•HRES 441 EH 
to support the missile defense of the United States 
from long-range ballistic missile threats from Iran. 
SEC. 236. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR FUTURE BALLISTIC 
MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR ARCHITECTURES. 
(a) EVALUATION REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Commander of the United States Strategic 
Command, shall conduct an evaluation of options and al-
ternatives for future sensor architectures for ballistic 
missile defense in order to enhance the ballistic missile 
defense capabilities of the United States. 
(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph 
(1), the Secretary shall consult with the heads of depart-
ments and agencies of the Federal Government that the 
Secretary determines appropriate. 
(3) SCOPE
OF
EVALUATION.—In conducting the 
evaluation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall con-
sider the following: 
(A) A wide range of options for a future sensor 
architecture for ballistic missile defense, including— 
(i) options regarding the future develop-
ment, integration, exploitation, and deployment 
of existing or new missile defense sensor sys-
tems and assets; and
•HRES 441 EH 
(ii) options regarding using capabilities of 
the Federal Government that exist or are 
planned as of the date of the evaluation that 
are not primarily focused on missile defense, 
including such capabilities that may require 
modification to be used for missile defense. 
(B) The potential costs, advantages, and feasi-
bility of using such future sensor architecture for 
purposes other than missile defense, including for 
technical intelligence collection or space situational 
awareness. 
(C) Whether and how such future sensor archi-
tectures could be designed and employed to fulfill 
missions other than missile defense when not re-
quired for such missile defense missions. 
(4) OBJECTIVE.—The objective of the evaluation 
shall be to identify one or more future sensor architec-
tures for ballistic missile defense that will result in an 
improvement of the performance of the ballistic missile 
defense system in a cost-effective, operationally effective, 
timely, and affordable manner. 
(b) ELEMENTS TO BE EVALUATED.—The evaluation re-
quired by subsection (a) shall include a consideration of the 
following:
•HRES 441 EH 
(1) SENSOR TYPES.—At a minimum, the types of 
sensors as follows: 
(A) Radar. 
(B) Infrared. 
(C) Optical and electro-optical. 
(D) Directed energy. 
(2) SENSOR MODES.—Deployment modes of sensors 
as follows: 
(A) Ground-based sensors. 
(B) Sea-based sensors. 
(C) Airborne sensors. 
(D) Space-based sensors. 
(3) SENSOR FUNCTIONS.—At a minimum, missile 
defense-related sensor functions as follows: 
(A) Detection. 
(B) Tracking. 
(C) Characterization. 
(D) Classification. 
(E) Discrimination. 
(F) Debris mitigation. 
(G) Kill assessment. 
(4) SENSOR ARCHITECTURE CAPABILITIES.—At a 
minimum, maximization or improvement of sensor-re-
lated capabilities as follows: 
(A) Handling of increasing raid sizes.
•HRES 441 EH 
(B) Precision tracking of threat missiles. 
(C) Providing fire-control quality tracks of 
evolving threat missiles. 
(D) Enabling launch-on-remote and engage-on- 
remote capabilities. 
(E) Discriminating lethal objects (warheads) 
from other objects. 
(F) Effectively assessing the results of engage-
ments. 
(G) Enabling enhanced shot doctrine. 
(H) Other capabilities that the Secretary of 
Defense determines appropriate. 
(c) REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
setting forth the results of the evaluation required by 
subsection (a). 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) 
shall include the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Secretary with respect to— 
(A) future sensor architectures evaluated under 
subsection (a)(3)(A)(i).
•HRES 441 EH 
(B) existing or planned capabilities of the Fed-
eral 
Government 
evaluated 
under 
subsection 
(a)(3)(A)(ii); 
(C) using future sensor architecture for addi-
tional purposes as described in subsection (a)(3)(B); 
and 
(D) the design and employment of future sen-
sor architectures to fulfill missions other than mis-
sile defense as described in subsection (a)(3)(C). 
(3) FORM.—The report shall be submitted in un-
classified form, but may include a classified annex. 
(d) CONFORMING REPEAL.—Section 224 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 
112–239; 126 Stat. 1675) is repealed. 
SEC. 237. PLANS TO IMPROVE THE GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE 
DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) IMPROVED KILL ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY.—The 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in consultation with 
the Commander of the United States Strategic Command and 
the Commander of the United States Northern Command, 
shall develop— 
(1) options to achieve an improved kill assessment 
capability for the ground-based midcourse defense sys-
tem that can be developed as soon as practicable with 
acceptable acquisition risk, with the objective of achiev-
•HRES 441 EH 
(A) Cost effectiveness and high reliability, 
testability, producibility, modularity, and maintain-
ability. 
(B) Capability across the midcourse battle 
space. 
(C) Ability to leverage ballistic missile defense 
system data with kill vehicle on-board capability to 
discriminate lethal objects. 
(D) Reliable on-demand communications. 
(E) Sufficient flexibility to ensure that the po-
tential for future enhancements, including ballistic 
missile defense system interceptor commonality and 
multiple and volume kill capability, is maintained. 
(3) COVERED
FUNDING
DEFINED.—In this sub-
section, the term ‘‘covered funding’’ means— 
(A) funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 
for the Missile Defense Agency, as specified in the 
funding table in section 4201; and 
(B) funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013 (Public Law 112–239) or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2013 that are available to 
the Director to carry out the plan under paragraph 
(1).
•HRES 441 EH 
SEC. 238. REPORT ON POTENTIAL FUTURE HOMELAND BAL-
LISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE OPTIONS. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 240 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of De-
fense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report on potential future options for enhancing the ballistic 
missile defense of the homeland of the United States. 
(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall prepare the 
report under subsection (a) in consultation with the Com-
mander of the United States Strategic Command, the Com-
mander of the United States Northern Command, and the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency. 
(c) ELEMENTS.—The report under subsection (a) shall 
include the following: 
(1) A description of the current assessment of the 
threat to the United States from limited ballistic missile 
attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate), 
particularly from countries such as North Korea and 
Iran, and an assessment of the projected future threat 
through 2022, including a discussion of confidence levels 
and uncertainties in such threat assessment. 
(2) A description of the current capability of the 
ballistic missile defense of the homeland of the United 
States to defend against the current threat of limited 
ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized,
•HRES 441 EH 
or deliberate), particularly from countries such as North 
Korea and Iran. 
(3) A description of the status of efforts to correct 
the problems that caused the flight test failures of the 
ground-based midcourse defense system in December 
2010 and July 2013 and plans for future efforts, includ-
ing additional flight testing, to demonstrate that the 
problems have been successfully corrected. 
(4) A description of planned improvements to the 
current ballistic missile defense system of the homeland 
of the United States, and the enhancements to the capa-
bility of such system that would result from such 
planned improvements, including— 
(A) deployment of 14 additional ground-based 
interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska; 
(B) missile defense upgrades of early warning 
radars at Clear, Alaska, and Cape Cod, Massachu-
setts; 
(C) deployment of an in-flight interceptor com-
munications system data terminal at Fort Drum, 
New York; and 
(D) improvements to the effectiveness and reli-
ability of the ground-based interceptors and the 
overall ground-based midcourse defense system.
•HRES 441 EH 
(5) In accordance with subsection (d), a description 
of potential additional future options for the ballistic 
missile defense of the homeland of the United States, in 
addition to the improvements described in paragraph 
(4), if future ballistic missile threats warrant deployment 
of such options to increase the capabilities of such bal-
listic missile defense, including— 
(A) deployment of a missile defense interceptor 
site on the East Coast; 
(B) deployment of a missile defense interceptor 
site in another location in the United States, other 
than on the East Coast; 
(C) expansion of Missile Field–1 at Fort 
Greely, Alaska, to an operationally available 20-silo 
configuration, to permit further interceptor deploy-
ments; 
(D) deployment of additional ground-based 
interceptors for the ground-based midcourse defense 
system at Fort Greely, Alaska, or Vandenberg Air 
Force Base, California, or both; 
(E) deployment of additional missile defense 
sensors, including at a site in Alaska as well as an 
X-band radar on or near the East Coast or else-
where, to enhance system tracking and discrimina-
tion, including various sensor options;
100 
•HRES 441 EH 
(F) enhancements to the operational effective-
ness, cost effectiveness, and overall performance of 
the ground-based midcourse defense system through 
improvements to system reliability, discrimination, 
battle management, exo-atmospheric kill vehicle ca-
pability, and related functions; 
(G) the potential for future enhancement and 
deployment of the standard missile–3 block IIA in-
terceptor to augment the ballistic missile defense of 
the homeland of the United States; 
(H) missile defense options to defend the 
homeland of the United States against ballistic mis-
siles that could be launched from vessels on the seas 
around the United States, including the Gulf of 
Mexico, or other ballistic missile threats that could 
approach the United States from the south, should 
such a threat arise in the future; and 
(I) any other options the Secretary considers 
appropriate. 
(d) EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS.—For each 
option described under subsection (c)(5), the Secretary shall 
provide an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of 
such option. The evaluation of each such option shall include 
consideration of the following: 
(1) Technical feasibility.
101 
•HRES 441 EH 
(2) Operational effectiveness and utility against the 
projected future threat. 
(3) Cost, cost effectiveness, and affordability. 
(4) Schedule considerations. 
(5) Agility to respond to changes in future threat 
evolution. 
(e) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—Based on 
the evaluations required by subsection (d), the Secretary shall 
include in the report under subsection (a) such findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers ap-
propriate for potential future options for the ballistic missile 
defense of the homeland of the United States. 
(f) FORM.—The report under subsection (a) shall be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex. 
SEC. 239. BRIEFINGS ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CER-
TAIN MISSILE DEFENSE MATTERS. 
Not later than 180 days after the completion of the site 
evaluation study required by subsection (a) of section 227 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1678), and again one year 
after such date, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the 
congressional defense committees a detailed briefing on the 
current status of efforts and plans to implement the require-
ments of such section, including—
102 
•HRES 441 EH 
(1) the progress and plans toward preparation of 
the environmental impact statement required by sub-
section (b) of such section; and 
(2) the development of the contingency plan under 
subsection (d) of such section for deployment of an addi-
tional homeland missile defense interceptor site in case 
the President determines to proceed with such an addi-
tional deployment. 
SEC. 240. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT ON NATO AND MIS-
SILE DEFENSE BURDEN-SHARING. 
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 
that as defense budget resources continue to decline in the 
United States, including by reason of funding reductions 
under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–25), 
and the sequestration in effect by reason of such Act, the im-
portance of burden-sharing among members of the North At-
lantic Treaty Organization for missile defense is increasing. 
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of De-
fense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report on the cost of missile defense for members of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (in this section referred 
to as ‘‘NATO’’), including the phased, adaptive approach to 
missile defense in Europe, and the contributions made by 
members of NATO for such missile defense.
103 
•HRES 441 EH 
(c) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The report under subsection 
(b) shall include the following: 
(1) The total estimated cost directly attributable to 
the various phases of the phased, adaptive approach to 
missile defense in Europe, including costs relating to re-
search, development, testing, and evaluation, procure-
ment, and military construction. 
(2) With respect to the cost of missile defense for 
NATO, including the phased, adaptive approach to mis-
sile defense in Europe, a description of the level of bur-
den-sharing among members of NATO as of the date of 
the report, including through contributions made by a 
member in the form of hosting elements of such ap-
proach to missile defense in the territory of the member. 
(3) An assessment of, and recommendations for, 
areas where the Secretary determines that NATO and 
the members of NATO could improve the burden-sharing 
among members with respect to the cost of missile de-
fense for NATO described in paragraph (2), including 
through the possible pooling of missile defense intercep-
tors. 
(d) FORM.—The report required by subsection (b) shall 
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classi-
fied annex.
104 
•HRES 441 EH 
SEC. 241. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEPLOYMENT OF REGIONAL 
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) the United States develops and deploys regional 
ballistic missile defense capabilities to protect the for-
ward-deployed forces, allies, and partners of the United 
States against regional ballistic missile threats, con-
sistent with the security obligations of the United States 
and as part of the broader theater security and military 
plans of the geographic combatant commanders of the 
United States; 
(2) in deciding on the deployment of regional mis-
sile defense assets and capabilities of the United States, 
the Secretary of Defense should give priority consider-
ation to the capabilities needed to deter and defend 
against the ballistic missile threat, including the rec-
ommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the prior-
ities of the geographic combatant commanders for meet-
ing the operational needs of the commanders for ballistic 
missile defense; 
(3) such deployment decisions should take into ac-
count all of the ballistic missile threats to the forces, al-
lies, and partners of the United States in each region; 
(4) the United States should encourage the allies 
and partners of the United States to acquire and con-
tribute to integrated and complementary regional bal-
105 
•HRES 441 EH 
listic missile defense capabilities—including coordination, 
data sharing, and networking arrangements—and such 
allied and partner capabilities should be taken into ac-
count in deciding on the deployment of regional missile 
defense capabilities of the United States; and 
(5) the United States should cooperate closely with 
the allies and partners of the United States, including 
such allies and partners in East Asia, on missile defense 
deployments and cooperation that enhance the mutual 
security of the United States and such allies and part-
ners. 
SEC. 242. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROCUREMENT OF CAPA-
BILITY ENHANCEMENT II EXOATMOSPHERIC KILL 
VEHICLE. 
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
should 
not 
procure 
a 
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, un-
less such procurement is for test assets or to maintain a 
warm line for the industrial base.
106 
•HRES 441 EH 
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 251. ANNUAL COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON THE 
AMPHIBIOUS 
COMBAT 
VEHICLE 
ACQUISITION 
PROGRAM. 
(a) ANNUAL GAO REVIEW.—During the period begin-
ning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 
March 1, 2018, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct an annual review of the amphibious combat ve-
hicle acquisition program. 
(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1 of each 
year beginning in 2014 and ending in 2018, the Comp-
troller General shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the review of the amphibious 
combat vehicle acquisition program conducted under 
subsection (a). 
(2) MATTERS
TO
BE
INCLUDED.—Each report 
under paragraph (1) shall include the following: 
(A) The extent to which the program is meet-
ing development and procurement cost, schedule, 
performance, and risk mitigation goals. 
(B) With respect to meeting the desired initial 
operational capability and full operational capability 
dates for the amphibious combat vehicle, the 
progress and results of—
107 
•HRES 441 EH 
(i) developmental and operational testing 
of the vehicle; and 
(ii) plans for correcting deficiencies in ve-
hicle performance, operational effectiveness, re-
liability, suitability, and safety. 
(C) An assessment of procurement plans, pro-
duction results, and efforts to improve manufac-
turing efficiency and supplier performance. 
(D) An assessment of the acquisition strategy 
of the amphibious combat vehicle, including whether 
such strategy is in compliance with acquisition man-
agement best-practices and the acquisition policy 
and regulations of the Department of Defense. 
(E) An assessment of the projected operations 
and support costs and the viability of the Marine 
Corps to afford to operate and sustain the amphib-
ious combat vehicle. 
(3) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—In submitting to 
the congressional defense committees the first report 
under paragraph (1) and a report following any changes 
made by the Secretary of the Navy to the baseline docu-
mentation of the amphibious combat vehicle acquisition 
program, the Comptroller General shall include, with re-
spect to such program, an assessment of the sufficiency 
and objectivity of—
108 
•HRES 441 EH 
(A) the analysis of alternatives; 
(B) the initial capabilities document; and 
(C) the capabilities development document. 
SEC. 252. ANNUAL COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED 
STATES REPORT ON THE ACQUISITION PROGRAM 
FOR THE VXX PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER. 
(a) ANNUAL GAO REVIEW.—The Comptroller General 
of the United States shall conduct annually a review of the 
acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter air-
craft. 
(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1 each 
year, the Comptroller General shall submit to the con-
gressional defense committees a report on the review 
conducted under subsection (a) during the preceding 
year. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—Each report under paragraph (1) 
shall include such matters as the Comptroller General 
considers appropriate to fully inform the congressional 
defense committees of the stage of the acquisition proc-
ess for the VXX Presidential Helicopter aircraft covered 
by the review described in such report. Such matters 
may include the following:
109 
•HRES 441 EH 
(A) The extent to which the acquisition pro-
gram for the VXX Presidential Helicopter aircraft 
is meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals. 
(B) The progress and results of developmental 
testing. 
(C) An assessment of the acquisition strategy 
for the program, including whether the strategy is 
consistent with acquisition management best prac-
tices identified by the Comptroller General for pur-
poses of the program. 
(c) SUNSET.—The requirements in this section shall ter-
minate upon the earlier of— 
(1) the date on which the Navy awards a contract 
for full-rate production for the VXX Presidential Heli-
copter aircraft; or 
(2) the date on which the acquisition program for 
such aircraft is terminated. 
SEC. 253. REPORT ON STRATEGY TO IMPROVE BODY ARMOR. 
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
comprehensive research and development strategy of the Sec-
retary to achieve significant reductions in the weight of body 
armor.
110 
•HRES 441 EH 
(b) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The report under subsection 
(a) shall include the following: 
(1) A brief description of each solution for body 
armor weight reduction that is being developed as of the 
date of the report. 
(2) For each such solution— 
(A) the costs, schedules, and performance re-
quirements; 
(B) the research and development funding pro-
file; 
(C) a description of the materials being used in 
the solution; and 
(D) the feasibility and technology readiness 
levels of the solution and the materials. 
(3) A strategy to provide resources for future re-
search and development of body armor weight reduction. 
(4) An explanation of how the Secretary is using a 
modular or tailorable solution to approach body armor 
weight reduction. 
(5) A description of how the Secretary coordinates 
the research and development of body armor weight re-
duction being carried out by the military departments. 
(6) Any other matter the Secretary considers appro-
priate.
111 
•HRES 441 EH 
(c) FORM.—The report required by subsection (a) shall 
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classi-
fied annex. 
Subtitle E—Other Matters 
SEC. 261. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY 
REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sec-
tion: 
‘‘§ 189. Communications Security Review and Advisory 
Board 
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be in the Depart-
ment of Defense a Communications Security Review and Ad-
visory Board (in this section referred to as the ‘Board’) to 
review and assess the communications security, cryptographic 
modernization, and related key management activities of the 
Department and provide advice to the Secretary with respect 
to such activities. 
‘‘(b) MEMBERS.—(1) The Secretary shall determine the 
number of members of the Board. 
‘‘(2) The Chief Information Officer of the Department 
of Defense shall serve as chairman of the Board. 
‘‘(3) The Secretary shall appoint officers in the grade of 
general or admiral and civilian employees of the Department
112 
•HRES 441 EH 
of Defense in the Senior Executive Service to serve as mem-
bers of the Board. 
‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Board shall— 
‘‘(1) monitor the overall communications security, 
cryptographic modernization, and key management ef-
forts of the Department, including activities under major 
defense acquisition programs (as defined in section 139c 
of this title), by— 
‘‘(A) requiring each Chief Information Officer 
of each military department to report the commu-
nications security activities of the military depart-
ment to the Board; 
‘‘(B) tracking compliance of each military de-
partment with respect to communications security 
modernization efforts; 
‘‘(C) validating lifecycle communications secu-
rity modernization plans for major defense acquisi-
tion programs; 
‘‘(2) validate the need to replace cryptographic 
equipment based on the expiration dates of the equip-
ment and evaluate the risks of continuing to use cryp-
tographic equipment after such expiration dates; 
‘‘(3) convene in-depth program reviews for specific 
cryptographic modernization developments with respect
113 
•HRES 441 EH 
to validating requirements and identifying programmatic 
risks; 
‘‘(4) develop a long-term roadmap for communica-
tions security to identify potential issues and ensure syn-
chronization with major planning documents; and 
‘‘(5) advise the Secretary on the cryptographic pos-
ture of the Department, including budgetary rec-
ommendations. 
‘‘(d) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.—The Board 
shall not include the consideration of programs funded under 
the National Intelligence Program (as defined in section 3(6) 
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(6))) 
in carrying out this section.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at 
the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the 
item relating to section 188 the following new item: 
‘‘189. Communications Security Review and Advisory Board’’. 
SEC. 262. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF MECHANISMS TO 
PROVIDE FUNDS FOR DEFENSE LABORATORIES 
FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF TECH-
NOLOGIES FOR MILITARY MISSIONS. 
(a) CLARIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Sec-
tion 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 10 
U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended—
131 
•HRES 441 EH 
(F) the effectiveness of the implementation by 
the Department of the Army of cooperative agree-
ments authorized at manufacturing arsenals under 
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code. 
(2) MECHANISMS
FOR
DETERMINING
MANUFAC-
TURING
CAPABILITIES.—The Secretary shall review 
mechanisms within the Department of Defense for en-
suring that appropriate consideration is given to the 
unique manufacturing capabilities of arsenals owned by 
the United States to fulfill manufacturing requirements 
of the Department of Defense for which there is no or 
limited domestic commercial capability. 
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of De-
fense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report that includes the results of the reviews conducted 
under subsection (a) and a description of actions planned to 
support critical manufacturing capabilities within arsenals 
owned by the United States. 
(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later than 
one year after the date on which the report required under 
subsection (b) is submitted, the Comptroller General shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report con-
taining an assessment of the report together with the rec-