079 18,079 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ......................................................... 71,092 71,092 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ........................................................................................ 354,029 0 354,029 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................. 3,362 3,362 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................. 20 20 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................. 746 746 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ....................................................................... 11,179 11,179 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ....................................................................... 42,083 42,083 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ................................... 2,128 2,128 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ................................... 344 344 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account ................................................ 378 378 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account ........................................................ 31 31 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ......................................................... 170 170 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ......................................................... 659 659 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ........................................................................................................ 61,100 0 61,100 

FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing Improvement Fund ........................... 1,662 1,662 

Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund .................................................................................................................................... 1,662 0 1,662 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, 

Army 

Base Realignment and Closure ................................. 84,417 84,417 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, 

Navy 

Base Realignment & Closure .................................... 57,406 57,406 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ................................ 90,976 90,976 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–100: Planing, Design and Management ........... 7,682 7,682 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–101: Various Locations ..................................... 21,416 21,416 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................. 904 904 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

519
12 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2015 Request House Change House Agreement 

BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO ............................ 40 40 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................. 6,066 6,066 BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP ........ 1,178 1,178 

Total Base Realignment and Closure Account .................................................................................................................................... 270,085 0 270,085 

PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations 42 USC 3374 ............................................................. 0 –100,000 –100,000 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Army ........................................................................... 0 –79,577 –79,577 

PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations NATO Security Investment Program ........................... 0 –25,000 –25,000 

Total Prior Year Savings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –204,577 –204,577 

GR WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations General Reductions .................................................... 0 –69,000 –69,000 

Total General Reductions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –69,000 –69,000 Total Military Construction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6,557,447 –24,477 6,532,970 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4601.LOC

May 9, 2014 (9:17 p.m.)

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

520
2 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 104,000 104,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156 Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100 Federal salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................... 410,842 –24,000 386,842 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 11,658,000 143,700 11,801,700 

Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,327,538 –457,000 4,870,538 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 753,000 5,300 758,300 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,080,538 –451,700 5,628,838 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 17,738,538 –308,000 17,430,538 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

521
3 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 17,842,538 –308,000 17,534,538 Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 104,000 104,000 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 643,000 643,000 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 259,168 14,600 273,768 W88 Alt 370 ............................................................................................................................................................. 165,400 1,200 166,600 Cruise missile warhead life extension program ..................................................................................................... 9,418 7,600 17,018 

Total, Life extension programs ....................................................................................................................................... 1,076,986 23,400 1,100,386 

Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 109,615 109,615 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 45,728 45,728 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 62,703 3,700 66,403 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 70,610 70,610 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 63,136 63,136 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 91,255 91,255 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 88,060 88,060 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 531,107 3,700 534,807 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 30,008 30,008 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 350,942 12,300 363,242 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 29,649 29,649 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 201,479 11,000 212,479 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 241,805 241,805 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

522
4 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 144,575 28,300 172,875 Tritium readiness ..................................................................................................................................................... 140,053 140,053 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 1,108,503 51,600 1,160,103 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 2,746,604 78,700 2,825,304 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 58,747 58,747 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 112,000 112,000 Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 117,999 117,999 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 79,340 79,340 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 88,344 88,344 

Total, Science campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 456,430 456,430 

Engineering campaign 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 52,003 2,400 54,403 Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 20,832 20,832 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 25,371 25,371 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 37,799 3,600 41,399 

Total, Engineering campaign .......................................................................................................................................... 136,005 6,000 142,005 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 77,994 0 77,994 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 23,598 23,598 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 61,297 61,297 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 5,024 5,024 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 9,100 9,100 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

523
5 

Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 335,882 335,882 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield campaign ....................................................................................... 512,895 512,895 Advanced simulation and computing campaign ............................................................................................................. 610,108 610,108 Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign .................................................................................................................................... 125,909 125,909 

Total, Campaigns ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,841,347 6,000 1,847,347 

Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF) 

Operations of facilities Kansas City Plant ............................................................................................................................................................. 125,000 125,000 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ................................................................................................................ 71,000 71,000 Los Alamos National Laboratory .............................................................................................................................. 198,000 198,000 Nevada National Security Site ................................................................................................................................. 89,000 89,000 Pantex ...................................................................................................................................................................... 75,000 75,000 Sandia National Laboratory ..................................................................................................................................... 106,000 106,000 Savannah River Site ................................................................................................................................................ 81,000 81,000 Y–12 National security complex .............................................................................................................................. 151,000 151,000 

Total, Operations of facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 896,000 896,000 

Program readiness ............................................................................................................................................................ 136,700 136,700 Material recycle and recovery ........................................................................................................................................... 138,900 138,900 Containers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26,000 26,000 Storage .............................................................................................................................................................................. 40,800 40,800 Maintenance and repair of facilities ............................................................................................................................... 205,000 15,000 220,000 Recapitalization ................................................................................................................................................................ 209,321 39,000 248,321 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ............................................................................................................ 756,721 54,000 810,721 

Construction: 

15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 15–D–612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL ..................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 15–D–611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL ....................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

524
6 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX ................................................................................................. 11,800 11,800 15–D–302, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL ...................................................................................... 16,062 16,062 12–D–301 TRU waste facilities, LANL .................................................................................................................... 6,938 6,938 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ........................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL .................................................... 15,000 15,000 06–D–141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project Y–12 .................................................. 335,000 335,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 402,800 402,800 

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities .................................................................................................................. 2,055,521 54,000 2,109,521 

Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 132,851 132,851 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 100,962 100,962 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 233,813 233,813 Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ............................................................................................................................. 173,440 9,000 182,440 Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 76,901 76,901 Site stewardship 

Environmental projects and operations ........................................................................................................................... 53,000 53,000 Nuclear materials integration .......................................................................................................................................... 16,218 16,218 Minority serving institution partnerships program .......................................................................................................... 13,231 13,231 

Total, Site stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................. 82,449 82,449 Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 618,123 618,123 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 618,123 618,123 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

525
7 

Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 179,646 179,646 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 307,058 307,058 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................................................................................................... 333,488 80,000 413,488 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 360,808 70,000 430,808 

Nonproliferation and international security ..................................................................................................................... 141,359 36,400 177,759 International material protection and cooperation .......................................................................................................... 305,467 –176,400 129,067 Fissile materials disposition 

U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition 

Operations and maintenance 

U.S. plutonium disposition .................................................................................................................... 85,000 85,000 U.S. uranium disposition ....................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 

Total, Operations and maintenance ............................................................................................................. 110,000 110,000 Construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ................................................. 196,000 0 196,000 99–D–141–02 Waste Solidification Building, Savannah River, SC ..................................................... 5,125 5,125 

Total, Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 201,125 201,125 

Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition ................................................................................................... 311,125 311,125 Russian surplus fillile materials disposition 

Total, Fissile materials disposition ................................................................................................................................ 311,125 311,125 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,452,247 10,000 1,462,247 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

526
8 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 102,909 102,909 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 412,380 10,000 422,380 Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 425,700 425,700 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 156,100 156,100 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 126,400 126,400 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46,600 46,600 Construction: 

15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ............................................................................................................... 400 400 15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................. 600 600 15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .............................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 15–D–901 KS Central office building and prototype staff facility ................................................................................. 24,000 24,000 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 141,100 141,100 13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL ............................................................................................... 14,420 14,420 13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO .......................................................................................... 20,100 20,100 10-D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ................................................................................................................................ 7,400 7,400 08–D–190 Expended Core Facility M–290 receiving/discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID ............................. 400 400 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 209,920 209,920 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100 

Federal Salaries And Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 410,842 –24,000 386,842 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

527
9 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 410,842 –24,000 386,842 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................................................................................... 332,788 332,788 Central plateau remediation: 

Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................... 474,292 474,292 

Construction: 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge (Rl-0012) ............................................................................................................ 26,290 26,290 

Total, Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................ 500,582 500,582 

Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 848,071 848,071 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 364,293 364,293 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 2,910 2,910 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 367,203 367,203 

NNSA sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,366 1,366 

Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 64,851 64,851 Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,801 2,801 Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 196,017 196,017 Construction: 

15–D–406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030) ........................................................................................ 28,600 28,600 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 293,635 293,635 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

528
10 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

OR Nuclear facility D & D 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ....................................................................................................................................... 73,155 73,155 Construction: 

14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 9,400 9,400 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 82,555 82,555 

U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 41,626 41,626 OR cleanup and disposition: 

OR cleanup and disposition .................................................................................................................................... 71,137 71,137 Construction: 

15–D–405—Sludge Buildout ......................................................................................................................... 4,200 4,200 

Total, OR cleanup and disposition ................................................................................................................................. 75,337 75,337 

OR reservation community and regulatory support .................................................................................................................. 4,365 4,365 

Solid waste stabilization and disposition, Oak Ridge technology development ..................................................................... 3,000 3,000 Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 206,883 206,883 Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

01–D–416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction ..................................................................................................... 575,000 575,000 01–D–16E Pretreatment facility .............................................................................................................................. 115,000 115,000 

Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant ......................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 522,000 522,000 Construction: 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

529
11 

15–D–409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, Hanford ...................................................................... 23,000 23,000 

Total, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................................................. 545,000 545,000 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,235,000 1,235,000 

Savannah River sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations ................................................................................................................. 416,276 416,276 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,013 11,013 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 553,175 553,175 Construction: 

15–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #6 ....................................................................................................... 34,642 34,642 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 135,000 135,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 169,642 169,642 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 722,817 722,817 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,150,106 1,150,106 

Waste isolation pilot plant ........................................................................................................................................................ 216,020 216,020 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 280,784 280,784 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14,979 14,979 Safeguards and Security: 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,382 16,382 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7,297 7,297 Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,492 8,492 Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 63,668 63,668 Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 132,196 132,196 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 4,455 4,455 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,471 1,471 

Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 13,007 6,000 19,007 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 4,864,538 6,000 4,870,538 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

530
12 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ............................................................................................................................ 463,000 –463,000 0 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,327,538 –457,000 4,870,538 Other Defense Activities 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 202,152 5,300 207,452 Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 118,763 118,763 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 62,235 62,235 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 180,998 180,998 Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 49,466 49,466 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 73,534 73,534 

Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 158,639 158,639 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,341 13,341 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 171,980 171,980 

Defense-related activities Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 46,877 46,877 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

531
13 

Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 71,959 71,959 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 118,836 118,836 

Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,500 5,500 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 753,000 5,300 758,300 Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 753,000 5,300 758,300 


E:\BILLS\DOD_TABLES\MOST_RECENT\LOCATOR\L_T4701.LOC

May 9, 2014 (11:51 p.m.)

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS-DOD-TABLES

532
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance with the 

program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below:

APRIL 1, 2014. 

HON. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed legislation, titled 

the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015", that the Department 

of Defense requests be enacted during the second session of the 113th Congress. 

The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is stated in the 

accompanying section-by-section analysis.

The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional

legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its

consideration in the coming weeks.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, 

from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these 

legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress.

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH KING

Enclosure: As Stated

_____ 

MAY 5, 2014. 

HON. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that 

the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the second session of the 

113th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 

section-by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a 

follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed 

legislation titled the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015".

The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional 

legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its 

consideration in the coming weeks.

533
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, 

from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the presenting of these 

legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress.

 Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH L. KING

Enclosure: As Stated

_____ 

 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. MCKEON: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding 

H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This 

legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of 

this important legislation, the committee waives consideration of the bill.

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology takes this action only with 

the understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and 

similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any conference 

on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 

would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during 

consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to 

these matters.

 Sincerely, 

LAMAR SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

534
 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to 

certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 

decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding 

H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This 

legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Natural Resources, including:

Sec. 602. No fiscal year 2015 increase in basic pay for general and flag 

officers

Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay 

authorities

Sec. 2841. Land conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, La Jolla, 

California

Sec. 2861, Memorial to the victims of the shooting attack at the Washington 

Navy Yard

Sec. 2864, Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial in 

Riverside, California

Sec. 2865, Renaming site of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 

Park, Ohio

Sec. 2866, Manhattan Project National Historical Park

Title 29, Subtitle A --Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada

Sec. 2911, Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation 

Area, California

Sec. 2921, Elimination of termination date for public land withdrawals and 

reservations under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999

Title 29, Subtitle D-Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California

Title 29, Subtitle D-White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico

535
Sec. xxx, National security considerations for inclusion of federal property on 

National Register of Historic Places or designation as National Historic Landmark 

under the National Historic Preservation Act

To expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, and because of 

the extensive cooperation shown by you and your staff, the Committee will forego 

seeking a sequential referral of the bill. The Natural Resources Committee takes 

this action only with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdictional 

interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any HouseSenate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is 

made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. 

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

 Sincerely, 

DOC HASTINGS, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12 2014.

HON. DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Natural Resources has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 

provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision 

not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural Resources 

is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in 

the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

536
 DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write to confirm our mutual understanding 

regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

This legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the House 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, however in order to expedite floor consideration of 

this important legislation, the Committee waives consideration of the bill.

The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs takes this action only with the 

understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar 

legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any HouseSenate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is 

made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. Thank you for your 

attention to these matters.

With warm personal regards, I am

 Sincerely, 

JEFF MILLER, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. JEFF MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions 

in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 

committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

537
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding 

H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which 

contains substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative jurisdiction of 

the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the cooperation that allowed us to work 

out mutually agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup.

Based on that cooperation and our associated understandings, the Foreign 

Affairs Committee will not seek a sequential referral or object to floor consideration 

of the bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this decision in no 

way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the Foreign Affairs 

Committee in this bill, any subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I 

request your support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees during 

any House-Senate conference on this legislation.

Finally, I respectfully request that you include this letter and your response 

in your committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record during 

consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House floor.

 Sincerely, 

 EDWARD R. ROYCE, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC May 12, 2014.

HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the Foreign 

Affairs Committee has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 

important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 

foregoing a sequential referral, the Foreign Affairs Committee is not waiving its 

jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE, 

538
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write concerning H.R. 4435, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as amended. There are certain 

provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the 

Committee will forgo action on this bill. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual 

understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the 

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to any future 

jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar 

legislation that fall within the Committee’s Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge 

the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference committee 

named to consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our 

jurisdictional interest into the committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor.

 Sincerely, 

BILL SHUSTER, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. BILL SHUSTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to 

certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 

decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 

exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

539
 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional 

interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in matters being considered in H.R. 

4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4435 and the need for the 

legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to 

jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of 

course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation 

or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects 

the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and that a copy of this letter and your 

response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the 

Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of 

this bill by the House.

The Judiciary Committee also asks that you support our request to be 

conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any HouseSenate conference.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

 Sincerely, 

BOB GOODLATTE, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. BOB GOODLATTE, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in 

this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its 

jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

540
HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 

REFORM, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. There are certain 

provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor 

consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee’s right to 

sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of 

the bill the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform does not waive any 

future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall 

within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name 

members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider 

such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. 

Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this 

matter and others between our respective committees.

 Sincerely, 

DARRELL ISSA, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. DARRELL ISSA, 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to 

certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 

decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

541
bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with 

respect to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with 

regard to H.R. 4435 on those matters within the committee's jurisdiction. 

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 4435, the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration of this 

bill. However, I do so only with the understanding this procedural route will not be 

construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on 

this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. 

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees 

from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar 

bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our 

exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 4435 and in the 

Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank 

you for your attention to these matters.

 Sincerely, 

JOHN KLINE, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. JOHN KLINE, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

542
 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to 

certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 

decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 

will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write concerning H.R. 4435, National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

While the bill was referred to your Committee exclusively, there are several 

provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. However, so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for 

consideration, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will not request a 

sequential referral on the bill. 

This is done with our mutual understanding that the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction, will not be prejudiced with 

respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R. 

4435 or similar legislation, and will be consulted and involved as the bill or similar 

legislation moves forward. The Committee on Energy and Commerce also reserves 

the right to seek the appointment of conferees to any House-Senate conference 

involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for such a request. 

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this 

understanding, and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 

included in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the 

House floor.

 Sincerely, 

FRED UPTON, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

543
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 

provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision 

not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 

included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In recognition of the importance of expediting the 

passage of H.R. 4435, the “Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Bill,” 

the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further 

consideration of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R. 4435, 

including intelligence and intelligence-related authorizations and provisions 

contained in the bill.

The Committee takes this action only with the understanding that this 

procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the House Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill 

and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 

interest to the Committee in the future, including in connection with any 

subsequent consideration of the bill by the House. In addition, the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 

that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be

convened on this legislation.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this 

matter in the Congressional Record during the House debate on H.R. 4435. I 

544
appreciate the constructive work between our committees on this matter and thank 

you for your consideration.

 Sincerely, 

MIKE ROGERS, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. MIKE ROGERS, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to 

certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 

decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: Thank you for the opportunity to review the 

relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015. The Agriculture Committee has a valid claim to jurisdiction 

over H.R. 4435.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the 

House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 4435 

from further consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the 

understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee on Agriculture does not 

waive any future jurisdictional claim on this or similar matters. Further, the 

Committee on Agriculture reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees, if 

it should become necessary.

545
I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters into both the 

Congressional Record and the Committee Report during consideration of this 

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter, and I look forward to continued 

cooperation between our respective committees. 

 Sincerely, 

FRANK D. LUCAS, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, 

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Agriculture Committee has a valid jurisdictional claim to a provision in this 

important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 

foregoing a sequential referral, the Agriculture Committee is not waiving its 

jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

Sincerely,

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 4435, 

the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business pursuant to Rule X(q) of the House 

of Representatives. 

In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed Services to proceed 

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive the 

right of the Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so with the 

546
understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Small 

Business does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 

contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X(q) jurisdiction, including future 

bills that the Committee on Armed Services will consider. I request that you urge 

the Speaker to appoint members of this Committee to any conference committee 

which is named to consider such provisions. 

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. 

Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue 

and others between our respective committees. 

 Sincerely, 

SAM GRAVES, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. SAM GRAVES, 

Chairman, Committee on Small Business,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Small Business has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in 

this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Small Business is not waiving 

its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 

report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. MCKEON: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 4435, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation contains a 

547
provision requiring a strategy to prioritize U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region 

that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

In order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the 

Committee will waive consideration of the bill. The Committee takes this action 

only with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdictional interests over this 

and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any HouseSenate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is 

made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. Thank you for your 

attention to this matter. 

 Sincerely, 

DAVE CAMP, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. DAVE CAMP, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I agree that the 

Committee on Ways and Means has a valid jurisdictional claim to a provision in 

this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that 

by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 

committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

HON. HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCKEON: I write to you regarding H.R. 4435, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2015. There are certain provisions of this 

548
legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland 

Security.

In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed Services to proceed 

expeditiously to the House floor, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4435. 

However, I do so only with the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Homeland Security over matters contained in this or similar 

legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I further request that you urge the 

Speaker to name Members of this Committee to any conference committee that is 

named to consider such provisions.

Finally, I request you include this letter and your response into the 

committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the Congressional Record. Thank you for 

your consideration. 

 Sincerely, 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

CHAIRMAN. 

_______ 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.

HON. MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4435, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I am most appreciative of 

your support and interest in this important legislation. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. 

 Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

 CHAIRMAN. 

549
FISCAL DATA

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting 

from the bill during fiscal year 2015 and each of the following 5 fiscal years. The 

results of such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, which is 

included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and 

submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as 

follows:

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

MAY 12, 2014. 

HONORABLE HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has completed a 

preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects of H.R. 4435, the Howard P. 

“Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as 

ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 8, 2014. 

CBO’s complete cost estimate for H.R. 4435, including discretionary costs, will be 

provided shortly.

Based on legislative language for H.R. 4435, which was provided to CBO on 

May 9, 2014, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would decrease net direct 

spending by $1 million in 2015, but increase such spending by $1 million over the 

2015-2024 period (see attached table). Because the bill would affect direct spending, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

A provision to authorize special immigrant visas for certain Afghan allies 

would increase direct spending by $70 million over that 10-year period. Those costs 

would be offset by a provision that would increase, by $70 million, receipts from 

sales of material from the National Defense Stockpile. The bill also would require 

the Secretary of Defense to award the Purple Heart to certain service members who 

were killed or wounded in attacks in the United States that were motivated or 

inspired by foreign terrorist organizations. Enacting that provision would increase 

military retirement payments to some of those awardees by a total of about $1 

million over the 2015-2024 period.

550
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide 

them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman, who can be reached at 226-2840.

 Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director.

Attachment

cc: Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT OF H.R. 4435, THE HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015, ON DIRECT SPENDING

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

2015-

2019

2015-

2024

Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan 

Allies

Estimated Budget Authority 1 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 35 70

Estimated Outlays 1 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 35 70

National Defense Stockpile

Estimated Budget Authority -2 -40 -20 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70

Estimated Outlays -2 -40 -20 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70

Purple Heart Awards

Estimated Budget Authority * * * * * * * * * * * 1

Estimated Outlays * * * * * * * * * * * 1

Total Changes in Direct Spending

Estimated Budget Authority -1 -30 -11 * 7 7 7 7 7 7 -35 1

Estimated Outlays -1 -30 -11 * 7 7 7 7 7 7 -35 1

Note: * = less than $500,000.

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93-344):

(1) This legislation does not provide budget authority subject to an 

allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of Public Law 93-344;

(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included in this report 

pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

contains CBO’s projection of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget 

authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for fiscal year 2015 and 

for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and

551
(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget authority for 

assistance to state and local governments by this measure at the time that this 

report was filed.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office Estimate included in this report 

satisfies the requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the committee 

of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.

ADVISORY OF EARMARKS

The committee finds that H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as reported, does not contain any congressional earmarks, 

limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, this legislation results from hearings and other oversight activities 

conducted by the committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in 

the body of this report.

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the general goal and objective of H.R. 4435 is to meet the national 

security needs of a nation at war while preparing our warfighters for the threats of 

tomorrow wherever and whenever they might emerge. This legislation would meet 

that goal while balancing the responsibilities of fiscal stewardship incumbent upon 

Congress in a time of economic stress. Only by providing for the common defense in 

an efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the nation address our national 

security challenges. 

The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital to the success 

of our service men and women while taking steps to provide them more efficiently. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee took steps to promote 

competition and to provide authorities to the Department of Defense to procure 

systems more cost-effectively. 

The committee continues to reiterate the need for fiscal accountability and 

transparency. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would establish an 

independent advisory panel on Department of Defense audit readiness. The 

advisory panel would actively monitor the Department of Defense's audit readiness 

552
and audit work and to report to Congress on problems that need to be resolved with 

the intention to shed light on the best, most efficient path forward to meet the 2017 

and 2019 deadlines relating to auditability.

In keeping with the committee's intent to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, 

the bill would also direct the Secretary of Defense to report on consolidating the 

number of combatant commands and on combining combatant command back office 

functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings. The committee would also 

task the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the Department of 

Defense's headquarter reduction efforts, building off the Comptroller General's 

previous work conducted for the committee on examining growth in defense 

headquarters. 

 The committee has taken significant steps in the past to increase 

transparency with regard to services contracting. The bill would extend these 

efforts, encouraging the Secretary of Defense to improve data collection for services 

contracting and conduct better analysis of the data to identify waste. The committee 

would also require the Government Accountability Office to report on opportunities 

to improve the services contract processes. 

 The committee supports efforts to drive unnecessary cost from the 

development, test, fielding and sustainment of weapon systems. While much 

attention has been paid to the development of systems, less has been paid on 

operational testing. The bill would mandate that the Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation consider the potential for increase in program cost estimates or 

delays in schedule estimates in the implementation of policies, procedures, and 

activities related to operational test and evaluation. 

On the battlefield, the committee would expand authorities aimed at 

combating contracting with the enemy, to ensure taxpayer dollars are not 

inadvertently going to opposing forces. This measure would expand efforts that 

have worked well within U.S. Central Command.

The bill also would examine and revise the Quadrennial Defense Review 

requirement and the strategic planning process in order to provide a solid basis for 

future defense strategic reviews. The committee believes that proper strategic 

planning, particularly when conducted regularly and within authorized 

frameworks, can reduce waste while protecting the joint warfighting capability of 

the Department of Defense from arbitrary cuts. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this legislation contains no 

Federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal governments, nor with 

respect to the private sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal 

intergovernmental mandates. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

553
Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the committee finds that the functions of the proposed advisory 

committee authorized in the bill are not currently being nor could they be performed 

by one or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or by enlarging 

the mandate of an existing advisory committee.

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The committee finds that this legislation does not relate to the terms and 

conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the 

meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 

104-1). 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 4435 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 

Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a 

program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office 

to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a 

program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The committee estimates that H.R. 4435 requires no directed rule makings.

COMMITTEE VOTES

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to the committee’s 

consideration of H.R. 4435. The record of these votes is contained in the following 

pages.

The committee ordered H.R. 4435 to be reported to the House with a 

favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-0, a quorum being present.

554
555
556
2 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

113th Congress 

ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 3

H.R. 4435

On agreeing to the Conaway amendment, Log 207. 

Description: Exempts DOD from Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

Wednesday: May 7, 2014. 

Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present 

Mr. McKeon .............. x Mr. Smith ............ x 

Mr. Thornberry ......... x Ms. Sanchez ........ x 

Mr. Jones ................. Mr. McIntyre ........ x 

Mr. Forbes ............... x Mr. Brady ............ x 

Mr. Miller ................. x Mrs. Davis ........... x 

Mr. Wilson ............... x Mr. Langevin ....... x 

Mr. LoBiondo ........... x Mr. Larsen ........... x 

Mr. Bishop ............... x Mr. Cooper .......... x 

Mr. Turner ................ x Ms. Bordallo ........ x 

Mr. Kline .................. x Mr. Courtney ....... x 

Mr. Rogers ............... x Mr. Loebsack ....... x 

Mr. Franks ............... x Ms. Tsongas ........ x 

Mr. Shuster .............. x Mr. Garamendi .... x 

Mr. Conaway ............ x Mr. Johnson ......... x 

Mr. Lamborn ............ x Ms. Hanabusa ..... x 

Mr. Wittman ............ x Ms. Speier ........... x 

Mr. Hunter ............... x Mr. Barber ........... x 

Dr. Fleming .............. x Mr. Carson .......... x 

Mr. Coffman ............ x Ms. Shea-Porter .. x 

Mr. Rigell ................. x Mr. Maffei ........... x 

Mr. Gibson ............... x Mr. Kilmer ........... x 

Mrs. Hartzler ............ x Mr. Castro ........... x 

Dr. Heck ................... x Ms. Duckworth .... x 

Mr. Runyan .............. x Mr. Peters ........... x 

Mr. Scott .................. x Mr. Enyart ........... x 

Mr. Palazzo .............. x Mr. Gallego ......... x 

Mr. Brooks ............... x Mr. Veasey .......... x 

Mr. Nugent .............. x Ms. Gabbard ....... x 

Mrs. Noem ............... x 

Mr. Cook .................. x 

Mr. Bridenstine ........ x 

Dr. Wenstrup ........... x 

Mrs. Walorski ........... x 

Mr. Byrne ................. x 

Roll Call Vote Total: 33 28 0 

May 13, 2014 (12:15 p.m.)

557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The committee has taken steps to make available the analysis of changes in 

existing law made by the bill, as required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as soon as 

possible. 

570
LORETTA SANCHEZ 

4Gnt Ut!HRIC:I, CAtlf<lflUtA 

WA'tllltllH N OFfil l 

1114 LONGWORTH BUILDING 

WASHING fON, LlC 20b I & 0~46 

PO't nb :?96& 1202! 22b 6859 FAX 

lll f~lf"l I .l 

I 239/ ll WIS S liH ll SUI H I 0 I 

GAHOlN GAOVI., CA 9?840 469b 

(7141 0710102 

f/14) OJI 040! I AX 

r ""'II l t'Jrl•lln@mnil.llOUGt'.OOV 

Wuh&llu: 

www.houao.ouv/Hllllc;hol 

<!tnngrc.as nf tlJc Uniteil §tate.a 

iQLut.sc nf ~{cprc.a cntntiuc.a 

lUntd!ington, 1:l<!L 2L1515 

May 8, 2014 

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez 

Additional Views 

COMMITT(E ON ARM£0 SeRVICES 

Sum . .:m.ttllf ll ~: 

RANKING MEMOU1, TACTICAl AIR AND 

LAN I) I ORCl S 

S IAAHGIC IORCtS 

COMMI t I H ON IIOMaANl) SECURITY 

BOU0£11 M ID MARl liM£ SECURII Y 

COUNT ERTf.ARORISM AND INHLLIGLNCL 

.JOIN f LCONOMIC COMMIHEE 

1 would like to clarify the rcpo1t language related to Section 312 1 related to Limitation on 

Availability of Funds for Non-Proliferation Activities Between the United States and lhc Russian 

Federation, which may be misleading about the status of US-Russian cooperation. As I 

understand, the Secretary of Energy has suspended cettain nuclear cooperation with Russia in the 

context of the on-going situation with Ukraine and the Department of Energy is conducting an 

ongoing review of all Russian-related activities. However, critical bilateral nuclear 

nonproliferation activities arc continuing in a number of key areas. 

I believe etl'ective cooperation with Russia remains necessary to effectively address the tlu·cat 

posed by vulnerable fissile material, and would like to note the important progress made toward 

securing and eliminating and securing highly-cmiched uranium in Russia. Nuclear 

nonproliferation efforts that eliminalc or secure this material reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism 

and strengthen US security. l encourage the Depa1tment of Enet·gy to conduct a careful review 

of its programs with Russia and look forward to status updates of these programs. 

I'RINifO ON 571 IH CYClll) I'Af'LII 
JOHN GARAMENDI 

3flD DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA 

ARMED SERVICES COMMITIEE 

STHAILUI\ Fur~ct•, SuucUMMit tiLL 

TACTILAL AtU ANO l.ANr.> ronC:f ~ SUACOMMtTTr E. 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURF. COMMITTE"E: 

RANKING Ml:.MUlf.C 

CoA t tu~tJ ANU MAW n Mt TtiAN' t•nt(1 A ••oN 

Sunc OMM I r II l 

WA1l.R RL~OUHCLS AND ENVIHONMLNT 

St JUC"nMMI t tt.: I 

AG RICULTURE COMMITIEE 

Gt::NLRAI t ARr.1 CoMM ODI IIL AND Rt5 t( 

M ANI\C.EMLN1 SuucoMMttt t: t 

_, I 

U N ITED STATES 

H OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

2438 R"YfRMN Ho•••·t O~t tt t f)lJttntNt. 

WAStiiNt•l ON QC 205 1 ~ 

PHONE 1202.) 22!} 1860 

rAx 12021225 5!ll4 

DIS nliC T 0 1 FICES 

4 1? G S ll<f l I 

DAVI'· CA 956 1£> PHONF (530) /53 !>30 1 

FAX: 15301753 5614 

GOO Jtr·rrfi!!=>ON STHl.£ 1 

FAttlHI ( IJ. CA 94533 

PI1~>Nr C707J 438 1822 

I AX' CJ0/1438-0523 

9CJO Kt AMA1 11 t A.NI, Still I II 

YunA CtTY. GA 0590::1 

P HONI': t!>:lOl 329 866!) 

FAX" 15301763 4248 

Congressman John Garamendi's Additional Views for H.R. 4435, the Fiscal Year 2015 National 

Defense Authorization Act 

9 May 2014 

I congratulate the Chairman on the passage of the conimittec mark for the 53'"d National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, his final one. I deeply appreciated working with my 

colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee in preparing the committee mark that 

provides for a smart and strong defense. However, there are several areas of concern that I have 

for this critically important piece of legislation. 

Despite these reservations, I supported the overall bill because of the bipartisan effort of this 

committee to address a number of issues vital to national security. I commend the committee's 

consensus to limit the retirement of both the U-2 and KC-10 aircraft until the Department of 

Defense is able to adequately report to Congress that it can maintain the same level of capability 

following these divestitures. In addition, I am pleased that the committee acknowledged and 

addressed the need for increased oversight of Department of Defense funds utilized for Afghan 

contract proj ects and security forces funding. T applaud the committee for adopting my 

amendments calling for the Department of Defense to provide briefings to Congress on future 

Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and the justification on the requirement for increased 

plutonium pit production capacity. Further discussion and oversight on both of these strategic 

topics are especially important in this time of fiscal austerity. Finally, I am pleased the 

committee shares my concern with necessity to combat wildlife trafficking through the 

strengthening of partnerships with international partners, local communities, and NGOs in 

conjunction with the existing defense and Law enforcement construct. 

However, this bill continues to significantly expand our already excessive nuclear arsenal and 

still includes wasteful spending on projects such as the over-budget MOX facilities at the 

SavatU1 ah River site. These are fi.mds the Department of Energy itself has specifically said it docs 

not need. Moreover, the committee once again chose to avoid an informed discussion on the 

scale of the current nuclear arsenal or the rationale for the forward deployment of B-61 s in 

Europe. This issue remains increasingly necessary for this committee to address, especially in 

this time of fiscal austerity where I believe our resources could be better spent on more essential 

programs. Finally, this bill calls for $79 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding, 

with a substantial portion going towards continuing military operations in Afghanistan. 

However, it once again fails to address or even question America's continued military 

involvement in Afghanistan. In doing so, the committee has failed to fulfill one of its most basic 

1'/0NII'i)(>N 

572 IU CY<'I HI 1'1\1'1 R 
.. ' 

responsibilities. Congress must debate and ultimately decide together with the President what 

America's role is in Afghanistan. I am hopeful that such a debate will be allowed when the 

NOAA comes to the floor of the House, where amendments can force a vote on this critical 

issue. 

I am confident that tlu·ough the Floor amendment and conference processes, we can find ways to 

address these concerns and shape the current draft legislation into a bill that is even more 

consistent with American values and that moves us beyond both the Cold War and the wars of 

the last decade. As the representative for service members at Travis Air Force Base, in Fairfield, 

California, which carries out a critical air mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near 

Marysville, which conducts a vital Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance mission, I will 

continue to advocate for investing in the technologies and military capabilities that are effective 

against 21

81 

century threats. 

JOHN GARAMENDl 

Member of Congress 

573
RON BARBER 

2Nn 01s rntc r, AAI70NA 

r.uMMifTIF.S: 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES 

TACl tCA.L A111 AND LANu Fonct:"' 

RLADINCSS 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

OvlR:.tWII AND MANAGeMeNT 

EF-F-ICif.NCV. RANKING MtMUlli 

SMALL BUSINESS 

Er.oNOMtr: Gnownt, TAx ANO 

CAPITAL ACCEf.S 

Ac;ntcuL 1UfU, ENrHov ANn T HAOL 

.. ' 

QCongre.s.s of tbe Wniteb ~tate.s 

J!)ouse of 11\epresentatibe.S 

mminfJ'IJington, l)(!t 20515- 0302 

WEBSITE: 

w ww.bRrbor.house.gov 

May 9, 2014 

Additional Views of Representative Ron Barber 

1029 LONGWORTII House Onilf Bun DING 

W~Siti NGION, DC 20516 

Pt<ONI (~ ?) 725- ?&4? 

FN< (202) 225 0378 

I UC50N OF~ICE 

3945 e. FDIU LOWHL, Sum 21 1 

TUCSON, A2 85712 

PIIONL (520) 881-3688 

FAX (620) 322 9490 

SIERRA VISTA OrfiCE: 

771,1\ll~ f'ORTAt,SIJIII B 160 

SllrtnA Vt:. T A, 1\Z 85635 

PHONI (620) 46!1-3116 

fAX (b20)459 54 19 

FACEBOOK: 

IAcobook.comiRepRonBorbar 

TWITTER: twtttor.comiRopRonBnrbor 

I strongly disagree with Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee's item of special interest regarding the 

planned retirement of the A-10 Thunderbolt by the Air Force because it fails to consider the most 

important aspect of the A-1 O's mission, Close Air Support (CAS). 

The Air Force's proposal to divest the A-1 0 fleet beginning in fiscal year 2015 will create a dangerous 

gap in close air support that would negatively impact ground troops in future combat operations. 

The Warthog represents a proven aircraft of unmatched survivability, maneuverability, and lethal 

armaments that is only surpassed by the deeply-ingrained close air support culture of its pilots. No other 

fixed-wing close air support assets are as proficient as the A-1 0 in conducting visual supp01t operations 

below 1000 foot ceilings while being able to effectively target the enemy. 

Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates the A-1 Os well-documented capability to 

operate in rugged environments with low visibility while still providing effective close air supp01t. 

However, the Air Force would argue that other platforms in the Air Force inventory can replace the CAS 

capabilities of the A-10. 

The F-15, F-16, B-1, and B-52 are incredibly effective aircraft that are important components of the Air 

Force inventory, yet none of these platforms can fully replace the capabilities and focus of the A-10 in 

many CAS situations. The A-lO's low altitudes, slow flying speeds, and armored hull allow it to be 

more intimately involved on the battlefield than other faster, lighter, and higher altitude flying fighters. 

This closer communication and relationship with troops engaged in combat make the A-1 O's close air 

support more accurate and lethal, on top of the psychological effects on the enemy by a mere fly-by of 

the Watthog. 

While I commend the Chairman and the committee for rightly recognizing the risk involved by this 

planned reduction in fighter aircraft capacity, keeping the A-10 aircraft in Type-1000 storage is simply 

divestment of the aircraft by another name. Further, the institutional knowledge and deeply ingrained 

CAS expertise would be lost and could not be quickly regained when we are engaged in combat again. 

~-E~ Ron Barber 

Member of Congress 

574