Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?



113th Congress                                                   Report   
                                   SENATE                 
2d Session                                                       113-176
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 402

 
                      CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE
                         AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
                            FISCAL YEAR 2015

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 2410]

                                   on

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
   MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     


                                     

                  June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
   CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015


113th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                          Report
                                                                113-176
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 402

                      CARL LEVIN NATIONAL DEFENSE

                         AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

                            FISCAL YEAR 2015

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 2410]

                                   on

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
   MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     


                                     

                  June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
?

  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island              JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado                 SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina         ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia       KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana                ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              MIKE LEE, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
                    Peter K. Levine, Staff Director
                John A. Bonsell, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the bill..............................................     1
        Committee overview.......................................     2
        Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget 
          authority implication..................................     4
        Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)...................     5
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.................     7
Title I--Procurement.............................................     7
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     7
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)...............     7
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................     7
        Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121).......     7
        Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat 
          Ship seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122)..........     8
        Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of 
          aircraft carrier and construction of amphibious ship 
          (sec. 123).............................................     8
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................     9
        Prohibition on retirement of MQ-1 Predator aircraft (sec. 
          131)...................................................     9
        Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air 
          Force aircraft (sec. 132)..............................     9
        Temporary limitation on availability of funds for 
          transfer of Air Force C-130H and C-130J aircraft (sec. 
          133)...................................................     9
        Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A-
          10 aircraft (sec. 134).................................    10
        Limitation on transfer of KC-135 tankers (sec. 135)......    10
        Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of 
          Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft 
          (sec. 136).............................................    11
        Report on status of air-launched cruise missile 
          capabilities (sec. 137)................................    11
        Report on C-130 aircraft (sec. 138)......................    11
        Report on status of F-16 aircraft (sec. 139).............    12
        Report on options to modernize or replace the T-1A 
          aircraft (sec. 140)....................................    12
    Budget Items.................................................    13
        Army.....................................................    13
            Light Utility Helicopter.............................    13
            UH-60 Black Hawk M model.............................    13
            Common Missile Warning System........................    13
            Bradley program modifications........................    14
            Improved recovery vehicle............................    14
            Joint assault bridge.................................    14
            M1 Abrams tank modifications.........................    14
            Carbine..............................................    14
            Modular handgun reduction............................    15
            40mm reduction.......................................    15
            Precision Guidance Kit reduction.....................    15
            Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 2    15
            Joint tactical radio system..........................    15
            Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio..................    15
            Family of weapon sights..............................    16
            Joint Battle Command--Platform.......................    16
            Counterfire radars...................................    16
            Army information technology..........................    16
            Modification of in-service equipment.................    17
        Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund...................    17
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........    17
        Navy.....................................................    17
            EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic 
              System.............................................    17
            Aircraft spares and repair parts.....................    18
            Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests...............    18
            Tomahawk.............................................    18
            Navy enterprise information technology...............    19
            Power equipment assorted.............................    19
        Air Force................................................    19
            RQ-4.................................................    19
            MQ-9.................................................    19
            C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program..    20
            U-2..................................................    20
            C-130 aircraft modifications.........................    21
            C-130 engines........................................    21
            Lynx synthetic aperture radar........................    22
            Small diameter bomb..................................    22
            General purpose bombs................................    22
            Base information transportation infrastructure 
              transfer...........................................    22
            Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment....    23
        Defense-wide.............................................    23
            MC-12 aircraft.......................................    23
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    23
    Items of Special Interest....................................    24
        Air Force KC-46A Pegasus procurement.....................    24
        Armored vehicle transmission industrial base.............    24
        Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense..    25
        Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and 
          reconnaissance requirements............................    25
        Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of 
          Engineers..............................................    26
        Comptroller General of the United States review relating 
          to remotely piloted aircraft...........................    26
        Distributed mission operations...........................    27
        Ejection seats...........................................    28
        Enhanced position location reporting system..............    28
        Family of medium tactical vehicles.......................    28
        Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.............................    29
        Joint Strike Fighter software development................    29
        Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development...    29
        Lightweight robots.......................................    29
        MH-60R helicopters.......................................    30
        Modular handgun..........................................    31
        Report on the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base........    31
        RQ-21 unmanned aerial systems............................    32
        Solid state radar upgrades...............................    32
        Technical study and business case analysis of body armor 
          plates.................................................    33
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............    35
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    35
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)...............    35
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    35
        Modification of authority for prizes for advanced 
          technology achievements (sec. 211).....................    35
        Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 
          212)...................................................    35
        Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target 
          Attack Radar Systems aircraft (sec. 213)...............    36
        Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and 
          evaluation capabilities (sec. 214).....................    37
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................    37
        Study and reports on the technological superiority of the 
          United States military (sec. 221)......................    37
        Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant 
          Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222)    37
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................    38
        Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research 
          Projects Agency of private sector personnel with 
          critical research and development expertise (sec. 231).    38
        Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents 
          of members of Armed Forces for careers in science, 
          technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 232)....    38
        Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing 
          in pilot program to include technology protection 
          features during research and development of certain 
          defense systems (sec. 233).............................    39
    Budget Items.................................................    39
        University research initiatives..........................    39
        Indirect fire protection capability......................    40
        Infantry support weapons.................................    40
        Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational 
          awareness operations support...........................    40
        Marine Corps assault vehicles............................    41
        Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development........    41
        Integrated Personnel and Pay System......................    42
        F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability 
          System.................................................    42
        Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload....................    42
        Network Centric Collaborative Targeting..................    42
        Logistics information technology.........................    44
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs.......    44
        Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
          education for military children........................    45
        Historically black colleges and universities and minority 
          serving institutions...................................    46
        Applied research for the advancement of science and 
          technology.............................................    46
        Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security 
          Research...............................................    47
        Foreign technology testing...............................    47
        Science and technology analytic assessments..............    47
        Concept and technology demonstrations....................    47
        Advanced sensor applications program.....................    48
        Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system...............    48
        Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and 
          maintenance funding....................................    48
        Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative 
          missile defense programs...............................    49
        Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........    49
        Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program    50
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution..    51
        Combatant Command exercise engagement and training 
          transformation funding decrease........................    52
        Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program.................    52
        Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research 
          and development........................................    53
        MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.............................    53
    Items of Special Interest....................................    54
        Advanced training technologies...........................    54
        Air Force Office of Scientific Research..................    54
        Airborne signals intelligence enterprise.................    55
        Anti-submarine warfare research and development..........    56
        Cargo unmanned aerial system.............................    56
        Clear technical communications...........................    56
        Combat rescue helicopter.................................    57
        EC-130H Compass Call aircraft............................    57
        Electronic warfare threat emitters.......................    58
        Improved turbine engine program..........................    58
        Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures 
          development............................................    59
        National Security Agency cybersecurity research and 
          development............................................    59
        Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory 
          technologies...........................................    60
        Technology transition of successful research initiatives.    60
        Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards....    61
Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................    63
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    63
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)...............    63
    Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment.......................    63
        Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the 
          Sikes Act (sec. 311)...................................    63
        Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station, 
          Chincoteague, Virginia (sec. 312)......................    63
        Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of 
          drop-in fuels (sec. 313)...............................    64
        Study on implementation of requirements for consideration 
          of fuel logistics support requirements in planning, 
          requirements development, and acquisition processes 
          (sec. 314).............................................    64
        Comptroller General study of Department of Defense 
          research and development projects and investments to 
          increase energy security and meet energy goals 
          requirements (sec. 315)................................    64
        Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area 
          on island of Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316)...........    65
    Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................    65
        Modification of annual reporting requirement related to 
          prepositioning of materiel and equipment (sec. 321)....    65
        Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement 
          (sec. 322).............................................    65
        Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323)..    66
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    66
        Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense 
          operation and financial support for military museums 
          (sec. 331).............................................    66
    Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority..........    66
        Limitation on MC-12 aircraft transfer to United States 
          Special Operations Command (sec. 341)..................    66
        Limitation on establishment of regional Special 
          Operations Forces Coordination Centers (sec. 342)......    67
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................    68
        Repeal of authority relating to use of military 
          installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractors 
          (sec. 351).............................................    68
        Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility 
          uniforms (sec. 352)....................................    68
        Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353)...    69
    Budget Items.................................................    69
        Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities 
          increases..............................................    69
        Facilities Sustainment...................................    70
        Foreign currency fluctuation reductions..................    70
        Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel......    71
        Undistributed travel reductions..........................    71
        Army National Guard readiness funding increase...........    71
        Army National Guard advertising reduction................    71
        Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases.............    72
        Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests...................    72
        Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds................    72
        Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase................    72
        Marine Corps tuition assistance..........................    73
        Museum reduction.........................................    73
        RC-135 Rivet Joint.......................................    73
        Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction....    73
        Joint Enabling Capabilities Command......................    73
        United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities 
          increases..............................................    74
        U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region.    74
        Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers..    74
        U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness 
          requirements...........................................    74
        Department of Defense STARBASE program...................    75
        Procurement technical assistance program.................    75
        Defense Security Cooperation Agency......................    75
        Funding for impact aid...................................    76
        Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request..    76
        Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment 
          and closure support....................................    76
        Department of Defense rewards program reduction..........    76
        Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
          support to United States Africa Command................    76
        Defense Clandestine Service..............................    77
        Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service...    77
        Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era..    77
        Support for international sporting competitions..........    77
    Items of Special Interest....................................    78
        Acoustic mixing..........................................    78
        Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training.....    78
        Additive manufacturing...................................    79
        Afghanistan retrograde costs.............................    79
        Air tactical training....................................    80
        Army and Marine Corps equipment reset....................    80
        Army Emergency Management Program........................    81
        Availability of funds for readiness......................    81
        Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll.....................    81
        Category I ammunition items..............................    81
        Coal-to-liquid report....................................    82
        Combatant Command Support Agent accounting...............    82
        Comptroller General of the United States report on the 
          Department of the Army actions to determine the 
          appropriate structure of the Army......................    83
        Comptroller General review of readiness..................    83
        Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in 
          the military working dog program.......................    84
        Depot capital investment program.........................    85
        Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation 
          access programs and systems............................    85
        Humanitarian Demining Training Center....................    85
        Improving energy efficiency and performance of military 
          platforms..............................................    86
        Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle 
          refueling stations.....................................    86
        Jungle training..........................................    87
        Management of conventional ammunition inventory..........    87
        Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway..............    88
        Measuring Department of Defense use of commercial cloud 
          computing capabilities and services....................    89
        Mission-critical electricity infrastructure adoption of 
          National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber 
          Security Framework.....................................    89
        Multi-modal retrograde contracts.........................    91
        Navy fire control radar and replacement..................    91
        Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison...............    92
        Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting 
          System.................................................    93
        Operational energy benefits..............................    93
        Soldier equipment modernization program..................    94
        Strategic military infrastructure to support operation 
          plans..................................................    95
        Stryker sustainment......................................    95
        Training for the Air Force weather program...............    96
        Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for 
          military installations.................................    96
        War reserve stocks.......................................    97
        Warrior power executive agent............................    98
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................    99
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................    99
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............    99
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................    99
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............    99
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the reserves (sec. 412)................................    99
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   100
        Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   100
        Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   100
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   101
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   101
    Budget Item..................................................   101
        Military personnel funding changes.......................   101
Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   103
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   103
        Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for 
          officers selected for selective early retirement (sec. 
          501)...................................................   103
        Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be 
          recommended for discharge during a fiscal year under 
          enhanced selective discharge authority (sec. 502)......   103
        Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or 
          naval flight officer be in command of an inactivated 
          nuclear-powered aircraft carrier before decommissioning 
          (sec. 503).............................................   103
        Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by 
          selective retirement boards to particular warrant 
          officer year groups and specialties (sec. 504).........   103
        Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual 
          reports on joint officer management and promotion 
          policy objectives for joint officers (sec. 505)........   103
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   104
        Retention on reserve active-status list following 
          nonselection for promotion of certain health 
          professions officers and first lieutenants and 
          lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing baccalaureate 
          degrees (sec. 511).....................................   104
        Database on military technician positions (sec. 512).....   104
        Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience 
          program for the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 513).............................................   104
        Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve 
          (sec. 514).............................................   105
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   105
        Enhancement of participation of mental health 
          professionals in boards for correction of military 
          records and boards for review of discharge or dismissal 
          of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 521)..............   105
        Extension of authority to conduct programs on career 
          flexibility to enhance retention of members of the 
          Armed Forces (sec. 522)................................   105
        Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational 
          standards for all military occupations (sec. 523)......   106
        Comptroller General of the United States report on impact 
          of certain mental and physical trauma on discharges 
          from military service for misconduct (sec. 524)........   106
        Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of 
          discharge of certain Vietnam era members of the Armed 
          Forces (sec. 525)......................................   106
    Subtitle D--Member Education and Training....................   107
        Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces 
          to obtain professional credentials (sec. 531)..........   107
        Authority for Joint Special Operations University to 
          award degrees (sec. 532)...............................   107
        Enhancement of information provided to members of the 
          Armed Forces and veterans regarding use of Post-9/11 
          Educational Assistance and Federal financial aid 
          through Transition Assistance Program (sec. 533).......   107
        Duration of foreign and cultural exchange activities at 
          military service academies (sec. 534)..................   108
    Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters...............   108
        Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of 
          Military Justice (sec. 541)............................   108
        Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of 
          Evidence, relating to the privilege against disclosure 
          of communications between psychotherapists and patients 
          (sec. 542).............................................   108
        Enhancement of victims' rights to be heard through 
          counsel in connection with prosecution of certain sex-
          related offenses (sec. 543)............................   109
        Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the 
          Armed Forces for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel 
          (sec. 544).............................................   109
        Additional enhancements of military department actions on 
          sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 545)......   109
        Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-
          related offenses for trial by court-martial if 
          requested by chief prosecutor (sec. 546)...............   110
        Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention 
          of evidence in a sexual assault case to permit return 
          of personal property upon completion of related 
          proceedings (sec. 547).................................   110
        Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense 
          Sexual Assault Incident Database (sec. 548)............   110
        Technical revisions and clarifications of certain 
          provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act 
          for Fiscal Year 2014 relating to the military justice 
          system (sec. 549)......................................   111
        Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response 
          and related military justice enhancements to military 
          service academies (sec. 550)...........................   111
        Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious 
          offenses identified in unrestricted reports on sexual 
          assaults in annual reports on sexual assaults in the 
          Armed Forces (sec. 551)................................   111
        Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 
          and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 
          552)...................................................   112
        Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the 
          Department of Justice in efforts to prevent and respond 
          to sexual assault (sec. 553)...........................   112
        Modification of term of judges of the United States Court 
          of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 554).............   112
        Report on review of Office of Diversity Management and 
          Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases (sec. 
          555)...................................................   112
        Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive 
          management plan to address deficiencies in data 
          captured in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 
          (sec. 556).............................................   112
    Subtitle F--Decorations and Award............................   113
        Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian 
          employees of the Department of Defense who were killed 
          or wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist 
          organization (sec. 561)................................   113
    Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family 
      Readiness Matters..........................................   113
        Continuation of authority to assist local educational 
          agencies that benefit dependents of members of the 
          Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees (sec. 571)...................................   113
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          572)...................................................   113
        Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012 
          (sec. 573).............................................   113
        Authority to employ non-United States citizens as 
          teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' 
          School system (sec. 574)...............................   113
        Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary 
          schools among functions of Advisory Council on 
          Dependents' Education (sec. 575).......................   114
        Department of Defense suicide prevention programs for 
          military dependents (sec. 576).........................   114
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   114
        Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force 
          Academy athletic programs (sec. 581)...................   114
    Items of Special Interest....................................   115
        Comptroller General of the United States report on the 
          sexual assault prevention activities of the Department 
          of Defense and the Armed Forces........................   115
        Comptroller General report on access to on-base services 
          by junior enlisted personnel...........................   115
        Comptroller General report on feasibility and 
          advisability of longer tour lengths....................   116
        Comptroller General review of Department of Defense 
          progress in expanding service opportunities for women..   116
        Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program..   117
        Cyber career field.......................................   118
        Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and 
          response to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces......   118
        Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps......   119
        Military chaplains.......................................   119
        Online employment search-tool consolidation..............   119
        Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention......................   120
        Standardized survivor experience surveys.................   120
        Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees 
          who are members of reserve components..................   120
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   123
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   123
        Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   123
        Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and 
          Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chief of the National 
          Guard Bureau among senior members of the Armed Forces 
          for the purposes of pay and allowances (sec. 602)......   123
        Modification of computation of basic allowance for 
          housing inside the United States (sec. 603)............   123
        Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 
          rates of basic allowance for housing under certain 
          circumstances (sec. 604)...............................   123
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   123
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)..............   123
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)...   124
        One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities 
          for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................   124
        One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 
          consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus 
          authorities (sec. 614).................................   124
        One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 
          other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615).....   124
    Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 
      Benefits...................................................   125
        Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired 
          pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 
          under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 who first 
          become members prior to January 1, 2016 (sec. 621).....   125
        Modification of determination of retired pay base for 
          officers retired in general and flag officer grades 
          (sec. 622).............................................   125
        Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of 
          certain active duty or active service to reduce 
          eligibility age for retirement for non-regular service 
          (sec. 623).............................................   125
        Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to 
          transitional compensation for dependents of certain 
          members separated for dependent abuse (sec. 624).......   126
        Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts 
          established for the benefit of dependent children 
          incapable of self-support (sec. 625)...................   126
    Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits and Operations....................   126
        Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for 
          resale by commissary stores (sec. 631).................   126
    Items of Special Interest....................................   126
        Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals..........   126
        Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary 
          benefit................................................   127
        Secretary of Defense review of pay table.................   128
        Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces 
          regarding military pay and benefits....................   128
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................   129
    Subtitle A--TRICARE Program..................................   129
        Annual mental health assessments for members of the Armed 
          Forces (sec. 701)......................................   129
        Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for 
          the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702).......   129
        Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services 
          with other inpatient medical services (sec. 703).......   129
        Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and 
          counseling under the TRICARE program (sec. 704)........   129
        Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging 
          health care products and services (sec. 705)...........   129
        Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service 
          areas (sec. 706).......................................   130
        Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of 
          the United States reviews of viability of TRICARE 
          Standard and TRICARE Extra (sec. 707)..................   130
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   130
        Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health 
          Care Fund matters (sec. 721)...........................   130
        Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-
          Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund (sec. 722)..........................   131
        Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for 
          health care professionals for the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 723).............................................   131
        Program on medication management in the Department of 
          Defense (sec. 724).....................................   131
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   131
        Report on military family planning programs of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 731).......................   131
        Interagency working group on the provision of mental 
          health services to members of the National Guard and 
          the Reserves (sec. 732)................................   131
        Report on improvements in the identification and 
          treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic 
          brain injury among members of the Armed Forces (sec. 
          733)...................................................   132
        Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute 
          of Medicine on improvements to certain resilience and 
          prevention programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 
          734)...................................................   132
        Report on Department of Defense support of members of the 
          Armed Forces who experience traumatic injury as a 
          result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec. 
          735)...................................................   132
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          Military Health System Modernization Study of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 736).......................   132
    Items of Special Interest....................................   133
        Autism spectrum disorder services........................   133
        Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities 
          under TRICARE..........................................   133
        Consolidated TRICARE health plan.........................   133
        Department of Defense collaboration with the Department 
          of Veterans Affairs on the disability claims processing 
          backlog................................................   134
        Prosthetics for servicemembers...........................   134
        Treatment for obesity....................................   135
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and 
  Related Matters................................................   137
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   137
        Open systems approach to acquisition of systems 
          containing information technology (sec. 801)...........   137
        Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated 
          Information System programs (sec. 802).................   138
        Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense 
          business system programs (sec. 803)....................   139
        Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804)...   139
        Report on implementation of acquisition process for 
          information technology systems (sec. 805)..............   140
        Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to 
          maintain defense research facility records (sec. 806)..   142
        Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for United 
          States Special Operations Command (sec. 807)...........   142
        Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design 
          review (sec. 808)......................................   142
        Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on 
          inventory (sec. 809)...................................   142
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   143
        Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to 
          multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically 
          authorized by law (sec. 821)...........................   143
        Extension and modification of contract authority for 
          advanced component development and prototype units and 
          modification of authority (sec. 822)...................   143
        Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive 
          subcontracting plans (sec. 823)........................   143
        Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit 
          electronic parts (sec. 824)............................   144
        Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview 
          contractor employees in connection with examination of 
          contractor records (sec. 825)..........................   144
        Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of 
          grantees (sec. 826)....................................   144
        Prohibition on reimbursement of contractors for 
          congressional investigations and inquiries (sec. 827)..   144
        Enhanced authority to acquire certain products and 
          services produced in Africa (sec. 828).................   144
        Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United 
          States sources (sec. 829)..............................   144
    Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   144
        Program manager development strategy (sec. 841)..........   144
        Tenure and accountability of program managers for program 
          development periods (sec. 842).........................   145
        Tenure and accountability of program managers for program 
          execution periods (sec. 843)...........................   145
        Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary 
          design review and post-preliminary design review before 
          Milestone B (sec. 844).................................   145
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          operational testing programs for major defense 
          acquisition programs (sec. 845)........................   145
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   146
        Extension to United States Transportation Command of 
          authorities relating to prohibition on contracting with 
          the enemy (sec. 861)...................................   146
        Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance 
          provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented 
          media producers (sec. 862).............................   146
        Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent 
          Operational Needs Fund (sec. 863)......................   146
    Items of Special Interest....................................   146
        Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative........   146
        Business systems modernization...........................   147
        Clarification on the use of energy savings performance 
          contracts..............................................   147
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts....   148
        Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense 
          audit readiness efforts for property, plant, and 
          equipment..............................................   149
        Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy 
          reporting requirements applicable to major automated 
          information systems experiencing cost or schedule 
          overruns...............................................   149
        Joint Information Environment............................   150
        Next Generation Enterprise Network.......................   150
        Performance Based Logistics..............................   151
        Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess 
          progress toward auditability...........................   151
        Small businesses and the health of the U.S. defense 
          industrial base........................................   152
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   153
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   153
        Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
          and related matters (sec. 901).........................   153
        Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve 
          Affairs (sec. 902).....................................   155
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   156
        Modifications to requirements for accounting for members 
          of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees listed as missing (sec. 911).................   156
    Items of Special Interest....................................   156
        Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense.....   156
        Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs.............   158
Title X--General Provisions......................................   161
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   161
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   161
        National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002)...........   161
        Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003).............   161
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   161
        Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug 
          and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)..   161
        Extension and modification of authority for joint task 
          forces supporting law enforcement agencies conducting 
          activities to counter transnational organized crime to 
          support law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
          terrorism activities (sec. 1012).......................   162
        Extension of authority to provide additional support for 
          counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments 
          (sec. 1013)............................................   163
        Extension and modification of authority of Department of 
          Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug 
          activities of other governmental agencies (sec. 1014)..   163
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   164
        Limitation on use of funds for inactivation of U.S.S. 
          George Washington (sec. 1021)..........................   164
        Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of 
          Ticonderoga class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 
          1022)..................................................   165
        Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on 
          extended deployments (sec. 1023).......................   166
        Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels 
          providing transportation services under a shipbuilding 
          or ship repair contract with the Secretary of the Navy 
          (sec. 1024)............................................   166
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   167
        Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals 
          detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
          Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)..................................   167
        Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain 
          individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032).......................   167
        Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at 
          United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 
          the United States for emergency or critical medical 
          treatment (sec. 1033)..................................   167
        Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of 
          individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034).......................   168
    Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   168
        Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and 
          review of certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041)....   168
        Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 
          1042)..................................................   168
        Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support 
          services (sec. 1043)...................................   169
        Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among 
          leadership of the Department of Defense provided 
          physical protection and personal security (sec. 1044)..   169
        Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for 
          assignment of civilian employees of the Department of 
          Defense as advisors to foreign ministries of defense 
          (sec. 1045)............................................   169
        Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of 
          activities for nongovernmental personnel at Department 
          of Defense regional centers for security studies (sec. 
          1046)..................................................   170
    Subtitle F--Studies and Reports..............................   170
        Reports on recommendations of the National Commission on 
          the Structure of the Air Force (sec. 1061).............   170
        Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam 
          era (sec. 1062)........................................   170
        Assessment of the operations research tools, processes, 
          and capabilities in support of requirements analysis 
          for major defense acquisition programs and allocation 
          of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
          assets (sec. 1063).....................................   171
        Review of United States military strategy and the force 
          posture of allies and partners in the United States 
          Pacific Command area of responsibility (sec. 1064).....   173
        Department of Defense policies on community involvement 
          in Department community outreach events (sec. 1065)....   173
        Comptroller General of the United States briefing and 
          report on management of the conventional ammunition 
          demilitarization stockpile of the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 1066)............................................   173
        Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 
          1067)..................................................   173
        Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the 
          United States annual reviews and report on pilot 
          program on commercial fee-for-service air refueling 
          support for the Air Force (sec. 1068)..................   173
    Subtitle G--Uniformed Services Voting........................   174
    Part I--Provision of Voter Assistance to Members of the Armed 
      Forces.....................................................   174
        Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071).........   174
        Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072)......   174
    Part II--Electronic Voting Systems...........................   174
        Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec. 
          1076)..................................................   174
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   174
        Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian 
          employees on workplace and gender relations matters 
          (sec. 1081)............................................   174
        Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory 
          Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic 
          and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 1082).............   174
        Authority to require employees of the Department of 
          Defense and members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
          Marine Corps to occupy quarters on a rental basis while 
          performing official travel (sec. 1083).................   175
        Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use 
          the Department of Defense reimbursement rates for 
          transportation services provided to certain non-
          Department of Defense entities (sec. 1084).............   175
        Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of 
          disabled and low-income veterans (sec. 1085)...........   175
        Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086)............   175
    Items of Special Interest....................................   175
        Army force structure and installation alignment..........   175
        Comptroller General of the United States review of 
          burden-sharing agreements and posture costs............   176
        Comptroller General of the United States review of the 
          National Guard Counterdrug Program.....................   177
        Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan......   178
        National Guard Counterdrug Program.......................   179
        Preparing for increased Arctic operations................   179
        Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire 
          suppression and other purposes.........................   180
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters.............................   181
        Extension and modification of experimental program for 
          scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1101).........   181
        Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan 
          relating to senior management, functional, and 
          technical workforces of the Department of Defense (sec. 
          1102)..................................................   181
        One-year extension of authority to waive annual 
          limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on 
          pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas 
          (sec. 1103)............................................   181
        Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the 
          United States Cyber Command (sec. 1104)................   181
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   182
        Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees 
          with cyber skills......................................   182
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations...................   183
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   183
        Modification of Department of Defense authority for 
          humanitarian stockpiled conventional munitions 
          assistance programs (sec. 1201)........................   183
        Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds 
          for assistance for units of foreign security forces 
          that have committed a gross violation of human rights 
          (sec. 1202)............................................   183
        Codification and enhancement of authority to build the 
          capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1203)........   183
        Training of security forces and associated ministries of 
          foreign countries to promote respect for the rule of 
          law and human rights (sec. 1204).......................   185
        Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency 
          Fund authority (sec. 1205).............................   185
        Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend 
          certain military equipment to certain foreign forces 
          for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206).   186
        Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel 
          protection and personnel survivability equipment in 
          coalition operations (sec. 1207).......................   186
        Extension and modification of authority for support of 
          special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208).....   186
        Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the 
          conflict in Syria (sec. 1209)..........................   187
        Limitations on security assistance for the Government of 
          Burma (sec. 1210)......................................   188
        Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department 
          of Defense to provide training, equipment, or other 
          assistance or reimbursement to foreign security forces 
          (sec. 1211)............................................   188
        Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian 
          assistance and disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212)...   188
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 
      Iraq.......................................................   189
        Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 
          (sec. 1221)............................................   189
        Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and 
          provide defense services to the military and security 
          forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1222)......................   189
        One-year extension of authority to use funds for 
          reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223)....   190
        Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 
          of certain coalition nations for support provided to 
          United States military operations (sec. 1224)..........   190
        One-year extension of logistical support for coalition 
          forces supporting certain United States military 
          operations (sec. 1225).................................   190
        Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and 
          projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan 
          that cannot be safely accessed by United States 
          Government personnel (sec. 1226).......................   191
        Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership 
          between the United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227)..   191
        Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan 
          (sec. 1228)............................................   191
        Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United 
          States training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229)......   191
        Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230)........   192
        Extension and modification of authority to support 
          operations and activities of the Office of Security 
          Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1231)........................   192
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................   192
        Report on impact of end of major combat operations in 
          Afghanistan on authority to use military force (sec. 
          1241)..................................................   192
        United States strategy for enhancing security and 
          stability in Europe (sec. 1242)........................   192
        Report on military and security developments involving 
          the Russian Federation (sec. 1243).....................   193
        Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports 
          of United States-China Economic and Security Review 
          Commission (sec. 1244).................................   193
        Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing 
          on military to military engagement with the People's 
          Republic of China (sec. 1245)..........................   194
        Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246).....   194
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   195
        Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic 
          Union of Kurdistan under the Immigration and 
          Nationality Act (sec. 1261)............................   195
        Notification on potentially significant arms control 
          noncompliance (sec. 1262)..............................   195
        Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign 
          military liaison officers of foreign countries while 
          assigned to the Department of Defense (sec. 1263)......   195
        One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional 
          assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1264).............   195
        Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265)............   195
        Extension of limitations on providing certain missile 
          defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 
          1266)..................................................   196
        Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter 
          into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 
          1267)..................................................   196
    Items of Special Interest....................................   196
        Annual report on the military power of Iran..............   196
        Comptroller General of the United States review of 
          Department of Defense security assistance to the 
          Republic of Yemen......................................   197
        Maritime security in West Africa.........................   198
        Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram...............   198
        Northeast Asian intelligence threats.....................   199
        Plans for bases in Afghanistan...........................   200
        Support of foreign forces participating in operations 
          against the Lord's Resistance Army.....................   200
        United States-India Defense Security Cooperation.........   201
        United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in 
          Somalia................................................   201
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction.........................   203
    Subtitle A--Funding Allocations..............................   203
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 
          1301)..................................................   203
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   203
    Subtitle B--Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes 
      Relating to the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
      Reduction Program..........................................   203
        Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to 
          the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 
          Program (secs. 1311-1352)..............................   203
Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................................   205
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   205
        Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................   205
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 
          1402)..................................................   205
        Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-
          wide (sec. 1403).......................................   205
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)....................   205
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1405).......................   205
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters...   205
        Report on development of secure supply of rare earth 
          materials (sec. 1411)..................................   205
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   206
        Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of 
          Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 
          Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1421)......................   206
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, 
          North Chicago, Illinois (sec. 1422)....................   206
        Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 
          Retirement Home (sec. 1423)............................   206
        Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical 
          Advisor for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
          1424)..................................................   206
    Budget Items.................................................   206
        Meals, ready-to-eat......................................   206
        Defense Commissary Agency................................   207
        Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
          support to United States Southern Command..............   207
        Defense Health Program funding...........................   208
    Items of Special Interest....................................   208
        Defense working capital funds............................   208
        Department of Defense Inspector General..................   208
Title XV--Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Overseas 
  Contingency Operations.........................................   211
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   211
        Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   211
        Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502)..............   211
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   211
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511).......   211
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1512)...................   211
    Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters..........   211
        Plan for transition of funding of United States Special 
          Operations Command from supplemental funding for 
          overseas contingency operations to recurring funding 
          for future years defense programs (sec. 1521)..........   211
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522)   212
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523).............   212
        Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524)..............   213
        Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive 
          devices (sec. 1525)....................................   213
    Budget Item..................................................   213
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............   213
Title XVI--Strategic Programs, Cyber, and Intelligence Matters...   215
    Subtitle A--Nuclear Forces...................................   215
        Procurement authority for certain parts of 
          intercontinental ballistic missile fuses (sec. 1601)...   215
        Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on 
          plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons 
          complex, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and nuclear 
          weapons command and control system (sec. 1602).........   215
        Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and 
          communications systems at the United States Strategic 
          Command headquarters (sec. 1603).......................   215
        Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension 
          program (sec. 1604)....................................   216
        Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of 
          the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605).....   216
    Subtitle B--Missile Defense Programs.........................   216
        Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611)...........   216
        Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612)...........   217
        Availability of funds for missile defense programs of 
          Israel (sec. 1613).....................................   218
        Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill 
          Vehicle (sec. 1614)....................................   219
        Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior 
          to production and deployment (sec. 1615)...............   220
    Subtitle C--Space Activities.................................   221
        Update of National Security Space Strategy to include 
          space control and space superiority strategy (sec. 
          1621)..................................................   221
        Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense 
          Program; Report on Space Control (sec. 1622)...........   221
        Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of 
          critical space launch supplies for the Evolved 
          Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (sec. 1623)..........   221
        Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program 
          (sec. 1624)............................................   222
        Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
          program on foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625)...........   222
        Availability of additional rocket cores pursuant to 
          competitive procedures (sec. 1626).....................   222
        Competitive procedures required to launch payload for 
          mission number five of the Operationally Responsive 
          Space program (sec. 1627)..............................   222
        Limitation on funding for storage of Defense 
          Meteorological Satellite Program satellites (sec. 1628)   222
        Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium 
          or heavy lift launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds 
          (sec. 1629)............................................   223
        Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec. 
          1630)..................................................   224
        Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial 
          space imagery (sec. 1631)..............................   224
    Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related 
      Matters....................................................   225
        Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641)...........................   225
        Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement 
          for cross domain solution strategy (sec. 1642).........   226
        Budgeting and accounting for cyber mission forces (sec. 
          1643)..................................................   227
        Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption 
          service for the Joint Information Environment (sec. 
          1644)..................................................   227
        Reporting on penetrations into networks and information 
          systems of operationally critical contractors (sec. 
          1645)..................................................   228
        Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the 
          .mil top level domain (sec. 1646)......................   229
    Subtitle E--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   230
        Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in 
          commercial activities as security for intelligence 
          collection activities (sec. 1651)......................   230
        Authority for Secretary Of Defense to engage in 
          commercial activities as security for military 
          operations abroad (sec. 1652)..........................   230
        Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over 
          Department of Defense facilities for intelligence 
          collection or special operations activities abroad 
          (sec. 1653)............................................   230
        Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654)........   230
        Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of 
          Department of the Army to an open system architecture 
          (sec. 1655)............................................   232
    Budget Items.................................................   232
        Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites......   232
        Mobile Ground System.....................................   232
        Space Based Infrared System..............................   232
        Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development.....   232
        Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite..............   233
        Operationally Responsive Space...........................   233
    Items of Special Interest....................................   233
        Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration 
          collaboration on strategic systems.....................   233
        Ammonium Perchlorate.....................................   234
        Analysis of satellites available for open competition....   234
        Analytic support to cyber policy and planning............   234
        Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system.   235
        Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of 
          Defense Inspector General..............................   235
        Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on 
          weather satellite......................................   236
        Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense 
          technology.............................................   236
        Information assurance and certified workforce training...   236
        Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System..............   237
        Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted 
          Sensor.................................................   237
        Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals............   238
        New START Treaty Force Structure.........................   238
        Ohio Replacement Program.................................   239
        Processes for the secure provision of sensitive 
          compartmented information to congressional committees..   239
        Projected workload at wide band satellite operations 
          centers................................................   240
        Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System..   240
        Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness...   240
        Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage 
          Areas..................................................   241
        Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control.............   242
        Science and technology talent options for the Missile 
          Defense Agency.........................................   242
        Security of Department of Defense industrial control 
          systems................................................   242
        Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces............   243
        Update on nuclear command, control, and communications 
          systems acquisition....................................   243
Title XVII--National Commission on the Future of the Army........   245
        National commission on the future of the Army (secs. 
          1701-1709).............................................   245
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.................   247
        Summary and explanation of funding tables................   247
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   247
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   247
Title XXI--Army Military Construction............................   249
        Summary..................................................   249
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   249
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   250
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........   250
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2004 project (sec. 2104)..........................   250
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2013 projects (sec. 2105).........................   250
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2106)....................................   251
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 
          projects (sec. 2107)...................................   251
        Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United 
          States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2108)..........   251
        Limitation on funding for family housing construction at 
          Camp Walker, Republic of Korea (sec. 2109).............   251
Title XXII--Navy Military Construction...........................   253
        Summary..................................................   253
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   253
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   253
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   253
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   254
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2012 projects (sec. 2205).........................   254
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2206)..........................   254
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
          projects (sec. 2207)...................................   254
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 
          projects (sec. 2208)...................................   254
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   254
        Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command 
          Headquarters restoration...............................   254
Title XXIII--Air Force Military Construction.....................   257
        Summary..................................................   257
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   257
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302)...   257
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2008 project (sec. 2303)..........................   257
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2304)....................................   258
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 
          projects (sec. 2305)...................................   258
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies Military Construction...............   259
        Summary..................................................   259
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   259
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   259
        Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)......   259
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   259
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2404)....................................   260
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 
          projects (sec. 2405)...................................   260
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   260
        Authorization of appropriations, chemical 
          demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411)   260
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2000 project (sec. 2412)..........................   260
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
  Program........................................................   261
        Summary..................................................   261
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   261
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   261
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities..................   263
        Summary..................................................   263
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of 
      Appropriations.............................................   263
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   263
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   263
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   264
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   264
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   264
        Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and 
          Reserve (sec. 2606)....................................   264
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   264
        Modification and extension of authority to carry out 
          certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 2611)..........   264
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2013 project (sec. 2612)..........................   264
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2613)....................................   265
Title XXVII--Base Realignment and Closure Activities.............   267
        Summary and explanation of tables........................   267
        Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 
          closure activities funded through Department of Defense 
          Base Closure Account (sec. 2701).......................   267
        Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 
          closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702).......................   267
        HUBZones (sec. 2703).....................................   267
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions...........   269
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   269
        Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and 
          in-kind contributions (sec. 2801)......................   269
        Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802)..   270
        Modification of minor military construction authority for 
          projects to correct deficiencies that are life-, 
          health-, or safety-threatening (sec. 2803).............   270
        Extension of temporary, limited authority to use 
          operation and maintenance funds for construction 
          projects in certain areas outside the United States 
          (sec. 2804)............................................   270
        Limitation on construction projects in European Command 
          area of responsibility (sec. 2805).....................   270
        Limitation on construction of new facilities at 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 2806).......................   271
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   271
        Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative 
          expenses relating to certain real property transactions 
          (sec. 2811)............................................   271
        Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial 
          institutions operating on Department of Defense 
          installations (sec. 2812)..............................   271
    Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military 
      Realignment................................................   272
        Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region 
          (sec. 2821)............................................   272
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   273
        Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii 
          (sec. 2831)............................................   273
        Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832)....   273
        Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. 
          Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833)...........   273
        Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber, 
          Oklahoma (sec. 2834)...................................   273
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   274
        Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting 
          at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec. 
          2841)..................................................   274
    Items of Special Interest....................................   274
        Design build contracts...................................   274
        Laboratory revitalization................................   274
        Privatized lodging.......................................   275
        Report on military construction unfunded requirements....   275
        Reprogramming packages for military construction projects   276
        Scope of work variations.................................   276
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations 
  and Other Authorizations.......................................   279
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   279
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   279
        Overview.................................................   279
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   280
            Weapons activities...................................   280
            Directed stockpile work..............................   280
            Campaigns............................................   281
            Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations..............   282
            Secure transportation asset..........................   283
            Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information 
              Officer............................................   283
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............   283
            Nonproliferation and verification research and 
              development........................................   284
            Nonproliferation and international security..........   284
            International nuclear materials protection and 
              cooperation........................................   284
            Fissile Materials Disposition program................   284
            Global threat reduction initiative...................   284
            Naval Reactors.......................................   284
            Nuclear counterterrorism incident response...........   285
            Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs...   285
            Office of the Administrator..........................   285
        Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................   285
            Savannah River Site..................................   285
            Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities.......   286
            Hanford Site.........................................   286
            Idaho National Laboratory............................   286
            Los Alamos National Laboratory.......................   286
            Oak Ridge Reservation................................   286
            Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..........................   286
            Safeguards and Security..............................   286
            Technology Development...............................   287
            Program Direction and Support........................   287
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   287
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   287
        Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy 
          defense capital assets (sec. 3111).....................   287
        Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates 
          on life extension programs and new nuclear facilities 
          (sec. 3112)............................................   287
        Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities 
          Replacement Project (sec. 3113)........................   287
        Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances 
          and Worker Health (sec. 3114)..........................   288
        Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports 
          of Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of 
          the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3115)............   288
        Identification of amounts required for uranium technology 
          sustainment in budget materials for fiscal year 2016 
          (sec. 3116)............................................   288
    Budget Items.................................................   288
        Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program............   288
        Environment Safety and Health............................   289
        Legacy Management........................................   289
        Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances 
          and Worker Health......................................   289
        Inertial confinement facility operations and target 
          production.............................................   289
        Federal salaries and expenses............................   289
    Items of Special Interest....................................   289
        Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities 
          from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility....   289
        Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment..............   290
        National Nuclear Security Administration Governance......   290
        Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for 
          tritium production.....................................   290
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.............   293
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   293
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration..............................   293
        Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)......................   293
Division D--Funding Tables.......................................   293
        Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)...   293
        Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701).........................   293
    Legislative Requirements.....................................   434
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   434
        Committee Action.........................................   434
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   436
        Regulatory Impact........................................   436
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   436
    Additional Views.............................................   436
        Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe...........................   436
        Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte...........................   441
        Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 
          Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Vitter.....................   443
                                                       Calendar No. 402
113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     113-176

======================================================================


AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
 DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY 
    PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                  June 2, 2014.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2410]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2015;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2015;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2015;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2015; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2015.

Committee overview

    Five years ago, the United States had almost 200,000 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Now, after almost 12 years of continuous conflict, 
U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer 
deployed in Iraq.
    Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious 
security challenges around the globe. For example:
      Russia has violated international law and 
undermined 3 decades of peaceful development in Eastern Europe 
by seizing Crimea and massing tens of thousands of troops near 
the Ukrainian border.
      Al Qaeda leadership has been significantly 
degraded in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but terrorist 
organizations with links to al Qaeda continue to demonstrate an 
ability to exploit safe havens in ungoverned areas, including 
parts of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Syria, Iraq, and 
Yemen.
      Despite an international agreement to remove 
chemical weapons from Syria, the Assad regime continues to 
systematically attack civilian population centers, leading to 
thousands of casualties and millions of refugees and increasing 
the risk of regional instability.
      In Iraq, the disturbing seizure by al Qaeda-
affiliated militants of control in portions of Fallujah and 
Ramadi reflects in part the failure of a sectarian-influenced 
government to reach out to disenfranchised Sunni groups.
      The new North Korean regime has adopted the same 
destructive policies as its predecessors, pursuing its nuclear 
weapons and ballistic missile programs with callous disregard 
for the well-being of its own people and the region.
      China's pursuit of new military capabilities 
raises concerns about its intentions, particularly in the 
context of the country's increasing willingness to assert its 
controversial claims of sovereignty in the South China and East 
China seas.
    Here at home, the United States remains vulnerable to 
attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the 
provision of public services, and to our national security.
    The men and women of our Armed Forces--as well as the 
civilians and contractors who support them--have worked 
honorably and courageously to take on these challenges on our 
behalf, often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice 
to themselves and their families. The committee, Congress, and 
the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this 
service.
    Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the 
men and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the 
President's budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes reductions in 
force structure and compensation that increase risk for our 
nation and for the men and women who protect us. These 
reductions are driven by the top line of the budget--a topline 
that Congress dictated when we enacted the Budget Control Act 
of 2011 and reaffirmed (with minor relief in fiscal years 2014 
and 2015 for DOD and other agencies) in the Bipartisan Budget 
Act that we enacted earlier this year.
    The top line of $496.0 billion established in law for the 
fiscal year 2015 defense budget is unchanged from the funding 
level in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and remains more than 
$30.0 billion below the funding provided to DOD in fiscal years 
2010, 2011, and 2012. In real terms, the drop is even deeper, 
with a reduction of $75.0 billion since fiscal year 2010 and 
virtually no projected growth in inflation-adjusted dollars 
through the balance of the future years defense program.
    This shortfall requires painful trade-offs in just about 
every area of the defense budget. For example, the President's 
budget proposes significantly lower end strengths for the 
ground forces, including a further reduction of 50,000 in 
active-duty Army end strength, with smaller reductions in the 
Guard and Reserve. The budget restricts the pay raise for 
servicemembers below the rate of inflation; freezes pay for 
general and flag officers; begins a phased reduction in the 
growth of the housing allowance that could result in increased 
out of pocket expenses for servicemembers' housing costs; 
reduces support to commissaries; and makes significant changes 
to TRICARE benefits.
    The budget also calls for retiring the Air Force's A-10 and 
U-2 aircraft, inactivating half of the Navy's cruiser fleet, 
reducing the size of the Army's helicopter fleet by 25 percent, 
and terminating the Ground Combat Vehicle Program. Military 
construction funding has been reduced by more than 40 percent 
compared to last year's budget request and facilities 
sustainment accounts are funded at only 65 percent of the 
requirement in this year's request. If the budget caps remain 
unchanged in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, DOD has informed us 
that it will request further reductions in end strength, the 
retirement of the entire KC-10 tanker fleet and the Global Hawk 
Block 40 fleet, reduced purchases of Joint Strike Fighters and 
unmanned aerial vehicles, the inactivation of additional ships, 
reduced purchases of destroyers, and the elimination of an 
aircraft carrier and a carrier air wing.
    The committee-reported bill attempts to address some of 
these issues, subject to the requirement that any increase to 
the proposed budget be accompanied by an offsetting reduction. 
The civilian and military leaders of DOD have cautioned us, 
however, that it will be extremely difficult to provide 
adequate funding for the national defense and for our men and 
women in uniform unless Congress acts to increase the budget 
caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended.
    To date, in this Second Session of the 113th Congress, the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings 
and formal briefings on the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2014, threats to our national security, and related 
matters. In order to provide a framework for the consideration 
of these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines for 
its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows:
          (1) Ensure the long-term viability of the all-
        volunteer force by sustaining the quality-of-life of 
        the men and women of the total force (active-duty, 
        National Guard, and Reserves) and their families, as 
        well as DOD civilian personnel, through fair pay, 
        policies and benefits, and by addressing the needs of 
        the wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their 
        families.
          (2) Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking 
        action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the 
        readiness of the military services to conduct the full 
        range of their assigned missions.
          (3) Provide our servicemen and women with the 
        resources, training, technology, equipment, facilities, 
        and authorities they will need to succeed in future 
        combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations.
          (4) Successfully conclude the U.S. combat mission in 
        Afghanistan, while enhancing the capability of the U.S. 
        Armed Forces to support other nations in their efforts 
        to increase their capacity to provide for their 
        domestic and regional security and contribute to 
        international security.
          (5) Enhance the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces 
        and the security forces of allied and friendly nations 
        to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent 
        extremist organizations.
          (6) Improve the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to 
        counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing 
        on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of 
        weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
        delivery.
          (7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and 
        materials by strengthening nonproliferation programs, 
        maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the 
        size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the 
        safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile, the 
        delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
          (8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and 
        activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense 
        expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit 
        problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and 
        fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
          (9) Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil 
        fuels and seek greater energy security and independence 
        and pursue technological advances in traditional and 
        alternative energy storage, power systems, operational 
        energy tactical advantages, renewable energy 
        production, and more energy efficient ground, air, and 
        naval systems.
          (10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of 
        DOD's programs and activities to ensure proper 
        stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with 
        relevant laws and regulations.

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority 
        implication

    The administration's budget request for national defense 
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2015 was $513.7 
billion. Of this amount, $495.5 billion was requested for base 
Department of Defense (DOD) programs and $17.9 billion was 
requested for national security programs in the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB).
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $513.6 billion in fiscal year 2015, including 
$496.0 billion for base DOD programs and $17.7 billion for 
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB.
    The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments 
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary 
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the 
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2015 defense 
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's 
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation 
account for fiscal year 2015 and compares these amounts to the 
request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority 
implication for national defense by including national defense 
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the 
defense committees or are already authorized.

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in 
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for procurement activities at the levels 
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Airborne electronic attack capabilities (sec. 121)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Navy to take whatever steps the Secretary 
deems appropriate and are available to the Navy to ensure that 
the Navy retains the option of buying more EA-18G aircraft if 
further analysis of whether to expand the airborne electronic 
attack (AEA) force structure indicates the Navy should include 
more EA-18G aircraft in carrier air wings. The provision would 
also authorize the Navy, subject to appropriation, to use $75.0 
million in funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 
2014 for advance procurement funds of F/A-18 E/F aircraft for 
the purpose of retaining such an option. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $25.0 million in section 4101 for 
these purposes.
    The provision would direct the Secretary of the Navy to 
provide briefings to the congressional defense committees by 
September 1, 2014, on the options available to the Navy for 
ensuring that the Navy will not be precluded from buying more 
EA-18G aircraft if that is what the Navy analysis concludes 
should be done. The provision would also require the briefings 
to include an update on the Navy's progress in conducting its 
analysis of emerging requirements for airborne electronic 
attack.
    The committee is aware of the Navy's recent efforts to 
assess emerging and future operational requirements for 
airborne electronic attack capability. Specifically, the Navy 
has conducted some preliminary analysis that indicates that 
there may be a requirement to have more than five EA-18G 
aircraft in each carrier air wing. Deploying aircraft carrier 
air wings with a five-plane EA-18G squadron was the basis for 
concluding that the EA-18G production should end in fiscal year 
2014. If the Navy analysis indicates that EA-18G squadrons 
should be larger, the Navy may need to buy more aircraft.
    This preliminary analysis done by the Navy was the basis of 
the decision by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to include 
buying 22 more EA-18G aircraft at a cost of $2.1 billion as the 
number one item on his unfunded priority list for fiscal year 
2015. Separately, the CNO has stated that the need for 
electronic attack capability is critical, and also testified 
before the committee that the operational requirement for 
airborne electronic attack capacity is increasing, not 
receding.
    The committee is concerned that the Navy may complete the 
analysis after the option of buying more EA-18G aircraft is 
closed. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
complete that ongoing analysis promptly and to report the 
study's findings to the congressional defense committees. The 
committee also urges the Navy to provide the necessary funds in 
the fiscal year 2016 budget and future years defense program to 
meet its requirements for airborne electronic attack 
requirement, based on that analysis.
    In the meantime, the committee believes that the Navy 
should take action to delay the point at which a pending 
decision to close the EA-18G line may be made until the Navy 
makes a decision on the appropriate size of the AEA force 
structure.
Report on test evaluation master plan for Littoral Combat Ship 
        seaframes and mission modules (sec. 122)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to submit a report 
to the congressional defense committees on the test evaluation 
master plan for the seaframes and mission modules for the 
Littoral Combat Ship program.
    The report will include a description of the Navy's 
progress with respect to the test evaluation master plan, and 
an assessment of whether or not completion of the test 
evaluation master plan will demonstrate operational 
effectiveness and operational suitability for both seaframes 
and each mission module.
Authority to transfer certain funds for refueling of aircraft carrier 
        and construction of amphibious ship (sec. 123)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer funds available in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), or other Navy 
procurement account for either or both of the following 
purposes:
          (1) Up to $650.0 million to conduct a refueling and 
        complex overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN-73).
          (2) Up to $650.0 million to build a San Antonio-class 
        amphibious ship.
    The provision would require that the Secretary make a 
determination that unobligated balances to be transferred are 
available due to slower than expected program execution, and 
the transfer of funds will fill a high priority military need 
and is in the best interest of the Department of the Navy.
    It is the committee's intent that the Navy proceed with the 
refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington 
(CVN-73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal 
year 2015 for that purpose.
    Finally, the provision would authorize the Secretary to use 
incremental funding for a San Antonio-class ship if additional 
funds are made available in fiscal year 2015 for that purpose 
and the Secretary determines that such procurement will fill a 
high priority military need and is in the best interest of the 
Department of the Navy.
    The committee expects that, if the Secretary chooses to 
transfer funds for the San Antonio-class program in fiscal year 
2015, the Secretary will use funds from fiscal year 2015 and 
fiscal year 2016 to fully fund any new San Antonio-class ship 
put on contract during fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs

Prohibition on retirement of MQ-1 Predator aircraft (sec. 131)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Air Force from retiring any MQ-1 Predator aircraft during 
fiscal year 2015.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Air Force 
        aircraft (sec. 132)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report including an 
analysis and recommendations for not less than 80 percent of 
the Air Force missions and aircraft before retiring any Air 
Force aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force testified to the committee that the Air 
Force would complete an analysis of 80 percent of the Air Force 
missions and aircraft by the end of calendar year 2014. That 
ongoing analysis is assessing the appropriate contributions of 
the regular Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air 
Force Reserve to the total force structure of the Air Force. 
The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force found 
that the Air Force could save as much as $2.0 billion per year 
by realigning its forces between the active and reserve 
components. The committee wants to ensure that any planned 
retirements are reassessed in view of any savings that may be 
achievable as a result of that analysis.
Temporary limitation on availability of funds for transfer of Air Force 
        C130H and C-130J aircraft (sec. 133)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report before 
implementing any transfers of C-130H or C-130J aircraft. That 
report would include: (1) A recommended basing alignment of the 
C-130H2, C-130H3, and C-130J aircraft; (2) An identification of 
how that plan deviates from the basing plan approved by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239); (3) An explanation of what that plan deviates, if 
in any detail, from the plan approved by that Act; (4) An 
assessment of the national security benefits and any other 
expected benefits of the proposed transfers, including benefits 
for the facility or facilities expected to receive the 
transferred aircraft; (5) An assessment of the costs of the 
proposed transfers, including the impact of the proposed 
transfers on the facility or facilities from which the aircraft 
will be transferred; (6) An analysis of the recommended basing 
alignment that demonstrates that the recommendation is the most 
effective and efficient alternative for such basing alignment; 
and (7) For units equipped with special capabilities, such as 
the modular airborne firefighting system capability, an 
analysis of the impact of the proposed transfers on the ability 
to satisfy missions that utilize those capabilities.
    The provision would also require that the Comptroller 
General conduct a review of the sufficiency of the Air Force 
report within 45 days after the Air Force submits the report. 
It is the committee's intent for Congress to have sufficient 
time to review the Air Force report and the findings of the 
Comptroller General's review before the Air Force acts.
    The committee expects the Air Force to act in the spirit of 
this provision for the rest of fiscal year 2014 until enactment 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of A-10 aircraft 
        (sec. 134)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prevent 
using any funds during fiscal year 2015 to retire, prepare to 
retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft.
    The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal 
year program in accordance with the spirit of this provision. 
Specifically, the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that 
the Air Force does not close or consolidate A-10 units, make 
changes to standard sustainment processes; or reduce A-10 pilot 
training or A-10 flying disproportionally to reductions applied 
to pilots or flying hours for other Air Force aircraft.
    The committee believes that the Air Force is making this 
decision purely on a basis of the fiscal environment and not on 
grounds of effectiveness of the forces. The National Commission 
on the Structure of the Air Force indicated that shifting to a 
greater reliance on the Air Reserve components could save 
roughly $2.0 billion per year that could be reinvested to 
maintain greater capabilities. The committee does not want the 
Air Force to execute any decision to retire the entire A-10 
fleet until the Air Force has an opportunity to chart a 
specific course for implementing the Commission's 
recommendations.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $256.5 million 
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $82.8 million for 
Air Force military personnel accounts.
Limitation on transfer of KC-135 tankers (sec. 135)
    The committee recommends a provision that would delay the 
Air Force's plan to transfer KC-135 aircraft from Joint Base 
Pearl Harbor-Hickam, pending a report on the costs and benefits 
of that transfer.
    It has come to the attention of the committee that the Air 
Force intends to move four KC-135 tanker aircraft from a 
forward-based position at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to 
base in the continental United States (CONUS).
    With the administration's stated goal of rebalancing to the 
Asia-Pacific region and the continued need for tanker support 
throughout the region, the Air Force's planned transfer may not 
make economic sense.
    With the Department of Defense's emphasis on energy and 
costs efficiencies, the Air Force should consider the resources 
required to move CONUS-based KC-135s to the Asia-Pacific region 
for exercises and requirements versus the cost of maintaining 
the assets in theater.
Limitation on availability of funds for retirement of Airborne Warning 
        and Control System (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 136)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire any Airborne 
Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS) aircraft or making any 
significant changes in manning levels in AWACS units in 2015.
    The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans to 
retire aircraft from some of its high-demand, low-density (HD/
LD) weapon systems. Aircraft such as the E-3 AWACS, the E-8C 
Joint Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance System 
(JSTARS), and the EC-130 Compass Call have been under constant, 
heavy demand, supporting overseas contingency operations as 
well as homeland defense missions for the past two decades. The 
committee believes these systems will continue to play a 
critical role in our national defense until the Department of 
Defense is able to field capabilities to replace these HD/LD 
systems.
    The committee understands that the proposed cuts are a 
result of the budget caps enacted by Congress. However, the 
planned retirement of seven E-3 AWACS in fiscal year 2015 from 
a total fleet of 31 aircraft without a planned replacement is 
risky and should be reconsidered. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends provision that would delay this action for 1 year to 
give the Air Force time to fully consider the recommendations 
of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 
and determine whether additional savings made available by 
shifting force structure from the active component to the 
reserve component could free up additional resources to make 
the premature retirement of these critical aircraft 
unnecessary.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $34.6 million 
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $24.9 million for 
Air Force military personnel accounts.
Report on status of air-launched cruise missile capabilities (sec. 137)
    The committee recommends a provision that requires a report 
on the existing air-launched cruise missile system (AGM-86) and 
the plan for the replacement of the system referred to as the 
long-range standoff missile.
Report on C-130 aircraft (sec. 138)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Air Force to submit a complete fielding plan for the C-130 
aircraft, and specific details of the Air Force's plan to 
maintain intra-theater capacity within both the active and the 
reserve components, including its modernization and 
recapitalization plan for all C-130H and C-130J aircraft.
    One of the recommendations in the report of the National 
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force was recommendation 
number 11: ``As the Air Force acquires new equipment, force 
integration plans should adhere to the principle of 
proportional and concurrent fielding across the components.''
    The committee wants to ensure that there will be concurrent 
and proportional fielding of new aircraft and new capabilities 
across the components. Elsewhere in another provision in this 
Act, the committee recommends a provision that would require 
the Air Force to report on its implementation plans for 
recommendations of the Commission. The committee will review 
closely how the Air Force plans to implement recommendation 
number 11.
Report on status of F-16 aircraft (sec. 139)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the status of the F-16 fleet, including 
the status, location, and planned actions across the future 
years defense program for all F-16s in the Air Force inventory. 
This report shall be delivered not later than 180 days after 
enactment of this Act.
Report on options to modernize or replace the T-1A aircraft (sec. 140)
    The committee is concerned about the Air Force's aging 
fleet of training aircraft used in its specialized 
undergraduate pilot training. The committee supports the Air 
Force's plan to develop a T-X aircraft to replace its 45-year-
old T-38C trainer. However, there is currently no plans or 
budget to replace the T-1A, used to train all future tanker and 
transport pilots.
    While the T-1A came into service after the T-38C, it has 
not received similar upgrades and service life extensions. The 
T-1A now requires an avionics upgrade for the aircraft to be 
certified to fly in the National Airspace past 2020. The 
committee understands that the Commander of the Air Education 
and Training Command has questioned the Air Force's ability to 
afford both the T-X program and an upgrade to the T-1A at the 
same time.
    The committee is aware of an ongoing study by the Air Force 
to determine whether the Air Force will return to generalized 
training, with all pilots training in both T-6s and T-38s (or 
the replacement T-X), in lieu of maintaining a separate 
training syllabus for tanker and transport pilots. However, the 
committee believes it prudent for the Air Force to conduct a 
near-term evaluation of options to replace or modernize the T-
1A capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the options for replacing or upgrading 
the T-1A aircraft's capability, to include options of leased 
aircraft or services, not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

                              Budget Items

                                  Army

Light Utility Helicopter
    The budget request included $416.6 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for the UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter 
(LUH). The committee recommends an increase of $196.0 million 
in APA for procurement of additional LUH. The committee notes 
that during analysis and development of options for program and 
force structure savings required under the Budget Control Act, 
the Army would divest its aviation force of all single engine 
helicopters, including its older TH-67 Creek training aircraft 
at the aviation school at Fort Rucker, Alabama. To replace the 
TH-67, the Army selected the LUH aircraft that has been 
procured over the last 6 years and is now widely used by the 
Army and the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    To quickly divest itself of the TH-67 and provide its 
training base with sufficient numbers of LUH, the Army 
initially considered transferring 100 LUH aircraft from the 
ARNG to the aviation school. The committee understands that the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau expressed concerns about the 
loss of LUH in the ARNG and the resulting reduction in 
capability to provide domestic helicopter support to civil 
authorities. The Secretary of Defense responded by directing 
that the ARNG keep its aircraft and authorizing the Army 
instead to procure 100 new LUH.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-
76), included an additional $75.0 million in APA for the 
procurement of 10 more LUH aircraft for a total of 20 in that 
year. The fiscal year 2015 budget request would procure another 
55 of the 100 LUH authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The 
committee's recommendation would allow the Army to complete 
procurement of the needed additional aircraft and reduce future 
operational and fiscal risk to replace older legacy training 
aircraft with new build LUH. By funding the procurement of 35 
more LUH in fiscal year 2015, the Army would replace all of its 
legacy training aircraft and reduce the risk of having to take 
any from the ARNG should procurement funds not be available in 
fiscal year 2016 or beyond due to full sequestration.
UH-60 Black Hawk M model
    The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. 
The committee recommends an increase of $145.0 million in APA 
for procurement of additional UH-60M Black Hawks only for the 
Army National Guard. Additional funding was included in the 
Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
Common Missile Warning System
    The budget request included $107.4 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for the Common Missile Warning System 
(CMWS). At the Army's request, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $47.2 million for CMWS. Also at the Army's request, 
the committee recommends an increase in APA of $7.8 million for 
advanced threat infrared countermeasures in aircraft 
survivability equipment and $32.4 million for radio frequency 
countermeasure in survivability countermeasures.
Bradley program modifications
    The budget request included $107.5 million in Procurement 
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M2 
Bradley modifications. The committee recommends an increase of 
$37.0 million in WTCV for M2 Bradley modifications. Additional 
funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the Army's 
unfunded priorities list. The committee directs the Army to use 
the additional funds to reduce risk in the armored vehicle 
industrial base.
Improved recovery vehicle
    The budget request included $50.5 million in Procurement of 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the 
improved recovery vehicle (M88A2 Hercules). The committee 
recommends an increase of $75.9 million in WTCV for M88A2 
Hercules. Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
Joint assault bridge
    The budget request included $49.5 million in Procurement of 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the joint 
assault bridge. Funds requested are early to need; therefore, 
the committee recommends a decrease of $41.2 million in WTCV 
for joint assault bridge.
M1 Abrams tank modifications
    The budget request included $237.0 million in Procurement 
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for M1 
Abrams tank modifications. The committee recommends an increase 
of $24.0 million in WTCV for M1 Abrams tank modifications. 
Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the 
Army's unfunded priorities list. The committee directs the Army 
to use the additional funds to reduce risk in the armored 
vehicle industrial base.
Carbine
    The budget request included $29.4 million in Procurement of 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M4A1 
carbine, $4.6 million for M240 medium machine gun 
modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle modifications. At 
the Army's request, the committee recommends decreases of $8.8 
million for M4A1 carbine, $2.0 million for M240 medium machine 
gun modifications, and $2.0 million for M16 rifle 
modifications.
    Also at the Army's request, the committee recommends 
increases in WTCV of $3.0 million for M4 carbine modifications, 
and in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in PE 
63872A of $3.0 million for soldier systems advanced development 
and in PE 64601A of $6.7 million for infantry support weapons 
small arms improvement.
Modular handgun reduction
    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $9.6 million was for handgun 
ammunition, all types, of which $3.1 million was for modular 
handgun ammunition.
    The committee is concerned that the request for modular 
handgun ammunition is ahead of need and is not approved for 
service use.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 
million in PAA, handgun ammunition, all types, for modular 
handgun ammunition.
40mm reduction
    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $40.9 million was for 40mm 
ammunition, of which $1.9 million was for 40mm day/night/
thermal ammunition.
    The committee is concerned that the request for 40mm day/
night/thermal is ahead of need and is not approved for service 
use.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9 
million in PAA, 40mm, for 40mm day/night/thermal ammunition.
Precision Guidance Kit reduction
    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $94.0 million was for 
artillery propellants, fuses and primers, of which $61.2 
million was for artillery fuse, precision guidance kit (PGK).
    The committee notes that PGK failed its first article test 
and experienced a schedule delay.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 
million in PAA, artillery propellants, fuses, and primers for 
PGK.
Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 2
    The budget request included $763.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Warfighter Information 
Network--Tactical (WIN-T), increment 2. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $125.0 million in OPA for WIN-T, 
increment 2, due to development delays in the Point of Presence 
and Soldier Network Extension components of the program.
Joint tactical radio system
    The budget request included $175.7 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the joint tactical radio system 
(JTRS). The committee recommends a decrease of $88.0 million in 
OPA for JTRS due to slow execution of available prior year 
funds.
Mid-tier Networking Vehicular Radio
    The budget request included $9.7 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Mid-tier Networking Vehicular 
Radio (MNVR). The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 
million in OPA for MNVR due to program delays and slow 
execution of available prior year funds.
Family of weapon sights
    The budget request included $49.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the family of weapon sights. Funds 
requested are early to need; therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in OPA for family of 
weapon sights.
Joint Battle Command--Platform
    The budget request included $97.9 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Joint Battle Command Platform 
(JBC-P). The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 
in OPA for JBC-P due to program delays and slow execution of 
available prior year funds.
Counterfire radars
    The budget request included $209.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for counterfire radars. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $80.4 million in OPA for counterfire 
radars due to the availability of prior year funds and 
excessive concurrency through low rate initial production 
(LRIP).
    The committee notes that the Army has been buying and 
fielding the AN/TPQ-53 counterfire radar using LRIP to meet 
operational needs even though the system's design, 
configuration, and performance have matured over time. This has 
resulted in a retrofit requirement for systems already fielded 
that will cost $85.0 million. The committee believes that there 
is no operational urgency to continue to produce and field 
systems that provide some but not all needed capabilities, and 
that the Army can manage production rates with funds available 
from prior years without creating additional requirements and 
costs for retrofit.
    The committee is concerned the Army continues to acquire 
counterfire radars through LRIP acquiring over 50 percent of 
its Army Acquisition Objective while the full rate production 
decision has slipped almost a year as compared to the fiscal 
year 2014 schedule. The committee also notes the Army's 
counterfire radar sustainment concept is interim contractor 
support.
    The Secretary of the Army is directed to submit a report 
that outlines the sustainment concept for counterfire radars 
including the results of the core depot assessment and type I/
II business case analyses to determine the best mix of organic 
depot and contractor logistics support. The report shall 
address the Army's plan to compete contract logistics support 
activities. The report is due to the congressional defense 
committees not later than April 30, 2015.
Army information technology
    The budget request included $155.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Army Line 106 for automated data processing 
equipment. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 
million to this program. The committee recommends that the 
Army, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense's Chief Information Officer should 
coordinate efforts to ensure that Army information technology 
procurement are not redundant with capabilities available under 
joint, other Service, or other agency programs. Further, these 
procurements should be made in a fashion so as to permit the 
Army to re-compete contracts for individual elements of the 
enterprise as necessary, in order to maximize cost savings due 
to competition and to enable the Army to have a flexible 
enterprise services modernization strategy.
Modification of in-service equipment
    The budget request included $98.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the modification of in-service 
equipment. Funds requested for the modification of the Army's 
watercraft are early to need; therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $18.0 million in OPA for the 
modification of in-service equipment.

                 Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
    The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED 
Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure 
expenses.
    As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO's inception, the 
committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the 
base budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1 
million in the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands 
that the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding 
for the Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency 
operations budget request later this year.
    The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done 
but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime 
organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo 
in U.S. Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a 
review, captured in another title of this Act, that should lead 
to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of 
organizations, such as JIEDDO, that provide response to 
emergent warfighter needs.

                                  Navy

EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System
    The budget request included $32.9 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN), line 39, for the EP-3E Airborne 
Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System (ARIES). The Navy 
has been pursuing spiral upgrades for the fleet of EP-3 
aircraft for a number of years. The budget request did not 
include funds to install Spiral 3 upgrade kits on the 11th and 
12th EP-3E aircraft, or for the installation of electronic 
intelligence sensor upgrade kits on the last eight EP-3E 
aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million 
to install these upgrade kits.
    The committee appreciates the progress that the Navy has 
made in answering the concerns of the committee and the Joint 
Staff regarding the Navy's plans for shifting EP-3E and Special 
Projects Aircraft (SPA) capabilities to the multi-intelligence 
variant of the TRITON unmanned aerial vehicle and a quick 
reaction capability (QRC) upgrade of the P-8A maritime patrol 
aircraft.
    However, the committee has a number of concerns about the 
Navy's plan. The Navy's transition plan would still involve 
eliminating personnel from the existing systems well before 
replacement systems are available to maintain that capability. 
This situation could create significant gaps in the ability to 
meet the needs of the combatant commands. Secondly, there is a 
real possibility that the Navy would be tempted to make even 
greater reductions in current capability if they need to pay 
for potential schedule delays in the development of the new 
signals intelligence (SIGINT) payload for TRITON while 
continuing to add orbits of the current version of TRITON that 
has only modest SIGINT capability. Finally, the committee notes 
that there is a mismatch between the operational concept for 
the P-8A QRC, which would depend on remote operations and wide-
band communications, and the plan that would install wide-band 
communications capability on the P-8A aircraft much later than 
the fielding of the P-8A QRC capability.
Aircraft spares and repair parts
    The budget request included $1.2 billion in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy for buying spares and repair parts for all 
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. This total included a request 
for $956.0 million in replenishment spares, an increase of 
$341.2 million from the fiscal year 2014 amount for 
replenishments spares. The committee has strongly supported 
efforts to improve readiness in Navy aviation programs. The 
committee, however, also believes that the Navy will be able to 
increase readiness and manage the Department's replenishment 
spares portfolio with a smaller resource increase in fiscal 
year 2015. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 
$35.0 million to the budget request.
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of 
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests by two. Given the 
importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic 
submarine force, the committee recommends $11.0 million to 
procure one additional Strategic Programs Alteration Kit to 
conduct an additional Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test.
Tomahawk
    The budget request included $194.3 million to procure 100 
Tomahawk missiles. The future years defense program envisions 
shutting down the Tomahawk production line after the fiscal 
year 2015 procurement.
    The Navy has been expending Tomahawk missiles on a fairly 
regular basis of more than 100 missiles per year. The committee 
believes that it would be imprudent to ramp down and close 
Tomahawk missile production at this time.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $82.0 
million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining 
rate of 196 missiles per year.
    The committee is concerned about the Navy's abrupt decision 
to truncate production. The Tomahawk is combat-proven missile, 
having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades, 
and has a proven operational track record and capability. The 
Navy provided some limited information to support its proposal. 
However, the analysis supporting projected inventories and 
usage rates to be expected during the remainder of this decade 
was incomplete.
    Prior to making any decision to terminate new production 
and transition to a mid-life upgrade, the Navy must ensure the 
implications on production and recertification are fully 
examined and understood.
    The committee directs the Navy to provide, prior to 
submission of the fiscal year 2016 President's budget, its 
complete analysis of alternatives, including an assessment of 
near-term and long-term threat analysis, impact on the 
industrial base and the needed timing of a mid-life 
certification/upgrade of the current Tomahawk inventory. This 
analysis must clearly show annual projected inventory usage, 
starting and ending inventory levels by fiscal year and what is 
budgeted for Tomahawk, as well as for all related development 
and production programs, with specific appropriation and line 
item/program element detail. The Navy should provide this 
information in an unclassified report with an accompanying 
classified annex.
Navy enterprise information technology
    The budget request included $87.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Navy Line 161 for enterprise information 
technology (IT). The committee notes that much of this funding 
is supporting procurements related to the legacy Navy IT 
systems located around the world. The committee is concerned 
about the continued investment of funds into legacy IT 
infrastructure, and believes that the Navy should seek to 
leverage services, networks, and hardware available through the 
Defense Information Systems Agency, the Next Generation 
Enterprise Network, and other assets to the maximum extent 
possible. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million 
to this program.
Power equipment assorted
    The budget request included $8.9 million in Procurement, 
Marine Corps (PMC) for assorted power equipment. The committee 
recommends an increase of $2.9 million in PMC for advanced 
power equipment. Additional funding was included in the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities list.

                               Air Force

RQ-4
    The budget request included $54.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force for the RQ-4 Global Hawk program. These 
funds are not to buy new air vehicles, but are intended for 
miscellaneous procurement, to include equipment to support 
depot activation, initial spares, support to complete delivery 
of Global Hawk vehicles on contract, sensor operator trainer, 
and procurement to replace equipment supported by disappearing 
manufacturing sources.
    The committee believes that the sensor operator trainer is 
being requested ahead of need, and recommends a reduction of 
$10.0 million to the budget request.
MQ-9
    The budget request included $240.2 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to buy an additional 12 MQ-9 air 
vehicles.
    The committee understands that the MQ-9 program has $37.8 
million in fiscal year 2013 APAF funds that are excess to 
program needs. These funds will remain available for obligation 
throughout fiscal year 2015, and can be used to offset other 
fiscal year 2015 requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends reduction of $37.8 
million to the MQ-9 budget request.
C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program
    The budget request included $331.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force for the C-5M program, also known as the 
C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). Of 
that total, the request included $254.2 million for installing 
RERP kits purchased in prior years.
    The committee understands that there have been delays in 
the RERP kit installation program and recommends a reduction of 
$50.0 million in the C-5M program.
U-2
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the U-2 program did 
not include any procurement funding for supporting the U-2 
program but did include $5.5 million in PE 35202F for 
developing various safety of flight and vanishing vendor 
modifications.
    The budget request for the Global Hawk program included 
$86.8 million in procurement and $244.5 million in PE 35220F 
for developing various capabilities for the Global Hawk, 
including a total of $208.8 million for various Block 30 
development efforts. Included in the Block 30 development 
efforts was $136.0 million specifically for enhancements for 
Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to provide the Block 30 aircraft 
with some level of capability that would be lost by retirement 
of the U-2 aircraft. The Air Force plans to spend $1.9 billion 
during the future years defense program (FYDP) for these 
enhancements to Block 30.
    The committee is skeptical of the Air Force's plans to 
retire the U-2 in the near term and perhaps replace some of the 
U-2's current capability after the end of the FYDP. First, this 
plan would reduce capability and leave a deficit in meeting 
combatant commanders' requirements now. Second, there is no 
real guarantee that spending $1.9 billion in the FYDP will 
allow the Air Force to replace the capability of the U-2 fleet 
with capability from Global Hawk Block 30 fleet. Finally, the 
FYDP that includes this funding is $115.0 billion more that the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) totals would allow for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) during that period. If Congress 
does not enact changes to amend the BCA, enhancement programs 
like the Block 30 upgrades would be at great risk.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $64.3 
million for various modifications and $5.8 million in research 
and development activities for the U-2 fleet as planned last 
year. The committee also recommends a reduction of $136.0 
million in Global Hawk research and development activities 
targeted at replacing U-2 capability.
    The committee reminds DOD that the restrictions on retiring 
the U-2 aircraft in section 133 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), as amended, remain in effect.
C-130 aircraft modifications
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding 
for the C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but 
included $7.4 million for communication, navigation, 
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $7.2 
million for upgrading cockpit voice and digital data recorders 
(CVR/DVR) for legacy C-130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, 
Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the 
legacy C-130 aircraft until the fiscal year 2013 budget request 
was the C-130 AMP. When the Air Force announced a decision to 
cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial 
production and had delivered five aircraft, four additional 
kits, and training devices.
    Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) prevented the Secretary 
of the Air Force from canceling or modifying the AMP effort for 
C-130 aircraft until 90 days after submission of a cost-benefit 
analysis comparing the original C-130 AMP with a program that 
would upgrade and modernize the legacy C-130 airlift fleet 
using a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning 
systems. The Air Force submitted that report, but there were 
questions about the assumptions and conclusions of the report. 
For example, the original Air Force study also assumed life 
cycle costs covering only 25 years.
    Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) prevented the Air Force 
from cancelling the AMP effort in fiscal year 2014 and directed 
the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a sufficiency review of the 
cost benefit analysis in the Air Force study. The committee 
received the Comptroller General's report which pointed out 
that changes of fundamental assumptions in the report could 
change the outcome of the analysis, including the assumed 
length of time used for calculating life cycle costs savings.
    The Air Force will be operating approximately 150 C-130H 
aircraft for the foreseeable future, probably longer than the 
25 years assumed in the Air Force study. The committee strongly 
supports modernization of this legacy C-130 fleet, and 
recommends an increase of $25.0 for procurement and 
installation of C-130 AMP kits. In addition, the committee 
directs the Air Force to obligate the fiscal year 2014 funds 
authorized and appropriated for this program to conduct such 
activities as are necessary to complete testing and transition 
the program to production and installation of modernization 
kits.
C-130 engines
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request did not request funding 
for making upgrades to C-130 engines.
    The Air Force has flight tested a contractor-developed 
upgrade to the current engine and determined that this upgrade 
would result in fuel savings of 7.9 percent compared to 
operating current engines. The Air Mobility Command (AMC) 
performed a business case analysis of a potential upgrade 
program for the C-130H fleet. AMC found that an investment of 
$657.0 million would result in reduced maintenance and fuel 
expenditures that would save $2.0 billion over the lives of 
those aircraft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $22.6 million to 
procure and install engine upgrade kits for the C-130H fleet.
Lynx synthetic aperture radar
    The budget request includes $30.0 million in PE 25219F, 
line 66, in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 
procurement of upgrades to the Lynx synthetic aperture radar 
(SAR) carried on the REAPER unmanned aerial system. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 
113-66) eliminated funding for Lynx SAR retrofits on the 
grounds that the rare use of this radar does not justify 
substantial new investment. The committee is not aware of any 
change in the utilization of the Lynx SAR in the field, and 
therefore recommends a reduction of $30.0 million.
Small diameter bomb
    The budget request included $70.6 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) to buy 246 units of the Small 
Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II).
    The committee understands that there have been delays in 
the Milestone C decision, and a resulting delay in awarding the 
contract for fiscal year 2014 production. As it stands now, the 
Air Force is likely to award the contract for the fiscal year 
2014 production sometime during fiscal year 2015, and expects 
that the contract will include provisions for awarding options 
to the contract that would include for awarding the next option 
on the contract during fiscal year 2016. This means that the 
Air Force will not need additional production funds in fiscal 
year 2015.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.5 
million in this program.
General purpose bombs
    The budget request included $177.2 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for general purpose bombs. The 
committee recommends an increase of $8.8 million in PAAF for 
general purpose bombs. The need for additional funding was 
identified in the Commander of the United States Pacific 
Command's unfunded priorities list.
Base information transportation infrastructure transfer
    The budget request included $81.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force for information transport systems, and 
$122.2 million in Other Procurement, Air Force for Air Force 
Network (AFNET). To correct an error in the budget materials, 
and at the request of the Air Force, the committee recommends a 
transfer of $31.3 million from the AFNET account to the 
information transport systems account for the purposes of 
supporting base information transportation infrastructure.
Procurement of additional ICBM training equipment
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funds for 
the procurement of additional intercontinental ballistic 
missile (ICBM) trainers at the 381st Training Group (TRG). This 
lack of training equipment limits the availability of qualified 
ICBM officers, which are in high demand. The committee 
recommends $23.6 million to Other Procurement Air Force, Line 
60, Base Procured Equipment for expansion of the 381st TRG 
Missile Procedures Training Capability for Combat Mission 
Readiness and to procure Computer Based Training/Rapid 
Execution and Combat Targeting stand-alone trainers.

                              Defense-wide

MC-12 aircraft
    The budget request includes $40.5 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), for the modification of 24 MC-12 aircraft 
being transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM) to support the manned intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of U.S. 
Special Operations Forces. Elsewhere in this bill, the 
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 
transfer of these MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to SOCOM 
until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations 
and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander 
of SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees an 
analysis and justification for such actions.
    Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in PDW for 
modification of MC-12 aircraft. As noted elsewhere in this 
report, the recommended reduction does not apply to procurement 
in support of SOCOM aviation foreign internal defense missions, 
which are funded in a different budget line. Chemical, biol.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
    The budget request included $15.6 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special 
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is 
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of 
special operations capabilities to, among other things, 
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 
while avoiding collateral damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $5.7 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs through the MQ-9 Medium 
Altitude Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing 
the Lead-Off Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee 
understands this process has successfully fielded MQ-9 UAV 
capabilities at greatly reduced timelines when compared to 
traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have 
significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ-9 UAVs 
in ``find, fix, and finish'' operations. The committee 
encourages SOCOM to continue to look for other opportunities to 
accelerate combat capability development through the Lead-Off 
Hitter approach.

                       Items of Special Interest

Air Force KC-46A Pegasus procurement
    The committee notes that the KC-46A Pegasus remains one of 
the Department of Defense's most successful and important 
acquisition programs. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
described aerial refueling tankers as the lifeblood of the 
Joint Force's ability to respond to crises and contingencies 
around the world. The KC-46A will replace the Air Force's 1960s 
era KC-135s and will significantly enhance our current 
capability. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has 
consistently stated that the KC-46 is the Air Force's highest 
acquisition priority, and essential to the future of the Joint 
Force.
    The committee also notes that the development of the KC-
46As continues to meet its technical performance goals on time 
and under budget. In April 2014, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) reported that the KC-46's development cost has 
changed less than 1 percent since 2011, despite funding 
reductions in fiscal year 2013 associated with the Budget 
Control Act. Moreover, the aircraft's fixed price incentive 
contract shifts liability for any future cost growth to the 
contractor. This structure not only incentivizes the contractor 
to cut costs in order to generate additional profits, it also 
ensures maximum value for the government and the taxpayer. To 
date, the Air Force reports it has saved $900.0 million in the 
KC-46 Aircrew Training System and other program risk 
adjustments compared to previous estimates.
    The committee notes that disrupting this well-performing 
program would negatively affect the ongoing development of the 
KC-46s and our national security. The Air Force estimates that 
reducing procurement from seven aircraft to six in fiscal year 
2015 would yield near-term savings of $139.6 million. However, 
the Air Force projects that this reduction in quantity would 
adversely affect contractual cost factors over the life of the 
program, ultimately increasing the cost to the taxpayer by more 
than $640.0 million. A reduction would also impose severe risk 
on the contractor's ability to meet its contractual requirement 
to deliver 18 aircraft by August 2017. Also, the government 
could risk losing the very favorable production pricing under 
the KC-46 contract by not living up to the government's 
responsibilities under the contract to provide resources 
matched to contractor progress. In order to ensure the KC-46 
program continues to meet is cost, schedule, and performance 
objectives, and ultimately meet our national defense 
requirements, the committee recommends fully funding the 
President's request for procurement of seven KC-46 aircraft in 
fiscal year 2015, and keeping the program on a stable funding 
path.
Armored vehicle transmission industrial base
    Over the last several years the committee has expressed its 
concern for the management of strategic risk in the armored 
vehicle industrial base. Strategic risk is that associated with 
the permanent or temporary loss of either public depot or 
private commercial industrial capability or capacity to repair 
and upgrade the Nation's current fleets or develop and produce 
the next generation of armored vehicles.
    The committee notes that this risk is apparent in the 
portion of the armored vehicle industrial base that designs, 
develops, and produces transmissions. The committee is aware of 
actions on the part of the Army to manage this risk through the 
procurement of some armored vehicle transmissions in excess of 
its usual repair parts supply and production requirements. 
Buying extra transmissions, however, may not be a sustainable 
risk management approach because of declining and uncertain 
budgets.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army, or designee, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 
Policy, to conduct a business case analysis of the costs, 
benefits, risks, feasibility, and advisability of strategies to 
manage risk in the armored vehicle transmission industrial base 
including, but not limited to, increased competition, 
consolidation, or other industrial approaches across public 
depot, private commercial, and public-private partnership 
entities and facilities.
    The results of this analysis shall be briefed to the 
congressional defense committees by the Secretary, or designee, 
not later April 30, 2015.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense
    The budget request included $17.5 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for chemical, biological, radiological and 
nuclear (CBRN) defense but included no funding for personal 
dosimeter systems.
    The committee understands the Army has 10,000 personal 
dosimeters in its inventory consisting of 2,000 dosimeters 
purchased in 2013 and 8,000 dosimeters based on 1960s 
technology and are no longer in production. Additionally, these 
8,000 systems are unable to be repaired due to a lack of spare 
parts. The committee is concerned that the Army may not have 
kept pace with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
including nuclear weapons and material to state and non-state 
actors.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a 
report or briefing no later than March 15, 2015, on the 
requirements and, if necessary, the plan to upgrade and/or 
acquire personal dosimeter systems.
Combatant command intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
        requirements
    Demand for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 
(ISR) remains the number one shortfall identified by combatant 
commanders. The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing a 
number of initiatives to respond to these demands.
    One of these approaches is applying open systems 
architectures principles to current and new software systems. 
As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a number 
of programs to provide new ISR capabilities through an open 
systems architecture approach. This should provide DOD more 
flexibility to adapt new payloads or capabilities to varying 
environments and operational needs.
    DOD is also modernizing and expanding ISR capabilities for 
systems with longer ranges and endurance. Combatant commanders 
frequently ask for systems with additional range and loiter 
times to simplify their scheduling and administrative efforts 
in providing on-station capability.
    The committee believes that it is important that DOD remain 
focused on its efforts to help simplify and reduce the costs of 
meeting combatant commanders' ISR requirements.
Commercial aircraft used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) uses commercial 
aircraft performing survey and mapping services. In the case of 
some of these aircraft, the USACE contracts directly with the 
private sector for use of the aircraft. In other cases, the 
USACE uses the services of commercial aircraft that are on 
retainer with the Air Force or the Navy. The committee is 
concerned about recent Army blanket requirements for the USACE. 
The committee is concerned about the issuance of new blanket 
requirements for Army-contracted aircraft that do not apply to 
those aircraft on retainer with the Air Force or the Navy. 
These new requirements apparently include a requirement that 
all commercial aircraft under Army contract be subject to 
oversight by the Army's Program Executive Office for Aviation 
(PEO-AVN) and require an Air Worthiness Release (AWR). The 
committee has been made aware that the Army may not be applying 
these new requirements to such aircraft on loan from the Air 
Force or the Navy.
    Such aircraft on contract to the USACE for survey and 
mapping purposes were previously certified by the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), since such aircraft are used for 
inherently non-defense purposes. The committee believes that 
the Army's requirement for a blanket AWR for aircraft already 
certified by the FAA may not have a material impact on aircraft 
air worthiness unless the Army were to make major modifications 
to the aircraft or to make changes to the mission parameters. 
Such specific changes would dictate a more stringent air 
worthiness certification for these aircraft, but a blanket 
requirement that all aircraft require an AWR could result in 
unnecessary expenses for the taxpayer.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Army and USACE to 
provide the congressional defense committees a briefing on 
contract aircraft operated by or for the USACE modifications 
required to meet USACE missions, certification requirements for 
such aircraft, and what value the Army receives from insisting 
on an AWR for commercial aircraft performing for civil survey 
and mapping functions.
Comptroller General of the United States review relating to remotely 
        piloted aircraft
    Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are a critical capability 
the Air Force provides to combatant commanders and in response 
to growing mission demands, the Air Force has significantly 
increased the number of RPA and associated personnel since 
2008. However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force 
has not adjusted policies to fully account for the high 
operations tempo and unique operating environment that drive 
the RPA enterprise requirements. A recent review by the 
Comptroller General of the United States, ``Air Force: Actions 
Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned Aerial Systems 
Pilots; GAO-14-316,'' details some of these challenges. The 
committee directs the Air Force to report to the committee no 
later than September 30, 2014, on its efforts to implement the 
first three Government Accountability Office recommendations 
concerning its crew ratio, recruiting, and retention strategy.
    Similar to units deploying to combat operations in 
Afghanistan and the Middle East, Air Force RPA pilots operate 
at a high operational tempo which constrains the time they have 
to train for the entire spectrum of missions in which they are 
required to maintain proficiency. Exacerbating this challenge, 
available simulators do not adequately replicate the 
environment of a RPA ground control station. Across the 
Department of Defense (DOD), as much as 90 percent of training 
for RPA-related personnel occurs as part of a combat operations 
mission.
    As combat operations wind down in Afghanistan, the DOD will 
need to identify training opportunities to keep RPA personnel 
proficient. Two of the biggest challenges will be RPA access to 
military training airspace due to competition with other 
military aviation requirements, and access to civilian 
controlled airspace due to safety concerns. As RPA technology 
advances and RPA mission areas expand, the committee is 
concerned about DOD's ability to keep pace with these changes.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
review DOD's RPA training. The review should include, at a 
minimum: (1) Challenges DOD faces in training RPA personnel; 
(2) The extent to which DOD has planned for and taken steps to 
mitigate those challenges; (3) The extent to which RPA units 
are able to perform required missions; (4) The extent to which 
DOD has access to the national airspace structure for RPA 
training operations; and (5) Any other matters the Comptroller 
General determines are appropriate during the review.
    The Comptroller General shall submit the preliminary 
results of the review to the congressional defense committees 
no later than January 31, 2015, with a report to follow.
Distributed mission operations
    The Air Force is providing its warfighters the ability to 
train and operate in a realistic virtual environment using the 
real-world operational systems they would use in an actual 
combat situation under its distributed mission operations (DMO) 
program. DMO training enables warfighters to simulate real 
operations in a safe training environment at multiple levels of 
classification and complexity without the concerns of range and 
airspace restrictions. By using this DMO training, the Air 
Force reduces flying hour costs, travel costs and other 
operations and support costs.
    The committee is concerned that the ability of Air Force to 
field and connect DMO simulators broadly across the total Air 
Force, as Air Force leadership would prefer, is being hampered 
in this fiscally constrained environment. The committee needs 
to understand the extent of these fielding problems.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a plan that identifies current and planned 
fielding of the DMO program across the total Air Force, 
including locations and schedules for installation of DMO 
simulators and associated equipment, current and future network 
distribution and connectivity, and a funding plan that would 
achieve full operational capability for DMO. The Secretary of 
the Air Force should provide this plan to the congressional 
defense committees not later than April 30, 2015.
Ejection seats
    Section 146 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of 
the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report setting forth an assessment of the risks to the health 
and safety of the members of the Armed Forces of the ejection 
seats currently in operational use by the Air Force. The report 
is due to the congressional committees no later than June 2014.
    The committee looks forward to receiving that report. When 
the report is completed, the committee believes that the 
Secretary should develop a strategy to implement 
recommendations from the study to improve the safety and 
reliability of existing ejection seats in fighter and bomber 
aircraft as soon as possible, to include requesting any funding 
that may be needed in the fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Enhanced position location reporting system
    The committee notes that the Army is modernizing its 
tactical communications architecture, including divestment of 
the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) between 
fiscal years 2014 and 2017. The committee supports the Army's 
plan to modernize its digital communications architecture and 
understands that replacement of the EPLRS system with the 
currently fielded more capable Blue Force Tracking System will 
provide units with an improved interim capability. The 
committee is aware that EPLRS will continue to be used in some 
units outside of the Army and by some allies. Given this 
potential mix of communications systems, the committee would be 
interested to learn how the Army plans to mitigate any 
operational impacts as it implements EPLRS divestment.
    Accordingly, the Secretary of the Army shall provide the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate with a briefing that 
outlines the potential interoperability risks, if any, for 
units still equipped with EPLRS and its plans to mitigate those 
risks.
Family of medium tactical vehicles
    The budget request includes no funding in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the family of medium tactical 
vehicles (FMTV). However, the committee notes that the Army 
justification material for OPA included funding planned for 
fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The committee urges the Army to 
consider funding FMTV in the Oversea Contingency Operations 
request in order to help bridge the fiscal year 2014 to fiscal 
year 2017 funding gap.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
    The budget request included $45.7 million in PE 65812A, 
$11.5 million in PE 65812M, $164.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in Procurement, Marine 
Corps for research, development, and low rate initial 
production (LRIP) of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). 
The committee notes that, according to the Vice Chief of Staff 
of the Army, General John Campbell, JLTV is the centerpiece of 
the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy. The 
committee further notes that fiscal year 2015 is a critically 
important year for this program. Over the last 3 years, the 
joint program office has been managing the development and 
testing of prototype vehicles provided by three competing 
tactical vehicle vendor teams. This competitive prototyping 
acquisition strategy is consistent with the requirements of the 
Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23) and in 2015 will result in the selection of a single vendor 
for award of a LRIP contract for up to 183 Army and Marine 
Corps vehicles. The committee recommends full funding as 
requested for JLTV and expects the program to remain on 
schedule for its Milestone C decision in June 2015.
Joint Strike Fighter software development
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
rigorous assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's software 
development program and report to the congressional defense 
committees on the specific capabilities, to include combat 
capabilities, to be delivered and those that will not likely be 
delivered to each of the military Services by the date at which 
the Service plans to declare initial operational capability. 
The Secretary shall submit this report not later than May 1, 
2015.
Light weight cartridge case and ammunition development
    The committee remains encouraged by the Department of 
Defense's efforts and multiple ongoing projects to decrease the 
weight of cartridge cases and ammunition. The committee 
understands that polymers have the potential to act as better 
heat insulators, enabling the firing of more ammunition, and an 
added benefit of cost savings and decreased weight compared to 
conventional metal cartridge cases. The committee is also 
encouraged by the ongoing research and potential for cased 
telescoped ammunition which could decrease logistical weight by 
at least 50 percent and bulk storage volume by at least 40 
percent.
    Accordingly, the committee urges the Department to conduct 
the necessary logistical impact assessments to explore 
additional efficiencies for light weight cartridge cases and 
ammunition.
Lightweight robots
    The committee is aware that the Army has developed and 
fielded a variety of lightweight robots to conduct 
reconnaissance, to counter improvised explosive devices, and 
for other tactical uses by units deployed supporting overseas 
contingency operations.
    Over the years, the Army has rapidly acquired these 
lightweight robots in response to theater operational needs 
statements. The committee supports the continued research, 
development, and acquisition (RDA) of lightweight robots to 
support the Army's various tactical requirements.
    The committee is interested to learn, however, how the Army 
plans to transition lightweight robot RDA to a formal program 
of record. A program of record appears necessary to sustain 
momentum in the development of next generation lightweight 
robots as well as identify and field technical improvements to 
existing capabilities.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army, or designee, not later than September 30, 2014, to 
provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services a briefing on 
the Army's plans, if any, for creation of a RDA program of 
record for lightweight tactical robots. The briefing should 
include discussion of the development and schedule for the 
review and approval of requirements documents necessary to 
establish a RDA program of record. Also, the briefing should 
include technology development and procurement schedules and 
related funding profiles through the future years defense 
program.
MH-60R helicopters
    The budget request included $933.9 million to buy 29 MH-60R 
helicopters and $106.7 million in advance procurement. The last 
future years defense program (FYDP) indicated that the Navy 
intended to buy 29 MH-60R helicopters in fiscal year 2016 to 
fulfill the Navy's part of the last year of the Army's H-60 
multiyear procurement contract. The latest FYDP projects that 
the Navy will not buy any MH-60R helicopters in fiscal year 
2016. Absent action to revise the fiscal year 2016 plan for the 
Navy, or to apply additional resources to the Army procurement 
effort, this action by the Navy would cause a government 
default on the multiyear contract.
    The Navy has planned to budget $250.0 million in fiscal 
year 2016 to cover termination charges. However, the Navy 
cannot assure the committee that this amount will cover all of 
the Navy's early termination charges, nor have Navy officials 
been able to specify what additional costs will fall on the 
Army if the Navy were to fail to buy the 29 helicopters as 
planned. At a minimum, the Army would be forced to renegotiate 
the contract, which will probably delay deliveries and most 
certainly increase unit costs.
    The committee urges the Navy to reconsider this plan during 
the development of the fiscal year 2016 budget. If the Navy 
decides to opt out of the multiyear contract next year, the 
committee expects the Secretary of the Navy to explain how this 
aircraft reduction is related to the Navy's ship force 
structure and whether the Navy will be able to meet its 
requirements with a smaller number of MH-60R helicopters in the 
future. In the meantime, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the 
Secretary of the Navy, to develop a better estimate of the 
likely effects if the Navy were to withdraw from the Army's H-
60 multiyear procurement contract in fiscal year 2016. The 
Secretary of Defense should provide that analysis to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days.
Modular handgun
    The committee is aware that the Army is in the process of 
an open competition for a commercial off-the-shelf non-
developmental modular handgun that could result in the 
replacement of its existing M9 pistol. The committee notes that 
the Army has not replaced any of its current mix of small arms 
in several years and is interested to know how the Army will 
ensure the stability of the modular handgun program.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army, or designee, to provide the congressional defense 
committees a briefing no later than March 1, 2015, that 
describes the modernization strategy for its handgun 
replacement program. The required briefing shall include a 
description of requirements for the replacement modular handgun 
and how the program's critical performance requirements are 
linked to capabilities demonstrated in the small arms 
marketplace. The briefing should also include relevant schedule 
and funding profile information through the future years 
defense program.
Report on the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base
    In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of this 
committee, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development and Acquisition expressed concern about the 
fragility of the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base. Other 
Navy officials, including the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Chief of Naval Operations have expressed similar concerns. The 
committee shares these concerns and requests the Secretary of 
the Navy, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, provide a report 
on the state of the Navy's shipbuilding industrial base not 
later than February 1, 2015. The report should contain the 
following:
    (1) A comparison of shipyard capacities and capabilities 
with projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may 
produce in coming years in terms of capacity utilization and 
preservation of key design and construction skills.
    (2) Investments the shipyards have made in recent years to 
modernize their production facilities and to recruit, train, 
and retain their workers, and any challenges the shipyards may 
face in doing this in coming years.
    (3) Investments the shipyards could make to achieve cost 
reductions on Navy programs or to position the yards to survive 
a number of years on reduced Navy orders.
    (4) The shipyards' construction processes and methods, and 
how these compare to best practices in shipyards around the 
world.
    (5) The prospects, by ship type, for using competition in 
the design and construction of Navy ships in coming years.
    (6) A comparison of supplier capacities and capabilities 
with projected shipbuilding workloads, and challenges this may 
produce in coming years in terms of capacity utilization and 
preservation of key suppliers.
    (7) A comparison of shipbuilding research and development 
investments with projected shipbuilding workloads, and any 
challenges that deficiencies in investment may produce in 
future years in utilizing capacity, preserving of key skills, 
and continuing innovation.
    (8) An analysis of the risks to the shipbuilding industrial 
base in the Navy's shipbuilding plan in the 2015 future years 
defense program, and the risks to the industrial base if 
Congress does not amend the Budget Control Act to increase 
budget levels for the Department of Defense before fiscal year 
2016.
    (9) A comprehensive funding section that includes:
        (a)  An itemized listing of funds budgeted for support 
        of the shipbuilding industrial base. This is to include 
        all applicable Navy and Defense-wide appropriations. 
        Detail must be by fiscal year at the Appropriation, 
        line item/program element-project level with a 
        description of the effort. Detail should be provided 
        over the future years defense program and include up to 
        10 years of prior fiscal year actuals. This detailed 
        listing is to specifically include funding contained in 
        current shipbuilding programs (detail design/plans), as 
        well as the research and development funding for 
        preliminary and contract design program elements, and 
        any applicable science and technology funding, as well 
        as applicable funding from the Industrial Preparedness 
        and Manufacturing Technology programs.
          (b) Any recommendations in the report for additional 
        funding should be identified at the same level of 
        detail as described in the subsection above.
          (c) The report funding summary should also provide 
        information on applicable efforts from other related 
        agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, the 
        Maritime Administration, and the Coast Guard.
RQ-21 unmanned aerial systems
    The budget request included $70.6 million to procure three 
RQ-21A Blackjack unmanned aerial systems and to buy ancillary 
support equipment and provide interim contractor logistics 
support.
    The committee recognizes that this is not a very economical 
rate at which to buy the RQ-1A system and understands that the 
Marine Corps may be seeking to move funds within the account to 
add to the RQ-21A end item procurement plan.
    If the Marine Corps can identify additional resources to 
such a purpose, the committee would support buying more systems 
under a buy-to-budget approach.
Solid state radar upgrades
    The committee is aware that most current Navy radars use 
1910s vacuum electronic devices technology and designs, such as 
traveling wave tubes and cross-field amplifiers.
    The committee also understands that corrective radar system 
maintenance typically occurs only after a component or system 
failure, or that components are proactively replaced to avoid 
suffering lower operational readiness due to low mean time 
between critical failure of the cross-field amplifier tube 
technology. These failures can undercut readiness and reduce 
the operational availability of naval vessels.
    The committee notes that upgrading existing radars with 
solid-state technology, such as components using gallium 
nitride (GaN), may significantly improve performance and 
reliability, as well as result in significant potential cost 
savings over the life of the radar. The committee needs to 
understand the potential of technology improvements to result 
directly in increases in operational readiness.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval 
Research to provide an assessment to the congressional defense 
committees, no later than September 30, 2014, that includes the 
following:
          (1) An inventory of current Navy radars, the 
        technology Navy radars utilize, and the reliability of 
        those radars;
          (2) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability, 
        estimated costs, and potential performance benefits of 
        upgrading radars on current Navy vessels with solid-
        state emitters that use solid state technology, such as 
        GaN;
          (3) An assessment of ongoing efforts to prototype a 
        generic solid state emitter as a potential upgrade for 
        radars across Navy vessels.
Technical study and business case analysis of body armor plates
    The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a technical study 
and business case analysis on the requirements, cost, benefit, 
feasibility, and advisability of the replacement and 
refurbishment of the various body armor plates used in personal 
protective equipment. The technical study will include an 
identification and evaluation of environmental or other 
conditions under which body armor plates will or could lose 
their required protective performance or properties and an 
identification and evaluation of the handling and storage for 
body armor plates to ensure the most cost-effective shelf life 
to retain the required protective performance properties. In 
addition to the technical study, the business case analysis 
will evaluate the full range of options for body armor 
modernization and sustainment. An interim report shall be 
submitted to the congressional defense committees not later 
than March 1, 2015, and a final report submitted not later than 
March 1, 2016.
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation 
activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division 
D of this Act.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology 
        achievements (sec. 211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to hold prize and 
challenge competitions to spur advanced technology 
achievements. The provision would give the Department of 
Defense (DOD) more flexibility in selecting prize award sizes 
to better match the awards to the technical challenge being 
addressed.
    Additionally, the provision would permit DOD to combine 
funding with other federal, state, or local government funding 
in order to leverage other resources to achieve goals of 
interest to defense missions and priorities. Finally, the 
provision would reduce the reporting requirement for the use of 
the authority.
    The March 2014 report to Congress on the prize authority 
indicated that prizes ``have demonstrated the ability to 
stimulate and incentivize a broad spectrum of individuals to 
offer solutions to problems of significant interest to our 
Nation's Warfighters.'' The Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency have all successfully used prize competitions to develop 
innovative approaches to address technology challenges.
Modification of Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 212)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
that the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel which 
coordinates manufacturing technology and research programs for 
the Department of Defense should receive oversight from the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics or his designees. Further, the provision reduces the 
frequency of mandated updates to the Manufacturing Technology 
program's strategic plan, to better synchronize this effort 
with the Quadrennial Defense Review process.
Limitation on retirement of Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar 
        Systems aircraft (sec. 213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire operational 
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 
aircraft until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report 
to the congressional defense committees including an update of 
the results of the analysis of alternatives (AoA) for 
recapitalizing the current JSTARS capability; an analysis of 
life cycle supports costs of maintaining the current fleet of 
JSTARS aircraft versus replacing the current fleet JSTARS 
aircraft with a new aircraft and radar system employing mature 
technology; and an assessment of the cost and schedule of 
developing and fielding a new aircraft and radar system 
employing mature technology to replace the current JSTARS 
aircraft.
    The budget request included $73.1 million in PE 37581F for 
developing a next generation system to replace the current 
JSTARS aircraft. The Air Force conducted an AoA 3 years ago to 
review options for modernizing the current E-8C JSTARS 
capability. That AoA concluded that a combination of Global 
Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted aircraft and a business class 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform 
was the least cost, highest performing alternative. The AoA 
reported that a modern business jet outfitted with fourth 
generation radar based on existing technology would be the 
desired capability.
    The Chief of Staff of the Air Force also informed the 
committee 2 years ago that the Air Force could not afford to 
pursue the business jet alternative when he said, ``We simply 
don't have the resources.''
    This year, the budget request proposes to retire six of the 
current E-8C JSTARS aircraft in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and 
pursue a standard acquisition program and expend nearly $2.0 
billion on a research and development program to develop and 
integrate new capability onto existing business jet airframes. 
This new radar and aircraft would not achieve initial 
operational capability until fiscal year 2022.
    The committee supports a rapid recapitalization program to 
replace the Air Force's current JSTARS aircraft fleet.
    However, the committee has concerns regarding the Air 
Force's ability to complete that new program due to future 
budget uncertainties. Given the importance of restoring the 
capability lost by retiring E-8C aircraft in the near term, the 
committee believes the Air Force should pursue an effort to 
integrate existing technology onto an airframe, rather than 
starting a new research effort to develop a new capability. The 
committee believes the Air Force should be innovative in its 
recapitalization approach by using modern, but existing, 
components and technologies and that this should be an 
integration effort rather than a research and development 
effort.
    Therefore, the committee denies the Air Force request to 
initiate a a new major research and development program to 
recapitalize the JSTARS fleet and instead recommends the Air 
Force pursue a program that pursues integration of existing 
systems and components onto commercially available airframes. 
The committee recommends a total of $10.0 million to begin that 
more modest integration and fielding effort.
Limitation on significant modifications of Army test and evaluation 
        capabilities (sec. 214)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Test Resource 
Management Center to report on significant reductions or 
consolidations of major test facilities.

                          Subtitle C--Reports

Study and reports on the technological superiority of the United States 
        military (sec. 221)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board or other 
independent group to examine the potential specific challenges 
to U.S. military technological superiority within the next 10 
years, and the specific planned responses by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to meet these challenges. The provision also 
requires DOD to provide an interim report to the committee on 
current acquisition and development programs, and policy 
changes that are being undertaken in response to these 
challenges.
    The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Hagel has 
indicated that ``the development and proliferation of more 
advanced military technology by other nations means we are 
entering an era where American dominance of the seas, in the 
sky, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.'' 
Similarly, Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics Frank Kendall has indicated in public statements that 
in terms of ``technological superiority, the Department of 
Defense is being challenged in ways that I have not seen for 
decades, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.''
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held 
a classified briefing and a series of staff-level briefings in 
order to better understand these developments and the DOD 
responses to them. As a result of these briefings, the 
committee is concerned that DOD has not adequately placed a 
priority on providing resources to programs that can address 
situations in which U.S. military capabilities will not be 
technically superior to those which may be potentially fielded 
by global peer adversaries. Further, the committee is concerned 
that only minimal efforts have been made to redirect military 
service and defense agency programs from legacy efforts into 
new programs better aligned to meet these near term emerging 
threats.
Reduction in frequency of reporting by Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
        Defense for Systems Engineering (sec. 222)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
reporting requirement related to the systems engineering 
activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The 
committee believes this reduction will save resources for use 
in technical systems engineering work which can lead to system 
performance enhancements and acquisition cost savings. The 
committee notes the critical importance of effective systems 
engineering capabilities and activities in the development and 
deployment of complex technical systems. The committee expects 
that the Secretary of Defense will continue to keep Congress 
informed of systems engineering activities of interest upon 
request.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

Pilot program on assignment to Defense Advanced Research Projects 
        Agency of private sector personnel with critical research and 
        development expertise (sec. 231)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) to carry out a pilot program to employ up to five 
individuals employed by the private sector on rotational 
assignments to lead research or development projects of the 
Agency. The committee believes that this authority will allow 
DARPA to leverage the considerable talent that resides in 
industry in key technical areas, including cybersecurity, 
robotics, cloud computing, and biotechnology, where 
technological leadership often is resident outside the 
government. The committee notes that this pilot program is 
modeled on the successful Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) 
Mobility Program which has been used successfully by federal 
agencies to exchange specialized personnel with state and local 
governments, academia, national labs, and other not-for-profit 
organizations. The committee understands that the Department of 
Defense has established procedures for monitoring and 
controlling salaries and expenses for the IPA program, 
including a limitation on salaries that may be paid or 
reimbursed for IPAs, and expects that such constraints will be 
applied to the pilot authorized by this provision.
Pilot program on enhancement of preparation of dependents of members of 
        Armed Forces for careers in science, technology, engineering, 
        and mathematics (sec. 232)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pilot program to enhance the science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) educational opportunities for children 
of servicemembers. The committee believes that the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has a unique responsibility for the well-being 
of military children. These children are faced with a unique 
set of pressures and challenges relative to their peers, 
including the stresses of parental deployments and frequent 
relocations due to changes of duty station. Any successful 
effort to improve the quality of STEM education for military 
children would benefit both the children and their 
servicemember parents, but also help strengthen the pipeline of 
future personnel into civilian and military positions into DOD.
    The committee notes that (DOD) has a set of educational 
outreach programs and assets, largely managed by the DOD 
Educational Activity (DODEA) and science and technology 
organizations, which could be leveraged to create effective 
engagements with military children and help improve their STEM 
educational experiences. The committee recommends that the 
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and 
the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness work in 
partnership to develop activities under this program. 
Activities could include internships at defense laboratories, 
teacher training, curriculum enhancements, or other programs 
designed to address the challenges facing military children. 
The committee notes that the Department could also leverage 
research and development funding, including through the Small 
Business Innovation Research program, to develop new 
technologies and practices supportive of the goals of the pilot 
program.
    The committee directs that any educational activities 
undertaken through this pilot program only be established with 
metrics that can be used to evaluate the merits and benefits of 
such activities. The activities should also be closely 
coordinated with STEM educational activities in the private 
sector, state and local organizations, and other federal 
agencies to ensure use of best educational practices, and to 
limit duplication of efforts.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an 
additional authorization of funding to support some of the 
activities authorized by this provision.
Modification to requirement for contractor cost-sharing in pilot 
        program to include technology protection features during 
        research and development of certain defense systems (sec. 233)
    The committee recommends a provision, requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would modify the cost-sharing 
provision of section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). 
The underlying provision requires industry to bear a fixed 
portion of the cost for the development of features which could 
enable the exportability of systems, including measures to 
prevent tampering with export versions of major defense 
equipment. The recommended provision would allow the Department 
of Defense to adjust the cost-share requirement for industry 
partners to levels appropriate for the particular project.

                              Budget Items

University research initiatives
    The budget request included $69.8 million in PE 61103A, 
$113.9 million in PE 61103N, and $127.1 million in PE 61103F 
for university research initiatives. The committee notes that 
the overall basic research program in the budget request has 
been reduced by roughly $150 million, or 7 percent, relative to 
the fiscal year 2014 requested level. In testimony to the 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, the Acting 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 
testified that this would lead to a reduction of between 1,500 
to 2,000 grants to university faculty and students.
    The committee notes that basic research activities focused 
in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense 
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology 
development and new defense systems are built. These programs 
fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government 
laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the 
next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on 
defense technology problems in government, industry, and 
academia.
    To help address the significant reduction in basic research 
funding in the request, the committee recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in PE 61103A, $20.0 million in PE 61103N, and 
$20.0 million in PE 61103F. The committee directs that these 
funds be awarded through the well-established and competitive 
Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative process. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees on the plan to spend 
these additional resources no later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act.
Indirect fire protection capability
    The budget request included $96.2 million in PE 64319A for 
indirect fire protection capability. Due to program delays some 
of the funds requested are early to need, therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 64319A 
for the indirect fire capability.
Infantry support weapons
    The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 64601A for 
infantry support weapons of which $7.8 million would be for the 
XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25 
is a grenade launcher firing a 25mm projectile selectively 
programmed to detonate in the air at a designated range.
    The committee notes that the Army has invested $183.2 
million in development, procurement, and assessment of the XM25 
between December 2010 and August 2013. Prototypes of this 
weapon were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed 
to Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment. 
Malfunctions during this assessment, and during subsequent 
testing, have raised questions about the system's safety, 
reliability, and effectiveness. A March 2014 report by the 
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) identified 
cost, performance, and schedule issues with the system. 
According to the DOD IG, reliability issues discovered during 
and after operational assessment have resulted in a program 
delay of over 2 years, cost growth for technical development 
and corrections, and Army program evaluators question the 
weapon's lethality. The program is delayed pending resolution 
of weapon function and munition effectiveness testing.
    Due to the availability of unobligated prior year funds, 
the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 
64601A only for the XM25 counter defilade target engagement 
weapon system. Furthermore, given the reliability and 
effectiveness issues discovered in development and testing of 
the weapon and munition, the committee designates as a 
congressional interest item the XM25 counter defilade target 
engagement weapon system, or any of its derivative weapons or 
ammunition development or procurement programs, projects, or 
activities.
Kwajalein Atoll Reagan Test Site space situational awareness operations 
        support
    The budget included $176.0 million for PE 0605301A for Army 
Kwajalein Atoll. The committee recommends an increase by $11.0 
million to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement 
for space situational awareness operations support.
Marine Corps assault vehicles
    The budget request included $105.7 million in PE 63611M for 
Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the Marine 
Corps, the committee recommends a decrease of $52.0 million in 
PE 63611M for the new amphibious vehicle project.
    Also, at the request of the Marine Corps, the committee 
recommends the following increases:
          (1) $45.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
        Navy for Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) service life 
        extension; and
          (2) $7.0 million in PE 24413N for surface connector 
        research and LCAC stern ramp testing.
Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development
    The budget request included $202.9 million in PE 64786N for 
developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon. 
This follows on an enacted funding level of $91.0 million in 
fiscal year 2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to mature 
the development of a science and technology development effort 
of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that 
is seeking to demonstrate a variant of the Joint Air-to-Surface 
Standoff Missile (JASSM) in an anti-ship mission set. DARPA has 
called this variant the Long Range Anti-ship Missile, or LRASM.
    In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a 
request for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping 
contracts, and establish a government program office team.
    In fiscal year 2014, it became clear that the Navy planned 
to adopt the DARPA LRASM program without competition and to 
continue development of that missile, leading to fielding of an 
air-launched version (increment 1) and surface-launched version 
(increment 2) of LRASM missiles to be delivered initially by B-
1 bombers or F/A-18 strike fighters. The Senate report 
accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113-44) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 directed the Navy to 
present a plan that would pursue a more competitive approach, 
yield a program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 
before deciding on a particular technical solution.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Navy plan would continue that 
same non-competitive approach, but would field only a limited 
number of the air-launched version of the missile. The budget 
request and the future years defense program (FYDP) envision 
spending roughly $1.5 billion to acquire roughly 110 missiles.
    The committee is concerned that this program was created to 
respond to an urgent combatant commander need, but was done so 
with insufficient analyses of other available alternatives, and 
with insufficient regard for the costs of locking in a long-
term commitment under a non-competitive program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $202.9 
million for the OASuW program in fiscal year 2015, and directs 
the Navy to use available funds to conduct more thorough 
analyses of alternatives for meeting combatant commander needs.
Integrated Personnel and Pay System
    The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 65018F for 
the Air Force integrated personnel and pay system. The 
committee notes that a planned contract award for development 
of an integrated pay system largely based on commercial 
software has been delayed by two fiscal quarters, relative to 
the program schedule and associated funding plan proposed in 
the budget request. As a result, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $30.0 million to this program.
F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System
    The budget request included $68.9 million in Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for the F-15 Eagle 
Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS). 
EPAWSS is expected to significantly improve the F-15's 
capability to autonomously and automatically detect, identify 
and locate radio frequency threats, as well as provide the 
ability to defeat radio frequency, electro-optical, and 
infrared threat systems.
    The Air Force plans for fiscal year 2015 to award a pre-
engineering and manufacturing development (pre-EMD) contract 
and prepare for awarding a full EMD contract in late fiscal 
year 2016. This program plan includes a schedule slip of 
roughly 15 months since last year's plan. This was due in part 
to a delay of a year in the analysis of alternatives for 
EPAWSS.
    The committee understands that there have been additional 
delays in the schedule since the Air Force submitted the budget 
request, and recommends a reduction of $19.5 million to reflect 
that delay.
Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload
    The budget request includes $30.7 million in PE 34260F for 
development of the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 2C 
(ASIP-2C) for the REAPER unmanned aerial system. The Air Force 
has decided to sustain other signals intelligence capabilities 
on the REAPER in lieu of the ASIP-2C and does not require these 
funds. The committee recommends a reduction of $30.7 million.
Network Centric Collaborative Targeting
    The budget request included $8.8 million in PE 35221F for 
Research and Development (R&D;) for the Network-Centric 
Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program. The budget request also 
included $3.0 million in line 14 of Other Procurement, Air 
Force (OPAF) for NCCT procurement. The committee has long 
supported the goal of building a capability to create a 
tracking and targeting network across all of the major airborne 
intelligence collection platforms, and all sensor types 
(visible imagery, infrared/spectral imagery, synthetic aperture 
radar, moving target indicator radar, and all forms of signals 
intelligence (SIGINT) sensors), utilizing machine-to-machine 
tipping and cueing. However, the intelligence components 
supporting our military forces have never been willing to 
organize around this concept.
    The NCCT technology, architecture, and concept of 
operations were developed a long time ago, but the relevant 
program offices have not been willing to implement them. The 
committee reluctantly concludes that it is time to try 
different approaches to this worthy goal.
    The intelligence community is now pursuing the concept 
known as activity-based intelligence (ABI), which involves 
inter alia layering or integrating geo-referenced data and 
metadata from any and all sources about places, events, and 
activity. It is anticipated that ABI will enable target 
discovery, correlation, patterns of activity, and cues or tips 
for further collection.
    The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is investigating 
technology and processes for automated, machine-based tipping 
and cueing across programs and sensor types that it hopes to 
persuade its mission partners to adopt to support the ABI 
concept. The Joint Staff is conducting studies of methods and 
means to use integrated sensor collection operations to track 
mobile, strategically important targets.
    The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) is developing 
advanced technology for machine-to-machine networking that can 
support tipping and cueing and other coordinated operations for 
unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and manned platforms alike under 
the UAS Command and Control Initiative, Common Mission Control 
Center, and Open Mission Systems programs.
    The Navy is developing advanced machine-to-machine tipping 
and cueing capabilities under the Minotaur initiative. 
Minotaur's goals are to detect, locate, and track targets 
either on the ground, at sea, or in the air. Minotaur is now or 
soon will be in operation on airborne platforms of the Navy, 
Coast Guard, SOCOM, and Customs and Border Patrol.
    These initiatives appear to be more promising than NCCT in 
ultimately achieving the original goals of the NCCT program. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.8 
million from the R&D; request, and $3.0 million from the 
procurement request. The committee strongly encourages the Air 
Force RCO and the Navy Minotaur programs to collaborate with 
each other and the NRO.
    Cross-program, cross-agency, cross-service, cross-sensor 
networking, and cooperative operations are essential to modern 
military operations in large-scale conventional warfare and in 
irregular warfare and man-hunting operations. However, this 
goal will require cultural and organizational changes, as well 
as technological innovation. Just as the military learned how 
to conduct joint operations after Goldwater-Nichols, the 
intelligence community at the national and tactical levels must 
begin to practice jointness in the tasking of collection and 
the exploitation and analyses of collected data.
    The committee directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, and requests the Deputy Director of National 
Intelligence for Intelligence Integration, to jointly conduct 
an assessment of the utility of fully integrating the 
operations of the tasking organizations for imagery collection 
and signals intelligence at the national level and within the 
service Distributed Common Ground Systems and Command Joint 
Intelligence Operations Centers. This assessment shall be 
briefed to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees by June 1, 2015.
Logistics information technology
    The budget request included $109.7 million in PE 78610F for 
the Air Force Logistics Information Technology (LOGIT) program. 
The committee recommends a reduction of $12.5 million to this 
program. The committee notes that LOGIT is intended to 
partially replace the planned Expeditionary Combat Support 
System (ECSS) program, which was terminated. The committee 
notes that two Department of Defense (DOD) analyses of the 
failure of the ECSS program, the ``ECSS Acquisition Incident 
Team Final Report'' and the ``Root Cause Analysis of the ECSS 
Program Report,'' both highlighted a number of issues that led 
to the program's failure. These included: an unclear process 
for coupling business process changes to planned technology 
changes; poor program management by government and industry 
personnel; unrealistic program timelines and expectations; and 
a lack of senior management attention to program challenges.
    The committee is concerned that these and other issues that 
plagued the ECSS program have not been adequately remedied in 
the LOGIT program. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD 
Chief Information Officer, jointly with the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 
Secretary of the Air Force, to provide for an independent 
assessment of the current acquisition and test strategy, 
funding plan, goals, and schedule of the LOGIT program. The 
study's focus should be to determine if the lessons of the ECSS 
program have been adequately incorporated into the LOGIT 
program. The study should clearly identify specific activities 
and processes that represent changes in the planning and 
execution of the LOGIT program as compared to the ECSS program, 
and are based on an understanding and analysis of that 
program's deficiencies. Further, the report should make 
recommendations on improvements to the LOGIT program strategy 
and execution, or on specific actions the program should take, 
to improve acquisition program outcomes. The committee directs 
that the independent study team be provided access to all 
records, data, and other relevant information as needed to 
develop the required study. The committee directs that the 
study be provided to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 1, 2015.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs
    The budget request included $2.91 billion for the research 
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee commends DARPA on its 
efforts to support high risk, high payoff research programs 
that often can introduce revolutionary capabilities into the 
technology development programs of Services and agencies. When 
well-coordinated with Service efforts, DARPA programs often 
result in significantly enhanced operational capabilities. To 
support these efforts, the committee recommends two provisions 
elsewhere in this report which attempt to enhance the quality 
of DARPA's technical personnel.
    The committee notes that funding for DARPA was increased in 
the fiscal year 2015 budget request, at a time when the overall 
science and technology program was decreased relative to fiscal 
year 2014 levels. Further, the request included a decrease of 
over $150 million in basic research programs at universities, 
small businesses, and government laboratories.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that DARPA shift its 
investments to support increased efforts in basic research that 
engage universities and other research communities in the 
unique programs managed by DARPA and recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose. The committee 
recommends that DARPA consider funding efforts that engage a 
broader set of researchers, including those from non-
traditional defense contractors, universities, Department of 
Defense (DOD) laboratories, and small businesses, in 
partnership with other funded DARPA initiatives. For example, 
the committee believes that DARPA-managed basic research 
activities in cybersecurity, robotics, development of systems 
engineering and software development tools, advanced learning 
and training technologies, and modeling and simulation would be 
of great benefit to supporting the achievement of DOD research 
and development goals. The committee also believes that DARPA 
is best enabled to engage the basic research community in 
addressing fundamental science challenges underlying efforts to 
develop new systems to address anti-access/area denial 
capabilities of potential adversaries. The committee directs 
DARPA to provide the congressional defense committees with a 
plan for execution of these funds no later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act. The committee reaffirms the 
requirement by law that all such funding be allocated on the 
basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to a broad agency 
announcement or similar competitive process.
    The committee further recommends a reduction of $20.0 
million in PE 63766E. The committee recommends reducing funding 
for the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, which has 
been funded at DARPA for over 10 years, with over $200 million 
expended to date. This program history is inconsistent with the 
traditional DARPA model of successfully proving the technical 
feasibility and military value of disruptive, innovative 
technologies in shorter periods of time. The program still has 
no identified commitments for a transition pathway to a Service 
program for further development, and seems to have a low 
probability of transition, even if current technical challenges 
are overcome.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for 
        military children
    The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z 
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP), but no 
funding for pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12) 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 
education activities, which have been traditionally funded at 
approximately $10.0 million per year. In support of a provision 
described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an 
additional $10.0 million for support of activities that enhance 
the STEM educational opportunities for military children. The 
committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all such 
funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection, 
pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive 
process.
    The committee notes that the NDEP has historically funded 
three activities related to STEM education: (1) The Science, 
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) 
scholarship program, established in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 108-375); 
(2) the National Security Science and Engineering Faculty 
Fellowship (NSSEFF); and (3) PK-12 STEM education activities. 
In the fiscal years 2014 and 2015 President's budget requests, 
in response to an administration initiative to consolidate STEM 
educational activities, the NDEP's PK-12 STEM education program 
was terminated, with much of the funding transferred to the 
NSSEFF. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has a unique responsibility for the well-being of 
military children and responsibility to their servicemember 
parents, and believes that DOD is well-positioned to help 
enhance their STEM educational opportunities.
    The budget request included $44.6 million in PE 61110D8Z 
for Basic Research Initiatives. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $10.0 million for the NSSEFF program to return the 
program back to historical funding levels.
Historically black colleges and universities and minority serving 
        institutions
    The budget request included $24.4 million in PE 61228D8Z to 
support basic research at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Minority Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI). The 
committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support 
activities that enhance efforts to increase the numbers of 
HBCU/MI students and graduates working in defense laboratories 
and defense industry; increase the number of research 
partnerships established between HBCU/MI research staff and 
faculty and their counterparts in government laboratories, 
industry, and academia; support the development of advanced 
research infrastructure at HBCU/MI schools, especially 
facilities that can be leveraged by other research 
universities; and increase the number of undergraduates funded 
who graduated with degrees in STEM fields and who will continue 
to pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields. The committee 
reaffirms the requirement by law that all such funding be 
allocated on the basis of a merit-based selection, pursuant to 
a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process.
    The committee notes that this program had been historically 
funded at a level of approximately $35.0 million per year, but 
was reduced without sufficient justification. In testimony to 
the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, 
witnesses highlighted the value of this program in performing 
valuable basic research, as well as in training the next 
generation of scientists and engineers who may work in defense 
laboratories or defense industry.
Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
    The budget request included $42.0 million in PE 62251D8Z 
for applied research for the advancement of science and 
technology priorities. The committee recommends a decrease of 
$10.0 million.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Cyber Security Research
    The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 62668D8Z 
for Cyber Security Research. The committee is concerned that 
the proliferation of cyber security research programs in the 
Department of Defense (DOD), intelligence community, and other 
federal agencies, both in classified and unclassified programs, 
has created inefficient redundancy and duplication of efforts. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million 
in PE 62668D8Z. Further, the committee directs that this 
program prioritize investment in activities that support 
research by university centers, small businesses, and non-
traditional defense contractors, so as to help promote a 
diversity of innovative concepts and ideas into the set of 
programs striving to address DOD and national cyber security 
challenges.
Foreign technology testing
    The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63133D8Z 
for comparative testing of foreign technologies. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in this program to 
reduce growth. The committee directs that efforts under this 
program reflect testing of technologies in the advanced 
technology development stage, given the realignment of this 
account into the defense science and technology budget. 
Further, the committee notes that the Department of Defense 
should invest similar resources in programs that ensure that 
domestically-produced technologies which may provide superior 
capabilities to existing or developmental systems are 
comparatively evaluated and develop policies to ensure that if 
appropriate, these technologies are adopted.
Science and technology analytic assessments
    The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63288D8Z 
for science and technology analytic assessments, $60.0 million 
in PE 63289D8Z for advanced innovative analysis and concepts, 
and $4.9 million in PE 65798D8Z for defense technology 
analyses. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million 
in PE 63288D8Z, a reduction of $15.0 million in PE 63289D8Z, 
and a reduction of $4.75 million in PE 65798D8Z for these 
efforts. The committee supports analyses that can better inform 
research and technology efforts that will address Department of 
Defense concerns related to a reduction in military 
technological superiority of global peers, but notes that 
robust funding in program offices, military services and 
defense agencies, and in federally funded research and 
development centers can be used for these purposes.
Concept and technology demonstrations
    The budget request included $132.0 million in PE 63648D8Z 
for the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) 
program. The committee is concerned over the limited transition 
success rate of past JCTD programs and recommends that the 
Department of Defense focus efforts on a smaller number of 
programs which represent revolutionary and disruptive 
technology capabilities and operational concepts that would 
otherwise not be funded in service development and acquisition 
programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 
$20.0 million in this program to reduce the number of new-start 
efforts.
Advanced sensor applications program
    The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z 
for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This 
represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 
2014 of $19.2 million.
    The committee believes that this reduction will cause the 
program to postpone important testing and experiments. The 
committee believes that these efforts are too important to 
postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of 
$4.0 million for ASAP.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system
    The budget request included $299.6 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, PE 63881C, for 
continued development of the Terminal High Altitude Area 
Defense (THAAD) system, including for development of the THAAD 
2.0 concept. The committee believes the concept for the THAAD 
2.0 is not sufficiently defined to warrant the level of funding 
requested. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 
$15.0 million in PE 63881C for development of THAAD 2.0 as 
early to need.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense reliability and maintenance funding
    The budget included $1.0 billion in Research, Development, 
Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63882C, for the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system that provides homeland 
ballistic missile defense. However, the committee is aware that 
a recent independent assessment of the GMD system indicated 
that a number of important reliability and maintenance 
functions are not included in the current GMD program of 
record. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$30.0 million in PE 63882C for the following activities: (1) 
Failure mitigation actions and upgrades for the Capability 
Enhancement II Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle; (2) Upgrades to 
the Command Launch Equipment and the GMD Fire Control System; 
and (3) Improvements to the GMD Stockpile Reliability Program, 
including rocket motor life assessments.
    The committee believes these are necessary functions for 
the GMD program to work effectively and be sustainable for the 
planned life of the system. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to develop a plan for 
executing these funds, and for completing the remainder of the 
work required to accomplish these functions within the GMD 
program of record. The committee further directs the Director 
of MDA to report to the congressional defense committees on 
this plan by no later than November 15, 2014. As part of this 
planning process, the committee expects MDA to consider the 
full range of funding options, including re-prioritization of 
funds, reprogramming actions, and adjustments to budget plans 
for fiscal year 2016.
Funding for Iron Dome and U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense 
        programs
    The budget request included $96.8 million in PE 63913C for 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative 
missile defense programs, including $10.7 million to improve 
the existing Arrow Weapon System; $54.4 million for continued 
development of the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor missile; and 
$31.7 million for continued co-development of the David's Sling 
short-range ballistic missile defense system. These systems are 
part of Israel's layered defenses against missiles and rockets 
of varying ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or 
Syria, to short-range missiles and large-caliber rockets such 
as those fired from Lebanese territory, to the very short-range 
rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United States is 
jointly developing and co-managing these systems to ensure they 
are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile defense 
systems.
    The budget request also included $175.9 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide for the MDA, for Israel to procure 
additional Iron Dome short-range rocket defense systems, 
including co-production of Iron Dome parts and components in 
the United States by U.S. industry in accordance with the U.S.-
Israel Iron Dome production agreement signed on March 15, 2014. 
The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, proved 
highly effective at defending against hundreds of short-range 
rockets launched from Gaza in 2012, and has been provided 
Israel with an alternative to launching large-scale military 
offensives to counter such rocket attacks.
    The Government of Israel has requested an additional $175.0 
million for Iron Dome in fiscal year 2015. The committee is 
supportive of the Iron Dome program and is aware that short-
range rocket attacks are a continuing threat to Israel's 
security. The committee also supports the three cooperative 
missile defense programs, and recognizes that Israel may 
determine that it is a higher national security priority to use 
additional funding for these programs, given the continuing 
threat of rockets and missiles that could be launched from 
Iran, Syria, and from Lebanese territory.
    Therefore, as provided in a legislative provision described 
elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an increase 
of $175.0 million in PE 63913C for Israel to produce Iron Dome 
systems, including co-production of Iron Dome parts and 
components in the United States by U.S. industry, in accordance 
with the terms, conditions, and co-production targets for 
fiscal year 2015 in the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome production 
agreement. However, if Israel determines that it would be a 
higher priority for its national security, it may use part or 
all of the additional $175.0 million for the three U.S.-Israeli 
cooperative missile defense programs: the Arrow System 
Improvement Program; the Arrow-3 upper tier interceptor missile 
development program; and the David's Sling short-range 
ballistic missile defense system.
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase
    The budget request included $6.0 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) for Advanced 
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $2.9 million was 
for the Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that DOD has 
consistently underfunded the Corrosion Program since fiscal 
year 2011. DOD estimates that the negative effects of corrosion 
cost approximately $20.8 billion annually to prevent and 
mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, 
weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in RDT&E;, line 101, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD 
Corrosion Program.
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) has been funded at decreasing 
levels over the last few fiscal years, dropping from a high of 
$439.0 million in fiscal year 2011, to $175.0 million in fiscal 
year 2014. The committee recommends an authorization of $75.0 
million in PE 64775D8Z to continue activities under this 
program. This decrease from previous levels of authorization 
reflects the need for the DOD and the Government Accountability 
Office to complete reviews of the program and its 
effectiveness, while balancing the need to maintain the program 
continuity and maintaining engagement with industry and 
acquisition program offices. The committee notes that the DOD 
has increased the number of organizations participating in the 
program, while streamlining management processes, enabling 
earlier solicitation of proposals from small businesses and 
other potential contractors. The committee further notes that 
preliminary evaluation of program results have identified a 
number of RIP-funded technologies which have transitioned into 
acquisition programs.
    The RIP is a competitive, merit-based program established 
by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) 
that is designed to fund innovative technologies, reduce 
acquisition or life-cycle costs, address technical risks, 
improve the timeliness of test and evaluation outcomes, and 
rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical national 
security needs. The committee notes that $175.0 million was 
appropriated for the RIP in the DOD Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-6); however, no funds were 
requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2015.
    In the 3 fiscal years during which the program has been 
executed, 17 defense components (including U.S. Special 
Operations Command, the military services, the Missile Defense 
Agency, U.S. Transportation Command, and others) have used the 
additional funding through 12 different open calls for industry 
proposals. The competitions resulted in over 8,600 technology-
concept white papers and over 500 full proposals for funding, 
which were evaluated for their responsiveness to defense 
technology requirements and their ability to effectively 
transition technologies to acquisition program offices, depots, 
logistics, contractors, or other relevant organizations. 
Investments in the program have prioritized proposals that have 
the ability to: deliver nearer-term emerging technologies to 
current military operations in areas such as electronic 
warfare, cybersecurity tools, robotics, and dismounted force 
protection; contribute to breakthrough technologies for future 
military capabilities in areas such as countering weapons of 
mass destruction, space systems, and hypersonics; or improve 
the affordability of defense operations through technologies 
that reduce the cost of energy and other logistical items or 
increase interoperability across platforms and systems.
    Through this rigorous process, in fiscal years 2011 and 
2012, 263 awards of less than $3.0 million each were made to 
innovative companies, over 90 percent of which were made to 
small businesses, and a majority of which leveraged previous 
investments made by the Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) program. DOD estimates that 90 to 100 projects will be 
awarded through the fiscal year 2013 competitive process. 
Successful projects to date include, but are not limited to: 
enhanced ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire 
detection systems for combat outposts, automated intelligent 
training systems, low cost missile launchers, advanced body 
armor, and intrusion detection systems for port security 
missions.
    DOD has reported that the program has increased the 
effectiveness of technology development activities in a number 
of ways, including: allowing acquisition program managers to 
have the flexibility to develop, test, and possibly incorporate 
higher performance and lower cost capabilities into programs 
that traditionally are unable to fund or evaluate disruptive 
and novel technologies; creating competitive pressures on 
existing defense contractors through the potential introduction 
of new technologies; enhancing the return on investment on the 
roughly $1.0 billion DOD SBIR program; and providing a new 
avenue for commercial industry, small businesses, and other 
non-traditional contractors to develop solutions to defense 
technology challenges.
    The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all 
such funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based 
selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar 
competitive process. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to continue to refine and enhance program management 
and industry engagement practices to maximize the ability of 
the RIP to deliver new technologies to acquisition programs and 
operational units that would otherwise not be funded or 
evaluated, given resource constraints and traditional program 
management processes.
Chemical and Biological Defense Program under-execution
    The budget request included $345.9 million in PE 64384BP 
for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program engineering and 
manufacturing development. The committee notes that this 
program funding line received an increase of $158.0 million--
nearly 60 percent--from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014, 
and with this substantial increase the program execution rate 
for the fiscal year 2014 funds is slower than expected.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 
million for PE 64384BP for prior year under-execution delays.

Combatant Command exercise engagement and training transformation 
        funding decrease

    The budget request included $887.8 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) for RDT&E; Management 
Support, of which $44.0 million was for Combatant Command 
Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2).
    The committee is concerned that historical under-execution 
has occurred in the CE2T2 program with respect to the 
percentage of validated combatant command joint exercise 
transportation requirements executed in support of the joint 
exercise training program.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million in RDT&E;, line 174, Program Element 0804767D8Z, for 
CE2T2.

Sharkseer zero-day cybersecurity program

    The budget request included $125.9 million for research and 
development (R&D;) for the National Security Agency's (NSA) 
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G, 
conducted by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD).
    The budget request includes no funds in fiscal year 2015 
for the Sharkseer program. Sharkseer has been funded in 
previous years at the direction of the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (CIO) and has been identified by the CIO as 
among the highest priority cybersecurity initiatives under its 
purview. The committee is informed that the CIO intends in 
future budget submissions to transition this initiative to a 
permanent program of record. Sharkseer is the first concerted 
attempt by the Department of Defense (DOD) to buy advanced 
commercial technology to defend DOD networks against cyber 
attacks that have not been seen before--for which no signatures 
are available to block against. These attacks, popularly called 
zero-day attacks, are increasingly prevalent as adversaries 
employ simple morphing techniques to mask the appearance of 
malware that is already well-known.
    The first generation of commercial products for enterprise-
level zero-day detection and response capabilities that the 
Sharkseer program office has assembled has been deployed to a 
DOD Internet Access Point (IAP) for demonstration and testing. 
By all accounts, it has performed very well. Funds on hand, 
authorized and appropriated in prior years, are sufficient to 
deploy these capabilities operationally to three IAPs. Neither 
NSA nor the Defense Information Systems Agency has followed 
through to make funding available to deploy this capability to 
all the other IAPs, or for beginning work with other vendors on 
next-generation capabilities, or to extend capabilities to 
hosts.
    The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million for 
Sharkseer to extend deployments to additional IAPs and further 
develop a closed-cycle concept of operations and technical 
capabilities to quickly translate detections at network 
boundaries into blockable signatures, rapidly disseminate them, 
and directly interact in near real-time with endpoints/hosts. 
The committee expects the newly forming Cyber Protection Teams 
to rely heavily on Sharkseer tools and capabilities.
    The committee encourages the CIO to establish Sharkseer as 
a sustained activity to procure innovative commercial 
cybersecurity products and to refresh them with new products 
and capabilities in the same way that the DOD routinely 
programs funds for technology refresh on network equipment like 
routers, switches, and load balancers.

Defense Information Systems Agency cybersecurity research and 
        development

    The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35103K for 
research and development (R&D;) of cybersecurity solutions by 
the Mission Assurance Directorate of the Defense Information 
Systems Agency (DISA). The DISA Information Systems Security 
Program PE 33140K has no R&D; funds requested at all.
    A strategy of procuring only mature commercial or 
government cybersecurity solutions is sound, but DISA has 
multiple, high-priority unfunded needs, and needs some R&D; 
funding to work with industry to identify, test, and integrate 
commercial security solutions. In past years, the committee 
provided funds for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) through 
DISA to conduct pilot programs with advanced technology 
cybersecurity companies, which were very productive and valued 
by the CIO. This funding, too, has not been sustained.
    The committee urges the DISA Director, the CIO, and the 
Principal Cyber Advisor to assess the lack of R&D; funding for 
cybersecurity at DISA, and include appropriate amounts in 
future budget submissions. The committee recommends an 
authorization of $9.4 million in PE 33140K for one of DISA's 
highest priorities, building out the analytic platform for 
cyber situational awareness at the community data center. This 
analytic platform, analyzing a diversity of big data sources, 
such as full packet capture, netflow, and log data, will be a 
critical tool for the Cyber Protection Teams coming on line at 
U.S. Cyber Command. In addition, the committee recommends 
transferring the $3.2 million R&D; request from PE 35103K to PE 
33140K.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $9.7 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for 
the development, integration, and testing of special 
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is 
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of 
special operations capabilities to, among other things, 
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 
while avoiding collateral damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $5.2 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs through the MQ-9 Medium 
Altitude Long Endurance Tactical program of record utilizing 
the Lead-Off Hitter rapid acquisition process. The committee 
understands this process has successfully fielded MQ-9 UAV 
capabilities at greatly reduced timelines when compared to 
traditional acquisition processes and such capabilities have 
significantly improved the accuracy and lethality of MQ-9 UAVs 
in ``find, fix, and finish'' operations. The committee 
encourages SOCOM to continue to look for other opportunities to 
accelerate combat capability development through the Lead-Off 
Hitter approach.

                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced training technologies

    The committee believes that the appropriate application of 
advanced technologies can help improve the effectiveness of 
training, while reducing overall costs. The committee notes 
that the Department of Defense has made significant progress in 
the development of augmented reality and augmented virtuality 
technologies to enhance training experiences through the use of 
advanced computer simulation techniques. These technologies are 
used to mix virtual and real-world experiences, so as to 
improve training outcomes. Continuing work in these areas holds 
the promise of developing increased virtual training 
capability, with resulting enhanced force readiness at reduced 
cost. The committee is unaware of any independent study 
comparing the benefits of live, virtual, augmented, and mixed 
reality training systems.
    To help determine the value and possible need for increased 
emphasis on these technical areas, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army to provide for an independent review to 
assess the effectiveness, in terms of cost and performance, of 
augmented reality and augmented virtuality training methods and 
tools. In particular, the study should examine the ability of 
these deployed or developing systems and methods to enhance the 
acquisition and retention of skills needed to complete critical 
missions, as compared with exclusively live or virtual training 
exercises. The report should be delivered to the congressional 
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment 
of this Act.

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

    The committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force 
announced the decision to not relocate the Air Force Office of 
Scientific Research (AFOSR) in testimony. The committee 
commends the Secretary on the decision. AFOSR plays a vital 
role in the development of new Air Force capabilities, by 
funding basic research programs at universities, small 
businesses, and government laboratories in areas including 
advanced materials, cybersecurity, hypersonics, robotics, and 
computer science. AFOSR investments in the past have led to a 
range of deployed and commercial systems ranging from the 
computer mouse to lasers to stealth materials used on tactical 
aircraft. The committee notes that AFOSR has funded research by 
73 scientists and engineers who have earned Nobel Prizes in 
physics, chemistry, medicine, or economics. Further, AFOSR 
plays a leading role in Air Force engagement with the global 
scientific community, and in supporting the training of the 
next generation of scientists, engineers, and technology 
entrepreneurs through science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) education and graduate fellowship programs.
    The research community collaborates with AFOSR at its 
present location, and has expressed concern to the committee 
about the potential adverse impact of relocation on both the 
mission of AFOSR and on its current federal and non-federal 
partners. The committee notes that AFOSR moved to its present 
location in the late 1990s, specifically to be physically close 
to other key federal research offices, including the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA), and Office of Naval Research (ONR). This co-
location was endorsed as a Center of Excellence by the 2005 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. The Commission 
further cautioned that placing AFOSR onto a military 
installation could restrict access by key partners.
    The committee is concerned that any relocation could risk 
the Air Force losing the advantages of AFOSR's current 
location, which likely enhance the effectiveness and efficiency 
of the organization in the performance of its Air Force-
designated missions. Finally, the committee has yet to receive 
any detailed budget information justifying a potential move on 
the basis of cost savings. Accordingly, the committee directs 
the Air Force to put on hold any further plans for the 
relocation during fiscal year 2015.
    Further, the committee directs the Air Force to report to 
the committee on AFOSR programs and activities, no later than 
180 day after the enactment of this Act. The report should 
include information on planned activities to maintain and 
strengthen AFOSR's basic research function, policies, and 
activities being developed to ensure AFOSR can shape a 
workforce best-qualified to manage the Air Force basic research 
portfolio, activities intended to continue and expand AFOSR 
outreach to universities and the U.S. and global scientific 
community to support Air Force missions, and specific examples 
of coordinated research and other activities with peer federal 
research agencies.

Airborne signals intelligence enterprise

    Due to the importance of the mission, the Air Force 
continues to invest heavily in signals intelligence (SIGINT) 
collection capabilities for multiple platforms. SIGINT is a key 
component of airborne collection systems that exploit multiple 
phenomenologies in contested and denied environments. As the 
Air Force moves forward with system modifications and upgrades 
of its SIGINT assets and capabilities, the Air Force needs to 
be able to leverage investments made by programs across the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce life cycle costs of these 
systems.
    As discussed elsewhere in this report, DOD is pursuing a 
number of efforts to apply open systems architecture principles 
for modernization and sustaining existing systems, as well as 
for new developments. Implementation of open systems 
architecture standards should enable just such sharing and help 
achieve the best value to the warfighter through ensuring 
competition throughout the lifecycle of defense acquisition 
programs, as directed by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).
    The committee encourages the Air Force to continue its 
efforts to move to open systems architectures that will 
facilitate open competition at all levels for future system 
modifications and upgrades.

Anti-submarine warfare research and development

    The committee notes that continued advancements in 
submarine technology present significant challenges for the 
United States and the international community. The Navy's 
Maritime Strategy lists the proliferation of submarines, both 
advanced diesel-electric and nuclear-propelled submarines, as 
potentially the principal threat to future maritime security.
    Modern diesel-electric submarines are increasingly capable 
and lethal. Advanced air independent propulsion (AIP) systems 
have exponentially increased diesel submarines' underwater 
endurance, which provides greater survivability and freedom of 
movement. Additionally, diesel-electric submarines allow for 
smaller submarine designs, which permit greater access to 
littoral areas than their larger nuclear-powered counterparts. 
Finally, many of these submarines are capable of carrying 
advanced torpedoes and cruise missiles, which could threaten 
maritime commerce and civilian shore installations. These 
advanced capabilities, coupled with diesel submarines' 
relatively low-cost, have resulted in rapid expansion of 
submarine programs in nearly every region around the world.
    The committee commends the Navy's proactive approach to 
this growing challenge, including specific training exercises 
designed to address modern diesel-electric submarines' unique 
capabilities. However, the committee also encourages the Navy 
to continue to pursue new technologies that could provide the 
next generation of undersea warfare advantages, including 
detection of sea-floor scarring and other non-acoustic 
signature.

Cargo unmanned aerial system

    The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to demonstrate 
the military utility of a cargo unmanned aerial system (UAS) to 
support intra-theater operational logistics where the use of 
manned aircraft or ground convoys to resupply troops is 
uneconomical or dangerous. The committee understands that since 
December 2011, the Marine Corps has been conducting a Military 
User Assessment (MUA) of cargo UAS helicopters for supply 
missions in Afghanistan. The committee believes that sufficient 
information should be available to support the analysis 
associated with a formal requirements development process and 
decision on whether or not to transition cargo UAS helicopters 
to a program of record.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 
no later than April 1, 2015, on the results of the MUA and the 
Department's plans, if any, for establishing a program of 
record for the development, procurement, fielding, and 
sustainment of cargo UAS helicopters.

Clear technical communications

    The committee is concerned with the limited ability of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in communicating the values, goals, 
successes, and impacts of its science and technology programs 
to external audiences, including Congress, the public, and 
government policy and decision makers. Communication of these 
science and technology (S&T;) developments is vital to an 
external understanding of innovations within the DOD. Clear 
descriptions of support for military missions and measurable 
reductions in operational and acquisition costs should be key 
goals of communication.
    The committee commends the DOD for its efforts in its 
``Armed With Science'' blog. The web site highlights S&T; 
developments within the DOD and is dedicated to making these 
developments relevant to internal and external audiences alike. 
``Armed With Science'' operates under the mission of making 
science matter to everyone, and the committee believes that the 
DOD needs to dedicate more resources to this goal.

Combat rescue helicopter

    The Air Force has announced an intention to move forward 
with the combat rescue helicopter (CRH) program to replace 
existing HH-60 helicopters that fulfill the combat search and 
rescue function in the Air Force. The Air Force also has 
informed the committee that the future years defense program 
(FYDP) plan for the CRH program includes a shortfall of $436.0 
million needed to execute the CRH program.
    The committee recognizes the importance of replacing the 
aging HH-60 airframe, a heavily used helicopter whose readiness 
rates are persistently low. The committee commends the Air 
Force on moving forward with the CRH program, but remains 
concerned that the Air Force properly budget for the program in 
the out-years. The committee directs the Air Force to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees not less than 90 
days after enactment of this Act on how it will correct that 
funding shortfall for the CRH program in the FYDP.

EC-130H Compass Call aircraft

    The committee is concerned about the plans of the Air Force 
to retire almost one half of the EC-130H Compass Call fleet 
starting in fiscal year 2016. The EC-130H Compass Call is an 
airborne electronic attack (AEA) platform which has proven its 
value in every major combat operation since Operation Just 
Cause in 1989 through today's conflict in Afghanistan.
    The EC-130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled 
capability for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy 
command and control communications and limit adversary 
coordination essential for enemy force management. As a manned 
platform, Compass Call is able to operate independently in a 
communications degraded environment. The Compass Call is also 
flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers 
and linguists who can make real-time decisions in the execution 
of electronic warfare.
    To ensure support for combatant commander needs, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a 
plan, including milestones and resource requirements, to 
replace, modernize, or rehost the current Compass Call 
capabilities. The Secretary's plan will include a detailed 
assessment of what the new objective system or systems should 
be, what upgrades or enhancements of existing Compass Call 
aircraft systems will be pursued for those aircraft remaining 
in the force, and how the Air Force will meet combatant 
commander requirements until a new objective system achieves 
full operational capability. The Secretary should deliver this 
plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 
September 30, 2014.

Electronic warfare threat emitters

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
initiated development and fielding of new electronic warfare 
testing and operational training capabilities to ensure that 
weapon systems and aircrews, including the F-35, are able to be 
appropriately tested and trained against emerging threats. The 
committee notes that both the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (OT&E;) and the Director of the Test Resource 
Management Center (TRMC) are funding efforts to develop and 
field realistic electronic warfare threat simulators for use in 
developmental and operational testing. The committee also 
understands that the Air Force is currently fielding the Joint 
Threat Emitter that can simulate the multiple threat scenarios 
of modern integrated air defense systems to support operational 
training missions. The committee supports the appropriate and 
realistic testing and operational training of weapon systems 
and aircrews to meet current operational requirements, as well 
as emerging threats. The committee is concerned however that 
these well-intentioned efforts may be duplicative, not well 
coordinated, and not aligned with the schedule, testing, and 
operational training requirements of currently fielded weapons 
systems and the F-35.
    Therefore, the committee directs that the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense develop a coordinated plan, among the OT&E;, TRMC, 
Air Force, Navy, and relevant program offices and 
organizations, for the development and fielding of a usable set 
of electronic warfare threat simulation capabilities that meet 
current and future operational training and testing 
requirements and program schedule needs that sufficiently 
simulate all realistic threat scenarios. The plan should 
identify actions that promote the rapid development, fielding, 
and leveraging of test and operational training assets to 
support the most efficient deployment of capabilities on 
current and future weapon systems to defeat existing threats 
and mitigate impact of emerging threats. Further, the plan 
should also identify a lead agency for this coordinated effort. 
The committee directs that this plan be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees before fiscal year 2015 funds 
are expended on further development of these test capabilities. 
This restriction does not prohibit funding of threat emitters 
being fielded to meet current weapon system operational 
training requirements.

Improved turbine engine program

    Over the last 3 years the committee has consistently 
expressed its support for the Army's Improved Turbine Engine 
Program (ITEP). The committee recognizes that ITEP faces the 
same challenges and fiscal risks impacting all Army research, 
development, and acquisition programs under the Budget Control 
Act of 2011. The committee understands that the Army would 
prefer to take ITEP competitive prototyping beyond the 
technology development phase and into engineering and 
manufacturing development, however, future resources may not be 
available to do so. Nonetheless, providing adequate and stable 
funding for ITEP sufficient to carry at least two engine 
developers over the next few years and through completion of 
the technology development phase is important to reduce risk, 
achieve appropriate technology maturity, and set the conditions 
for ultimate program success. The committee supports the 
current program funding profile and schedule and encourages the 
Army to maintain stability and therefore momentum in the 
program as resources and technical progress allow.

Inter-agency coordination on medical countermeasures development

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has a robust research and development (R&D;) program to provide 
bio-defense medical countermeasures for military and civilian 
personnel to protect them against biological threats. The 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also conducts 
significant R&D; of bio-defense medical countermeasures for 
public health. The committee understands that the two 
departments have established an interagency process for 
coordination and collaboration on bio-defense medical 
countermeasure development, to ensure that the bio-defense 
needs of both military and civilian populations are met while 
avoiding duplication of effort and maximizing the benefits of 
limited resource allocation.
    The committee believes such coordination and collaboration 
are essential, and believes it is important to understand the 
mechanism and process by which the two departments manage this 
process with other interagency partners. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 
congressional defense committees an unclassified report, not 
later than November 1, 2015, describing the process and 
mechanisms by which the DOD coordinates its bio-defense medical 
countermeasures development with those of the DHHS. The report 
should describe the roles of the various interagency partners 
in deciding R&D; priorities and responsibilities, and how the 
process avoids duplication of effort.

National Security Agency cybersecurity research and development

    The budget request included $125.9 million for research and 
development (R&D;) for the National Security Agency's (NSA) 
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in PE 33140G, 
conducted by the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), a 
reduction of one-third from the $181.6 million appropriated in 
fiscal year 2014.
    This steep R&D; reduction resulted in part because of the 
NSA IAD's insistence, despite the recommendation of the Office 
of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation, on maintaining the level of 
funding in its operations and maintenance budget to protect its 
government workforce.
    The committee urges the Principal Cyber Advisor and the CIO 
to review the IAD cybersecurity R&D; budget and to augment that 
budget, as appropriate, through reprogramming actions. The 
committee also urges the CIO and NSA's leadership to determine 
IAD's sustainable government workforce levels in connection 
with future budget submissions.

Supporting commercialization of defense laboratory technologies

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
executes a number of activities to promote the transfer of 
technology from DOD laboratories or agencies to commercial 
entities, for potential further technology development or 
commercialization. These activities can support the development 
of new military capabilities that can be incorporated into 
acquisition programs, and also enhance the return on taxpayers' 
investments in defense research programs, while creating jobs 
and stimulating the economy. The committee notes that the 
administration has established a major technology transfer 
initiative, ``Lab-to-Market,'' with a goal of establishing 
policies and programs that streamline the ability for the 
private sector to leverage the inventions and innovation that 
occur inside federal laboratories to support national missions. 
Further, the committee notes that the recent Institute for 
Defense Analyses study, ``Exemplar Practices for Department of 
Defense Technology Transfer,'' identified a number of best 
practices that enhance the efficiency of technology transfer 
processes, including the establishment of partnerships between 
labs, universities, and industry, marketing laboratory 
technologies and capabilities to industry, and using existing 
technology transfer mechanisms and authorities to full 
potential. Finally, the committee notes that DOD recently 
established a ``Technology Transfer Center of Excellence,'' 
which will help DOD transfer technologies developed at its 
defense laboratories to the commercial marketplace. Consistent 
with these efforts and findings, the committee recommends that 
DOD continue to expand its technology transfer activities, 
including through the use of expertise in university centers, 
industry associations, and government organizations to identify 
and proliferate best technology transfer practices.

Technology transition of successful research initiatives

    Since its inception more than 55 years ago, the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invested in a 
number of groundbreaking new technology advances, some of which 
have resulted in significantly enhanced military capabilities 
as well as commercial products that benefit the nation. DARPA 
has a unique role within the Department of Defense (DOD) and is 
intended to be a specialized technological engine for pursuing 
radical innovations and high-payoff research projects that can 
transform military capabilities beyond near-term needs and 
requirements.
    The committee fully supports the important role that DARPA 
fills in pursuing cutting edge concepts and technologies that 
improve military capabilities. The committee believes that 
continued investment in high-risk, high-payoff research and 
development projects is critical, given the broad and complex 
range of current and emerging security threats facing our 
nation. In addition, with current fiscal constraints driving 
reductions in force structure, readiness, and modernization in 
DOD, it is essential that we sustain a robust science and 
technology enterprise to support military readiness and to 
deliver advanced technologies and capabilities to operational 
forces.
    Based on the nature of research endeavors, it is expected 
that some technology projects may not achieve their intended 
goals and objectives or are just the first steps towards proof 
of concept and development. However, the committee is concerned 
that some technology projects may be successfully completed, 
but fail to transition into acquisition programs of record or 
directly into operational use. This may be because of 
administrative, funding, cultural, and/or programmatic barriers 
that make it difficult to bridge the gap from science and 
technology programs to acquisition programs, as well to the 
expected users of the technology. As the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) and others have previously 
reported, transitioning technologies from defense science and 
technology organizations to military users has been a long-
standing challenge for DOD. These reports have found that 
sometimes technologies are not ready to transition when needed 
because they may still be too risky or too costly to adopt or 
have not been adequately demonstrated. In other cases, 
promising technologies are not taken advantage of because of 
insufficient processes and mechanisms to expedite their 
transition to users. These transition barriers and failures 
reduce the return on investment for science and technology 
funding, and create severe funding challenges for research 
performers in industry and government, who must strive to 
sustain a skilled workforce, and specialized equipment and 
facilities, during periods of funding discontinuities.
    The committee further notes that the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and defense agencies manage over 
$2.0 billion in science and technology programs aside from 
those in the DARPA budget. The committee is concerned that 
these programs are facing the same technology transition 
challenges that DARPA faces.
    The committee directs the GAO to review DARPA, OSD, and the 
defense agencies technology transition processes, practices, 
and results. In conducting this review, GAO should assess: (1) 
The policies, processes, and mechanisms that have been 
established to plan for and facilitate the transition of 
technologies to users; (2) The extent to which organizations 
use existing DOD and military department technology transition 
programs and initiatives such as the Rapid Innovation program, 
Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations, and the Small 
Business Innovation Research program; (3) DARPA projects 
considered technically successful that were not transitioned, 
directly or indirectly, into operational use or service 
acquisition programs and the underlying reasons for those 
transition failures; (4) How organizations track and measure 
technology transition; and (5) The factors that hinder the 
transition of promising technologies.
    The committee further directs that the GAO submit a report 
on this review to the congressional defense committees no later 
than 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Unmanned underwater vehicles and the public shipyards

    In the House report accompanying H.R. 1960 (H. Rpt. 113-
102) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014, the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives expressed its belief that in order ``to 
maintain undersea dominance in maritime regions of significant 
economic and military importance to the United States, the Navy 
requires disruptive technologies that can be rapidly developed, 
demonstrated, evaluated, and fielded to counter expanding 
undersea capabilities by peer and near-peer maritime nations 
and to extend the Navy's reach and persistence.'' The committee 
expressed its concern that, under the Navy's acquisition plan, 
the Navy would not have the new technologies it needs to meet 
these requirements until after 2020.
    The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate agrees with 
the views expressed by the House. Unmanned underwater vehicles 
(UUV) will be critical to the protection of U.S. economic and 
national security interests. Integrating them and other 
autonomous undersea technologies and payloads into the undersea 
warfare mission area will expand the technology base and more 
rapidly provide warfighting options that are not currently 
achievable.
    The committee remains concerned that the Navy may not be 
able to develop the necessary capabilities to achieve its goal 
of deploying large displacement UUV (LDUUV) from an operational 
UUV squadron on independent missions by 2020. Further, the 
committee believes that budget constraints may further hamper 
the development of these critical capabilities. For these 
reasons, with respect to the development of UUVs, the committee 
believes that the Navy should look for opportunities to 
capitalize on existing resources and assets within the Navy 
enterprise to expedite the development of these vehicles and 
their technology at the lowest possible cost.
    Particularly with respect to the LDUUV project, the 
committee encourages the Navy to take full advantage of 
existing expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards. 
The committee believes that the public shipyards may be able to 
assist the LDUUV project with engineering, configuration 
management, acquisition support, technical problem solving, and 
operations and logistics support, including life-cycle 
maintenance and mission package support.
    Therefore, no later than September 30, 2014, the committee 
directs the Navy to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees detailing how the Navy is currently 
utilizing, and plans to utilize, the public shipyard 
infrastructure and expertise for UUV research, development, 
engineering, configuration management, acquisition support, 
technical problem solving, and operations and logistics 
support, including life-cycle maintenance and mission package 
support. In addition, the report should identify all funding by 
fiscal year, appropriation, and line item/program element 
budgeted in support of this effort.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the 
levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act.

                 Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment

Method of funding for cooperative agreements under the Sikes Act (sec. 
        311)
    The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670o) provides the secretary 
of a military department the authority to enter into 
cooperative agreements with the states, local governments, 
Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and the heads of 
other federal departments and agencies to maintain and improve 
the natural resources on or off military and National Guard 
installations.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend this 
section of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670c-1) to allow the funds 
for such a cooperative agreement to be paid in a lump sum that 
includes an amount to cover future costs of the activities 
provided for under the agreement. The provision would also 
allow the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account 
provided that the interest or income is applied for the same 
purpose as the principal.
Environmental Restoration at former Naval Air Station, Chincoteague, 
        Virginia (sec. 312)
    The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration has the administrative jurisdiction over the 
Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. The site includes the area 
formerly known as the Naval Air Station Chincoteague, Virginia, 
including the Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station, Virginia.
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to undertake an environmental restoration 
project in the area with regard to pollutants or contaminants 
that are solely attributable to Department of Defense 
activities while the property was under the administrative 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. The project may be 
entered into either jointly or in conjunction with an 
environmental restoration project of the Administrator.
    The provision also provides that the Secretary and the 
Administrator may enter into an agreement to provide for the 
effective and efficient performance of environmental 
restoration projects in the area. The Secretary may use funds 
available in the Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used 
Defense Sites account for these environmental restoration 
projects.
Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of drop-in fuels 
        (sec. 313)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
Department of Defense funds to be used for bulk purchases of 
drop-in fuel for operational purposes during fiscal year 2015, 
unless the cost of that drop-in fuel is cost competitive with 
traditional fuel, subject to a national security waiver. The 
committee notes that the phrase ``cost competitive'' in this 
section generally refers to prices that are equal to or lower 
than prices offered by competitors for similar goods or 
services. However, the committee notes that terms and 
conditions for particular purchases may vary; in particular, 
long-term energy purchases are likely to have different pricing 
structures from short-term or spot-market purchases. 
Accordingly, the committee believes some flexibility in the 
application of this phrase is anticipated, where necessary to 
address such differences. The committee understands that 
average prices over the period of a long-term contract would be 
cost competitive.
Study on implementation of requirements for consideration of fuel 
        logistics support requirements in planning, requirements 
        development, and acquisition processes (sec. 314)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment 
of this Act, on the implementation of section 332 of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417). The report shall describe the 
implementzation to date of the requirements for consideration 
of fuel logistics support requirements in the planning, 
requirements development, and acquisition processes for: (1) 
Acquisition solicitations that incorporate analysis established 
and developed pursuant to section 332; (2) The fully burdened 
cost of energy and energy key performance parameters in 
relation to other metrics; (3) The total fuel costs avoided as 
a result of inclusion of the fully burdened cost of energy and 
energy key performance parameters, including an estimate of 
monetary savings and fuel volume savings; and (4) The extent to 
which the energy security requirements of the Department of 
Defense are enhanced.
Comptroller General study of Department of Defense research and 
        development projects and investments to increase energy 
        security and meet energy goals requirements (sec. 315)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Comptroller General to conduct a review of Department of 
Defense projects, strategy, resourcing, research, development, 
and investment in pursuit of increasing energy security, 
decreasing energy consumption and logistical burdens, reducing 
tactical and strategic vulnerabilities, and meeting renewable 
energy goals set forth in section 2911(e) of title 10, United 
States Code.
Decontamination of a portion of former bombardment area on island of 
        Culebra, Puerto Rico (sec. 316)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that certain limited portions of the former 
bombardment area on the Island of Culebra should be available 
for safe public recreational use while the remainder of the 
area is most advantageously reserved as habitat for endangered 
and threatened species.
    The provision would also change a legislative restriction 
in section 204(c) of the Military Construction Authorization 
Act, 1974 (Public Law 93-166) which provides that section shall 
not apply to the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos 
Rosario Trail, as defined in the provision.
    The provision would also allow, notwithstanding the 
quitclaim deed, the Secretary of the Army to expend funds 
available in the Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly 
Used Defense Sites (FUDS), established pursuant to section 
2703(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to decontaminate 
the beaches, the campgrounds, and the Carlos Rosario Trail of 
unexploded ordnance.
    The committee notes that the purpose of this provision is 
to lift the statutory restriction that is barring the Secretary 
of the Army from decontaminating this part of Culebra Island. 
This decontamination project should be prioritized within the 
regular process with all other FUDS.

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment

Modification of annual reporting requirement related to prepositioning 
        of materiel and equipment (sec. 321)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2229(c) of title 10, United States Code to sunset after 
3 years, the Comptroller General's annual review of the 
Department of Defense's progress in implementing its strategic 
policy and plan for its prepositioned stocks.
Modification of quarterly readiness reporting requirement (sec. 322)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and 
streamline the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC). 
The committee also strongly urges the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to remove Supplement One from future QRRCs as the 
information therein is readily available in the public domain. 
The committee notes that the recommended provision would 
include a separate assessment for the United States Cyber 
Command.
    The committee also notes that while the recommended 
provision strikes the reporting requirement on major exercise 
assessments, the committee directs DOD to report on an after-
action assessment of any major exercise related to nuclear 
command, control, and communications for 3 years after 
enactment of this Act, beginning with the first QRRC of fiscal 
year 2015. The report may be in classified format, as 
appropriate.
    The committee strongly urges DOD to move the information 
captured in Supplement Two of the QRRC to Annex B in order to 
avoid duplication and maximize efficiency.
Elimination of authority to abolish arsenals (sec. 323)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4532 of Title 10, United States Code, the Arsenal Act, 
and eliminate the ability of the Secretary of the Army to 
abolish any U.S. arsenal considered to be unnecessary.The 
provision would also make it the objective of the Secretary of 
the Army, in managing the workload of the arsenals, to maintain 
the critical capabilities identified in the Army Organic 
Industrial Base Strategy Report, and to ensure cost efficiency 
and technical competence in peacetime, while preserving the 
ability to provide an effective and timely response to 
mobilizations, national defense contingency situations, and 
other emergent requirements.

                          Subtitle D--Reports

Repeal of annual report on Department of Defense operation and 
        financial support for military museums (sec. 331)
    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense (DOD), that would repeal section 489 of 
title 10, United States Code, which requires the Secretary of 
Defense to submit annually to Congress a report on DOD 
operation and financial support for military museums. The 
committee notes that preparation of this report requires 
extensive data collection, but the DOD components do not use 
the information in the report to manage their programs. Repeal 
of the report will save the DOD $39,000 per year.

          Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority

Limitation on MC-12 aircraft transfer to United States Special 
        Operations Command (sec. 341)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the transfer of 24 MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to U.S. 
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for manned intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) until the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 
Conflict, in coordination with the Commander of SOCOM, provides 
the congressional defense committees with an analysis and 
justification for such a transfer.
    The committee notes that since 2005, SOCOM has spent more 
than $524.0 million to field 33 U-28 ISR aircraft to support 
near-term ISR requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as 
longer-term ISR requirements in Asia-Pacific, Africa, and 
elsewhere. The committee is concerned that SOCOM now plans to 
divest most of these aircraft in favor of MC-12 aircraft 
without sufficient analysis and justification. For example, the 
July 2005 Aircraft Selection Report supporting SOCOM's decision 
to acquire single engine U-28 aircraft as opposed to other 
available multi-engine aircraft indicated that ``engine 
failures in multi-engine aircraft are much more likely to cause 
an accident according to the Federal Aviation Administration.'' 
The committee is concerned appropriate safety analysis has not 
been conducted to support the change to a multi-engine ISR 
aircraft and has included additional information on this matter 
in the classified annex accompanying this bill. Furthermore, 
the committee understands that MC-12 aircraft may require 
significant investment to support integration of sensor 
capabilities similar to those provided by the U-28 without 
meeting its long-term manned ISR requirements.
    The committee believes that until further analysis is 
completed and presented to the congressional defense 
committees, SOCOM should continue to use available operation 
and maintenance funding to resource flying hours for its 
existing inventory of U-28 and MC-12 JAVAMAN I/II aircraft. 
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends no funding for 
MC-12 modifications in fiscal year 2015.
    The committee notes that the budget request included $41.8 
million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $10.5 
million in Procurement, Defense-wide, to support aircraft to be 
flown by the Air National Guard in support of SOCOM aviation 
foreign internal defense (AvFID) missions. The committee 
supports this effort and notes that the limitation included in 
this provision and the reduction in funding for MC-12 
modifications contained elsewhere in the bill do not apply to 
the AvFID program.
Limitation on establishment of regional Special Operations Forces 
        Coordination Centers (sec. 342)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for fiscal 
year 2015 to establish Regional Special Operations Forces 
Coordination Centers (RSCC) by U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM).
    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included a similar 
prohibition and required the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report on 
the purpose, cost, and the authorities necessary for the 
establishment of RSCCs. While the required report was submitted 
on April 16, 2014, it left a number of questions unanswered 
related to the long-term funding required to support RSCCs in 
each geographic combatant command (GCC); the relative funding 
that would be provided by SOCOM, the GCCs, and the host nation 
or other participating nations; and coordination with other 
engagement activities conducted by the GCCs and the Department 
of State. Additionally, the report states that ``Providing 
confirmed and sustained out-year support is critical to 
realizing the full potential of an RSCC.'' However, the report 
also identifies additional legislative authorities that would 
need to be addressed for such ``confirmed and sustained'' 
support to occur while indicating ``there are currently no 
plans to seek these additional authorities.''
    The committee believes issues related to funding and 
authorities need to be resolved before RSCCs are established. 
The committee also believes that SOCOM should focus its efforts 
and resources on supporting regional special operations 
engagement activities that are hosted in and led by partner 
nations. For example, the committee understands that Colombia 
is working to establish the ``Centro Regional de Estudios 
Avanzados de Seguridad'' or CREAS, that will, among other 
things, bring together regional special operations forces for 
educational, training, and other events. The committee notes 
that the recommended provision would not prohibit the provision 
of support to regional special operations coordination 
activities, like CREAS, led by and established in partner 
nations, provided they are consistent with broader military-to-
military objectives and coordinated with the Department of 
State and relevant country teams.
    Further, the committee believes that SOCOM has not fully 
explored the viability of expanded cooperation with the 
regional security studies centers and believes that expanded 
cooperation with the existing centers should be prioritized. As 
such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy (USD(P)) to conduct a review of the existing regional 
centers and establish a process through which the SOCOM 
Commander's priorities are more effectively incorporated in 
their activities. Once this review is complete, the committee 
directs the USD(P) to provide a briefing to the congressional 
defense committees.
    Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $1.8 million from the requested amount in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for RSCC concept 
development, study, and planning in fiscal year 2015.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters

Repeal of authority relating to use of military installations by Civil 
        Reserve Air Fleet contractors (sec. 351)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 9513 of title 10, United States Code, relating to the 
use of military installations by commercial air carriers doing 
business with the Department of Defense. Under this program, 
the Secretary of the Air Force has been authorized to enter 
into contracts with air carriers authorizing the use of 
designated installations as: (1) Weather-related landing 
alternatives; (2) Technical stops not involving the enplaning 
or deplaning of passengers or cargo; or (3) In the case of an 
installation within the United States, for other commercial 
purposes. While the legislation envisioned such agreements as a 
potential incentive for obtaining air carrier commitment to the 
Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, the Secretary's authority has 
not resulted in a single contract in its almost 20 years of 
existence.
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 
        352)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113-66) that established a policy that 
the Secretary of Defense shall eliminate the development and 
fielding of Armed Forces-specific combat and camouflage utility 
uniforms and families-of-uniforms for specific combat 
environments to be used by all members of the Armed Forces.
    The committee notes that the guidance for the military 
services and combatant commands required to implement this 
policy has not yet been delivered to the committee. The 
committee also notes that based on demand and price 
differentials, the average contract price for the current 
Marine Corps desert blouse is $33.70, compared to the Navy's 
blouse contract unit price of $36.04. The average contract 
price for the current Marine Corps woodland and desert trousers 
is $35.82, compared to the Navy's trousers unit price of 
$44.45. The committee notes that based on current annual 
demand, the Navy could save approximately $724,000 by simply 
fielding the Marine Corps combat uniform to sailors. Additional 
savings may be found by combining Navy and Marine Corps combat 
uniform planning, item production, warehousing, and follow-on 
sustainment efforts.
    The committee believes that an implementation plan is 
necessary to ensure that the Department of Defense develops a 
schedule and identifies the actions necessary to fulfill the 
Department's policy on ground combat and camouflage utility 
uniforms.
Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas (sec. 353)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
that the Secretary of the Navy will establish areas, to be 
known as the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for 
national defense purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate 
boundaries in the provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and Sections 101 and 
102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
1371, 1372) would not apply with respect to the incidental 
takings of any southern sea otter in the Southern Sea Otter 
Military Readiness Areas in the course of conducting a military 
readiness activity. For purposes of military readiness 
activities, the otters within the readiness areas would be 
treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that is 
proposed to be listed as an endangered species or threatened 
species under section 4 of that Act.
    The Secretary of Interior would be able to revise or 
terminate the exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act if the Secretary were to 
determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and 
the Marine Mammal Commission, that the military activities 
occurring in the readiness areas were impeding southern sea 
otter conservation or the return of the sea otters to optimum 
sustainable population levels.
    The provision would also repeal Section 1 of Public Law 99-
625 (16 U.S.C. 1536 note).

                              Budget Items

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases
    The budget request included $33.2 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.0 billion was for land 
forces depot maintenance and $2.0 billion was for facilities 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM). The budget 
request also included $2.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $58.8 million was 
for land forces depot maintenance.
    The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness 
accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from 
sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee 
notes that these recommended increases will restore some 
critical depot maintenance requirements for the Army and the 
Army Reserve.
    The committee also notes that these recommended increases 
will satisfy the Army's 6 percent capital investment program, 
as required by law.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of 
$185.6 million for land forces depot maintenance and $94.3 
million in SRM. The committee also recommends an increase of 
$15.0 million in OMAR for land forces depot maintenance.
Facilities Sustainment
    The committee recognizes that facilities sustainment 
funding is often deferred in difficult budget times in favor of 
other priorities. However, underfunding of facilities 
sustainment accepts greater risk that facilities will fail 
prematurely and, in the longer term, result in higher 
restoration and replacement costs. The committee notes that 
requested funding for facilities sustainment has fallen from 
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $6.4 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, a decrease of 25 percent in only 3 years.
    On April 2, 2014, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Installations and Environment testified before the 
committee that, ``Sustainment represents the Department's 
single most important investment in the condition of its 
facilities . . . While the Department's goal is to fund 
sustainment at 90 percent of modeled requirements, the funding 
level noted above supports an average DOD-wide sustainment 
funding level of 65 percent of the Facilities Sustainment Model 
requirement.''
    The committee believes that the dramatic decrease in 
facilities sustainment funding represents an unacceptable risk 
to the readiness of Department of Defense facilities. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $105.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance for facilities sustainment 
across the active, guard, and reserve components.
Foreign currency fluctuation reductions
    The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $35.3 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $31.1 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2014, the Department 
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to 
replenish the account for fiscal year 2014 from a beginning 
balance of $970.0 million. A GAO analysis projects that the 
Department will experience a net gain of $351.9 million due to 
favorable foreign exchange rates and will lose $248.1 million 
in fiscal year 2015 in FCF.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $48.9 
million to OMA, $74.2 million to OMN, $28.4 million to OMMC, 
$51.9 million to OMAF, and $17.5 million to OMDW for FCF.
Projected overstatement for Army civilian personnel
    The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA). Army officials have informed the 
committee that they expect an average civilian personnel end 
strength for fiscal year 2015 that is 2,600 (1 percent) lower 
than planned in the budget, due to reductions in the workforce 
since the time that budget estimates were made last year.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $250.0 
million in OMA for overstatement of civilian personnel.
Undistributed travel reductions
    The budget request included $33.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $829.3 million was for travel 
of persons. The budget request included $39.0 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $569.4 million 
was for travel of persons. The budget request included $5.9 
billion for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of 
which $183.2 million was for travel of persons. The budget 
request included $35.3 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 
Air Force (OMAF), of which $673.8 million was for travel of 
persons. The budget request included $31.1 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) of which $678.1 
million was for travel of persons.
    The committee believes that a portion of the planned 
Department of Defense travel budget should be realigned to 
support higher priority readiness requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed 
decrease of $21.1 million to OMA, $14.5 million to OMN, $4.8 
million to OMMC, $17.3 million to OMAF, and $17.3 million to 
OMDW for travel.
Army National Guard readiness funding increase
    The budget request included $6.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $198.3 
million was for maneuver units. The budget request also 
included $128.9 billion in Military Personnel Appropriations 
(MPA).
    The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million in 
OMARNG for maneuver units and $45.0 million in MPA.
    The committee notes that these recommended increases will 
ensure that two brigade combat teams will be able to attend 
combat training center (CTC) rotations in fiscal year 2015, 
which is the top request on the Army National Guard's unfunded 
requirements list. These funding increases will also provide 
additional enabler support during CTC rotations for the active 
component which does not require personnel growth.
Army National Guard advertising reduction
    The budget request included $274.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG). The committee 
believes some of the advertising funding should be realigned to 
support higher priority readiness requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.8 
million in OMARNG for advertising.
Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases
    The budget request included $39.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $814.7 million was for 
aircraft depot maintenance and $1.4 billion was for 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM).
    The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness 
accounts that could help offset the negative impacts from 
sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The committee 
notes that these recommended increases will fund some of the 
Navy's fiscal year 2015 unfunded requirements for aircraft 
depot maintenance.
    The committee further notes that the recommended funding 
increase for SRM will enable the Navy to meet the minimum 
capital investment threshold of 6 percent across all shipyards 
and depots, as required by law.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of 
$108.9 million in aircraft depot maintenance and $85.2 million 
in SRM.
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request reduced the number of 
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests by two. Given the 
importance of these tests to the readiness of the strategic 
submarine force, the committee recommends $1.3 million to 
conduct an additional Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test.
Aircraft carrier defueling planning funds
    The budget request included $46.0 million in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) account for advance planning 
funding for defueling of the USS George Washington (CVN-73) in 
fiscal year 2017.
    It is the committee's intent that the Navy proceed with the 
refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington 
(CVN-73) should additional funds be made available in fiscal 
year 2015 for that purpose.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $46.0 
million in OMN, and an increase of $46.0 million for CVN 
Refueling Overhauls in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 
account.
Marine Corps unfunded priorities increase
    The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $905.7 million was 
for operational forces.
    The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in these 
readiness accounts that could help offset some negative impacts 
from sequestration and accelerate readiness recovery. The 
committee notes that this recommended increase will improve the 
Marine Corps ability to resource new Special-Purpose Marine 
Air-Ground Task Forces in U.S. Central and U.S. Southern 
Combatant Commands areas of responsibility.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $33.8 
million in OMMC for operational forces.
    The committee further notes that in a separate budget item, 
the recommended funding increase for facilities sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization will enable the Marine Corps to 
meet the minimum capital investment threshold of 6 percent 
across all depots, as required by law.
Marine Corps tuition assistance
    The budget request included $19.1 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for off duty and voluntary 
education programs. At the request of the Marine Corps, the 
committee recommends an increase of $15.7 million in OMMC for 
tuition assistance.
    The budget request also included $105.7 million in PE 
63611M for Marine Corps assault vehicles. At the request of the 
Marine Corps, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.7 
million in PE 63611M or the new amphibious vehicle project.
Museum reduction
    The budget request included $362.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for Administration, of which 
$9.1 million was for an expansion of the National Museum of the 
Marine Corps (NMMC).
    The committee believes that the funding should be realigned 
to support higher priority readiness requirements given the 
funding increase of $9.1 million is comparable to the entire 
cost of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program Norway in 
fiscal year 2015, and the baseline request for the NMMC is 
already $49.5 million.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.1 
million in OMMC for the NMMC.
RC-135 Rivet Joint
    The budget request included classified amounts in Air Force 
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), PE 35207F, for the 
RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence collection program. 
This request exceeds the amount requested in fiscal year 2014, 
when operational tempos and budgets were higher. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $8.0 million, which represents an 
increase over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount.
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support reduction
    The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $871.8 million was for 
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in 
OMAF for a classified program. Additional information is 
provided in the classified annex.

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command

    The budget request included $237.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core 
Operations, of which $40.7 million was for Joint Enabling 
Capabilities Command (JECC).
    The committee believes this funding should be realigned to 
support high priority readiness requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 
million in OMAF for JECC.

United States Pacific Command unfunded priorities increases

    The budget request included $35.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.0 billion was in 
logistics operations.
    The United States Pacific Command (PACOM) has identified 
specific amounts in readiness accounts that could help offset 
the negative impacts of sequestration and accelerate readiness 
recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase 
will mitigate a critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3 
million in OMAF for logistics operations.
    In the procurement of ammunition budget tables, the 
committee recommends a related funding increase to mitigate a 
critical munitions shortfall program for PACOM.

U.S. Special Operations Command-National Capital Region

    The budget request includes $5.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the U.S. Special 
Operations Command-National Capital Region (SOCOM-NCR) 
initiative. The committee received notification on March 19, 
2014, from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict that SOCOM has 
discontinued efforts to develop and implement its concept for a 
SOCOM-NCR office.
    Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in OMDW for 
the SOCOM-NCR.

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers

    The budget request includes $3.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Regional Special 
Operations Coordination Centers (RSCC). The committee believes 
that the requested funding is excessive for the purposes of 
concept development, study, & planning as outlined in the 
budget justification materials. Elsewhere in the bill, the 
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
establishment of RSCCs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $1.8 million in OMDW 
for RSCC concept development, study, and planning.

U.S. Special Operations Command unfunded readiness requirements

    The budget request included $4.76 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM). The committee notes that the Commander of SOCOM has 
identified $344.2 million in unfunded readiness requirements 
for U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee is concerned 
that current fiscal pressures have forced SOCOM to assume 
unacceptable risk in its training programs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $36.4 
million to support aircrew training hours, the SOCOM 
Commander's top unfunded readiness requirement, and $20.0 
million for high priority unit readiness training, which was 
also identified by the SOCOM Commander as an unfunded readiness 
requirement.

Department of Defense STARBASE program

    The budget request included no funding for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is 
to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten 
through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and 
math (STEM) subjects, to connect them to the military, and to 
motivate them to explore STEM and possible military careers as 
they continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at 
76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, primarily on military installations. To date, 
nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program. 
STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated 
servicemembers and strengthens the relationships between the 
military, communities, and local school districts.
    The committee notes that the budget request eliminated 
funding for this successful program due to a reorganization of 
STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes 
that STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 
million for the DOD STARBASE program.

Procurement technical assistance program

    The budget request included $381.4 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Logistics 
Agency, of which, $23.0 million was for the procurement 
technical assistance program (PTAP).
    The committee notes that the purpose of the PTAP is to 
enhance the industrial base, improve local economies, and 
generate employment by assisting small businesses with help 
from the Department of Defense, federal agencies, and state and 
local governments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.7 
million in OMDW for the PTAP.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

    The budget request includes $544.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency, of which $34.4 million is for the Combating Terrorism 
Fellowship Program (CTFP). While the committee remains 
supportive of this program, the committee is concerned about 
the expanding activities and increased operating costs of the 
CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The committee encourages 
the CTFP to focus its activities on its core counterterrorism 
training and education and a limited number of regions where 
the threat posed by terrorism is the most significant. As such, 
the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $7.0 
million for the CTFP.
    The budget request also includes $12.2 million for the 
Defense Institute Reform Initiative (DIRI) and $2.6 million for 
the Defense Institute for International Legal Studies (DIILS). 
While the committee recommends no funding reduction to the DIRI 
and the DIILS programs, the committee directs the Director of 
the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to adjust, as 
appropriate, the budget documentation in the next fiscal year 
to redirect the funding from DIRI and DIILS to the human rights 
training initiative authorized in this Act.

Funding for impact aid

    The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of 
this committee report.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students.            25.0
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities........             5.0
    Total...............................................            30.0

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request

    The budget request included $186.9 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic 
Adjustment (OEA), of which $80.6 million was for water and 
wastewater infrastructure improvements. The committee remains 
concerned that the funds requested for the OEA are ahead of 
need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $80.6 
million in OMDW for the OEA.

Defense-wide funding decrease for 2015 base realignment and closure 
        support

    The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, of which $4.8 million was support for a 
2015 round of base realignment and closure (BRAC).
    The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $4.8 million in OMDW for the 
2015 BRAC round.

Department of Defense rewards program reduction

    The budget request included $1.8 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, of which $7.9 million was for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
    The committee is concerned that the DOD rewards program has 
been hampered by historical under-execution for several years 
now. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million in OMDW for the DOD rewards program.

Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to 
        United States Africa Command

    The budget request includes $31.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). Within that amount for 
classified programs, the budget justification material 
identifies no specific funding to sustain intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to any of U.S. 
Africa Command's (AFRICOM) ongoing operations.
    The fiscal year 2015 request includes no funding for 
contract ISR, which will mean that, absent congressional 
action, Operation Observant Compass ISR support will depend on 
the Global Force Management Allocation Process (GFMAP). The 
GFMAP has not resulted in adequate ISR support to AFRICOM in 
the past. Therefore, the committee recommends $60.0 million in 
OMDW to sustain ISR support to AFRICOM and further directs the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure the GFMAP is used to provide 
appropriate ISR support to AFRICOM operations.

Defense Clandestine Service

    The budget request included classified amounts in Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Human 
Intelligence Enabling project for the Defense Clandestine 
Service (DCS) initiative in the Defense Intelligence Agency. 
The request represents an increase of $13.3 million for fiscal 
year 2014. The Department of Defense (DOD) has consistently 
maintained that the DCS initiative would be executed within 
existing planned resources, and the committee notes that DOD's 
original plans for DCS have been scaled back. The committee 
does not support growth in this area and recommends a decrease 
of $13.3 million.

Operational support to the Defense Clandestine Service

    The budget request includes classified amounts in Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Operational Human 
Intelligence project in the Military Intelligence Program 
budget of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The budget request 
for this project includes an increase of $5.1 million in 
support for the Defense Clandestine Service. The Department of 
Defense (DOD) has consistently maintained that the DCS 
initiative would be executed within existing planned resources, 
and the committee notes that DOD's original plans for DCS have 
been scaled back. The committee does not support growth in this 
area and recommends a decrease of $5.1 million.

Review of operation of certain ships during Vietnam era

    The budget request included $31.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). In a legislative provision 
located in title X of this committee report, the committee 
recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to review within 1 year of the date of enactment of 
this Act the logs of each Navy ship known to have operated in 
the waters near Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 
1975, to determine whether the ship operated in the territorial 
waters of the Republic of Vietnam during that period, and if 
so, when.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMDW 
of $5.0 million to reflect this provision.

Support for international sporting competitions

    The budget request included $1.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Miscellaneous Appropriations (OMMA), of which 
$10.0 million was for Support for International Sporting 
Competitions (SISC), Defense account.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
expects to allocate approximately $1.0 million to $3.0 million 
in SISC resources in support of the 2015 Special Olympics World 
Summer Games.
    The committee is concerned that as of March 2014, the SISC 
account still has $3.8 million from fiscal year 2013 in 
unallocated carryover, in addition to $4.3 million in allocated 
but unobligated funds for sporting events that have since 
concluded from the 1990s and the early 2000s.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 
million in OMMA to the SISC Defense account.

                       Items of Special Interest


Acoustic mixing

    The committee understands that the Army currently uses low-
frequency, high-intensity sound waves, in a technology called 
``acoustic mixing'' during the manufacturing of some munitions. 
Acoustic mixing makes it possible to efficiently mix a wide 
variety of materials, including highly viscous substances. The 
committee further understands that this process could have the 
potential to improve industrial efficiency and productivity. 
The committee encourages the Army to continue to evaluate 
acoustic mixing capabilities that could increase industrial 
productivity, decrease adverse environmental impacts, and 
enhance safety.

Active and Reserve funding efficiencies for training

    The committee understands that the pace of recent combat 
and contingency operations, the needs of the total force, and 
fiscal constraints have determined the Army's use for brigade-
level combat training at each of its three Combat Training 
Centers (CTC). Active duty brigade combat teams (BCT) conduct 
training at one of the CTC every 2 to 3 years on average, while 
Army National Guard BCT conduct collective CTC training every 7 
years on average.
    The committee believes that there may be cost effective and 
efficient options for active component training using reserve 
component training facilities. For active component units not 
assigned to combat brigades, at echelons above or below 
brigade-level, and for those units not routinely participating 
in a CTC rotation, the committee is interested to learn if 
reserve component regional training institutes and centers may 
provide a cost effective means to provide access to enhanced 
training resources and improve or sustain readiness.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review current unit training funding mechanisms that do 
or could allow for possible integration and use of active 
component units at reserve component training facilities. The 
review should consider existing policies and processes for 
active and reserve component training and resources, and 
recommendations that may improve training effectiveness and 
cost efficiency. The review should also include an outline of 
all existing reserve component training facilities at which 
active component training might improve readiness. The 
Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this review 
to this committee no later than 1 year from the date of 
enactment of this Act.

Additive manufacturing

    The committee notes that Senate Report 113-44 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
required the Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or 
report to the congressional defense committees on the potential 
benefits and constraints of additive manufacturing, how the 
process could or could not contribute to Department of Defense 
(DOD) missions, and what technologies being developed at the 
National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) 
are being transitioned for DOD use.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to: (1) 
Analyze and report to the congressional defense committees on 
the sufficiency of the DOD's report in addressing the 
requirements; (2) Review the extent to which DOD has a process 
in place to ensure that additive manufacturing initiatives are 
coordinated across the DOD; and (3) Examine DOD's methods for 
determining whether these initiatives will improve combat 
capability, achieve performance improvements, and/or cost 
efficiencies over conventional manufacturing techniques. The 
Comptroller General review shall be delivered to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2015.

Afghanistan retrograde costs

    The committee recognizes that the retrograde of equipment 
and personnel from Afghanistan is a significant logistical 
challenge for the Department of Defense (DOD). According to 
Department officials, there are three primary options for the 
retrograde and reduction of equipment in Afghanistan: removing 
the equipment from Afghanistan, transferring the equipment to 
another agency or government, or destroying the equipment in 
theater.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has reported in the past on the need for DOD 
officials to conduct and document analyses that compare the 
costs of and benefits of equipment retrograde, and that cost-
benefit analyses should be a key factor in decision-making. 
Additionally, the committee notes that the GAO has also 
reported that one of the primary costs the Department should 
consider is the cost of equipment transportation, and that it 
is particularly important when considering what to do with 
equipment that exceed a Service's approved acquisition 
objective (AAO). The committee believes that retrograde 
internal controls could be more efficient and cost-effective. 
Consequently, the committee is concerned about the potential 
accrual of unnecessary transportation costs resulting from the 
return of equipment from Afghanistan.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing or a report to the committee no later 
than February 1, 2015, demonstrating what actions the 
Department has taken to ensure that justifications for 
returning equipment from Afghanistan that exceeds their AAO are 
documented and receive management review, and that 
transportation and all other relevant costs are included in 
disposition decision-making for equipment returning from 
Afghanistan.

Air tactical training

    The committee understands that the Active and Reserve Air 
Force and Navy components have successfully used contracted 
fighter aircraft to augment some aspects of air tactical 
training to replicate adversaries with electronic warfare 
capabilities and joint terminal attack controller training. The 
committee notes that outsourced air tactical training brings 
potential benefits of prolonging aircraft service life and 
decreased costs in flying hour programs, especially with 
respect to fifth generation fighters. Given the current climate 
of fiscal constraints coupled with the potential to preserve 
valuable readiness resources, the committee encourages the 
military services to consider expanding the use of contracted 
air tactical training to additional units for appropriate 
missions.

Army and Marine Corps equipment reset

    The committee notes that billions of dollars' worth of 
equipment has and continues to be retrograded from Afghanistan 
and the Army and Marine Corps continue to face a multi-year and 
multi-billion dollar effort to reset this equipment to a 
combat-ready condition. Both the Secretary and Chief of Staff 
of the Army have testified to this committee that during fiscal 
years 2013 and 2014, the Army had reset approximately 87,000 
pieces of equipment at the depot level and about 300,000 pieces 
of equipment at the unit level. But as a result of 
sequestration, the Army had deferred approximately $729.0 
million of equipment reset, postponing the repair of nearly 700 
vehicles, 28 aircraft, and over 2,000 weapons and prepositioned 
stock. The Army leadership further projects that its reset 
requirement of equipment will extend at least 3 years after 
redeployment and will cost approximately $9.6 billion.
    Conversely, the Marine Corps leadership has testified to 
this committee that while its equipment reset liability cost 
was approximately $3.2 billion last year, it had made 
significant progress to date and now estimates that its 
remaining reset liability will cost about $1.1 billion. The 
Marine Corps leadership has also testified to this committee 
that its reset requirements will continue at least 2 to 3 years 
after its equipment has redeployed.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has reported in the past on the need for more 
accurate cost estimates and reporting of the Army and Marine 
Corps projected equipment reset liability requirements. 
Additionally, the GAO has reported on the need for a standard 
Department of Defense-wide definition of reset for use in the 
overseas contingency operations budgeting process. 
Consequently, the committee is interested in verifiable 
financial reset requirements reported by the Army and Marine 
Corps.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to provide the committee with an 
assessment of the Army and Marine Corps extended equipment 
reset liability costs and requirements. This assessment shall 
include, but not be limited to: the extent to which the Army 
and Marine Corps are using a consistent definition of reset in 
estimating their reset liability costs, the types of costs 
included in the Army and Marine Corps reset liability 
estimates, an analysis of any assumptions used in developing 
the Army and Marine Corps estimates, to include the planned 
funding resources, and any other issue the Comptroller General 
determines appropriate with respect to the Army and Marine 
Corps reset cost estimates.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 
briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than 
March 15, 2015.

Army Emergency Management Program

    The 2009 Army Emergency Management Program sought to 
integrate planning, execution, and response management to all-
hazard incidents affecting Army installations and activities.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief 
the congressional defense committees on the status of and plans 
for Army emergency management training no later than August 1, 
2015.

Availability of funds for readiness

    Over the course of the last year, senior Department of 
Defense (DOD) leaders, both military and civilian, have urged 
the committee to help DOD restore military readiness. The bill 
recommended by the committee seeks to achieve this objective by 
preserving the full amount of funding for operation and 
maintenance (O&M;) requested by DOD, while shifting funds within 
O&M; accounts to meet high priority readiness needs. The 
committee urges DOD, in executing the fiscal year 2015 defense 
program, to avoid any funding transfers that would reduce O&M; 
funding. To the extent additional funds become available for 
reprogramming during the course of the fiscal year, for 
example, as unobligated funds become available from fact-of-
life delays and under execution, then, the committee urges DOD 
to consider transfers that would help address high priority 
readiness needs.

Budget execution for Kwajalein Atoll

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit 
with the fiscal year 2016 President's budget submission a 
report for the Kwajalein Garrison on the type and level of 
funding over the future years defense program. The report 
should identify the performing Army agency for each category of 
funding and should also include a 10-year profile of planned 
facilities recapitalization.

Category I ammunition items

    The committee notes that Category I ammunition items, 
including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are highly 
explosive, extremely lethal, and a potential threat if they 
were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help 
protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it 
is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD), among other 
security measures, have sound inventory controls and 
accountability. The committee notes that recent Government 
Accountability Office reports on inventory management have 
found that DOD information systems used to facilitate inventory 
management have some limitations that prevent DODs ability to 
have Department-wide visibility of its inventory, including 
Category I ammunition items.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the 
military Services, in accordance with policies and procedures, 
have: (1) Established and maintained serial number registration 
and reporting of these assets; (2) Conducted physical 
inventories as a check against the accountability record, 
including recording adjustments to inventory and the rationale 
for such adjustments; and (3) Established procedures for 
maintaining proper accountability for shipped assets (i.e. when 
custody for the asset is transferred to another entity).
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide 
such a report to this committee no later than March 15, 2015.

Coal-to-liquid report

    The Senate Report 113-44 accompanying S. 1197, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, required the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, to submit a report to the committee on the feasibility 
of potential technologies that could enable coal-to-liquid 
(CTL) fuels to meet the requirements of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) consistent with section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) by 
February 1, 2014.
    The committee remains concerned that DOD has yet to provide 
that required report to the committee. The committee did 
receive an interim response delaying the report because DOD is 
working in consultation with the Department of Energy to ensure 
the most thorough examination occurs.
    Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense 
to deliver the required CTL report no later than July 31, 2014, 
in accordance with the commitment made in the interim response.

Combatant Command Support Agent accounting

    The committee reported in Senate Report 113-44 accompanying 
Senate bill S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on page 85 
that: The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget 
justification material within the Air Force's Combatant 
Commander Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commanders Core 
Operations (Lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of 
multiple combatant commands under the purview of the Air Force 
as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee is 
concerned that due to this consolidation, the justification 
material lacks the level of detail necessary for this committee 
to make informed budget decisions. Accordingly, the committee 
directs the services to annually deliver independent, detailed 
budget justification for each combatant command they are 
assigned Combatant Command Support Agent responsibility.
    The consolidated manner in which combatant command material 
is presented provides an incomplete depiction of combatant 
command budgets, fails to provide the necessary detail required 
to justify the budget request, and introduces confusion into 
congressional processes. This lack of detail related to 
specific budget items was directly attributable to past 
misperceptions about unjustified increases. These perceived 
increases led to reductions to combatant command accounts in 
the fiscal year 2013 NDAA which necessitated reprogramming 
actions at considerable expense in time and effort.
    Language was explicitly inserted into the fiscal year 2014 
NDAA to correct these shortfalls, but examination of the fiscal 
year 2015 congressional justification material incorporated in 
the fiscal year 2015 Budget Estimates, Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force, Volume 1, clearly demonstrates the Air 
Force failed to make the corrective action as directed.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
brief the congressional defense committees on actions they will 
take to ensure that the level of detail is provided in the 
budget exhibits to ensure the needs of the combatant commanders 
are met. This briefing is to occur no later than October 1, 
2014.

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Department of 
        the Army actions to determine the appropriate structure of the 
        Army

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on a comprehensive review of the Department of the 
Army's data, analysis, decisionmaking processes, and plans for 
structuring, readying, and managing the forces of the Army, 
including the regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the 
Army Reserve. The required report will include a description 
and assessment of the manner in which the Department of the 
Army determines the size and force mixtures of the components 
of the Army in order to fulfill the national security missions 
of the Army, including any data on cost, readiness, 
effectiveness, and other factors available and used by the 
Department in making that determination. The Comptroller 
General shall provide an interim briefing not later than March 
1, 2015, and a final report on March 1, 2016.

Comptroller General review of readiness

    The committee recognizes that for many years the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has used C-ratings to measure unit readiness 
of its forces. The Global Status of Resources and Training 
System (GSORTS) was created to measure unit readiness in terms 
of resources with respect to authorized and assigned or on-hand 
personnel and equipment, the operating status of equipment, and 
the level of training achieved. GSORTS was then able to capture 
``ready with what.'' Later, Defense Readiness Reporting System 
was intended to take readiness reporting a step further to 
capture and incorporate, ``ready for what.'' More recently, in 
support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 
units have repeatedly been deployed and task organized to 
execute missions that have differed from their core functions 
or the types of military operations for which the unit is 
designed. Accordingly, the DOD added assigned mission and 
capability ratings to its traditional C-ratings. The Services 
and combatant commands also began reporting readiness 
assessment levels (RA-levels) to capture their strategic 
readiness.
    The committee is concerned that these metrics do not fully 
capture or articulate the time component of readiness. For 
example, the C-ratings and assigned mission ratings tend to 
emphasize readiness at a particular point in time, or the day 
the rating is achieved. Meanwhile, capability and RA-ratings 
have an implied time component as they measure readiness 
against timelines required to support operation and contingency 
plans. However, the committee is concerned that none of these 
metrics clearly answer the question of when forces, if not 
fully manned, trained, equipped, and ready, will be ready for 
sourcing decisions or risk assessment. Throughout the last 
decade of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, too often 
the appropriate level of readiness for deploying active and 
reserve component units was achieved ``just in time'' prior to 
deployment. In some cases, training shortfalls or changes in 
mission required additional training in theater prior to 
operational employment of a unit.
    In an era of fiscal uncertainty and significant risk to 
resources, the committee believes ``just in time'' does not 
adequately inform strategic and operational risk assessments 
nor distinguish which units can provide ready forces to meet 
combatant commander requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to report to the congressional defense committees not later 
than March 1, 2015, analyzing the extent to which time is or 
has been incorporated as a quantitative or qualitative 
component of current and past readiness metrics. The analysis 
shall describe any efforts the Services, combatant commands, 
Joint Staff, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense have 
made to modify their readiness metrics or add any additional 
metrics to better address the question of when units or 
commands will be ready.

Continued Defense-wide and interagency collaboration in the military 
        working dog program

    The committee recognizes the value of military working dogs 
(MWD) in support of the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. MWDs 
have been important to the Department of Defense (DOD) in 
support of military training and combat operations. The MWD 
program covers a broad range of military missions, including 
security and patrol, explosives detection, search and rescue, 
and guard duties. Furthermore, MWDs are expected to operate in 
the harshest of climates and support our troops in combat. The 
joint nature of the MWD program also requires a high level of 
interoperability. The 341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air 
Force Base consolidates training for MWDs across DOD and other 
federal agencies. This consolidation helps to ensure uniformity 
of training, promotes the valuable exchange of experience and 
ideas, and enhances interoperability.
    The committee believes that the MWD program should continue 
its current collaboration efforts in the field of training and 
research. The committee also believes that through a 
coordinated effort between DOD, federal agencies, the 
veterinary community, universities, and other research centers, 
the MWD program will continue to provide useful mission 
support.
    Finally, the committee encourages DOD to continue to 
develop its training and research to include expanding its 
interaction with outside entities in order to better serve our 
Nation's security and combat capabilities.

Depot capital investment program

    The committee remains concerned that the Army and the Navy 
continually fail to appropriately invest in the capital budgets 
of the covered depots required by law. Section 2476, title 10 
of United States Code, requires that at least 6 percent of the 
average total combined maintenance, repair, and overhaul 
workload funded at all the depots of a military department be 
reinvested into depot infrastructure and capital assets.
    The committee commends the Air Force for investing 7.6 
percent in fiscal year 2013, planning 8.9 percent in fiscal 
year 2014, and 9.5 percent in fiscal year 2015, despite the 
negative effects of sequestration. Conversely, the committee 
notes that the Navy plans to only invest 3.4 percent and the 
Army only 3.6 percent in fiscal year 2015.
    The committee strongly urges the Army and the Navy to 
adhere to their statutory requirements with respect to the 
minimum capital investment program. Furthermore, with the 
drawdown of combat operations and likely prospect of declining 
depot workload, the Department of Defense should engage with 
the committee if the previous 3-year average workload 
calculation is no longer an appropriate benchmark for capital 
depot investment.
    Lastly, the committee notes that in the operation and 
maintenance budget tables, the committee recommends funding 
increases which will meet the minimum capital investment 
threshold of 6 percent across all the military services, as 
required by law.

Enhanced visibility for credentialing and installation access programs 
        and systems

    The committee is concerned that there is a lack of 
coordination among the efforts of the military services and 
defense agencies to support credentialing at defense 
installations, which is a key component of addressing the 
insider threat problem. No single office in the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is responsible for this effort or even tracks all 
of the programs and systems used for credentialing throughout 
DOD. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 
concurrent with the budget submission for fiscal year 2016 that 
identifies all DOD credentialing and physical access control 
programs and systems, including commercially contracted 
services and other commercially provided services.
    The report should cover all programs and systems intended 
to provide credentials and/or manage installation access of 
uniformed members, civilian employees, military dependents, 
military retirees, vendors, contractors, suppliers, service 
providers, and visitors. The report should also include all 
programs and systems the services and DOD have operationally 
deployed in research and development and in pilot or prototype 
demonstration.
    The report shall also include an estimate of the total cost 
to DOD for such credentialing, including both direct and 
indirect costs. This report shall be submitted in an 
unclassified form.

Humanitarian Demining Training Center

    The committee recognizes and expresses its support of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) 
program and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's 
Humanitarian Demining Training Center (HDTC) and its mission to 
train and prepare U.S. military forces and U.S. Government HMA 
stakeholders, who in turn train U.S. foreign partners to 
conduct HMA missions in the detection and clearance of 
landmines and other explosive remnants of war, as well as the 
disposal, demilitarization, physical security, and stockpile 
management of potentially dangerous stockpiles of explosive 
ordnance. This training delivers direct benefits to host 
nations while giving U.S. teams valuable field experience, 
given that U.S. forces might not otherwise deploy to these 
nations. HDTC works with many U.S. Government agencies, the 
United Nations, and non-governmental mine action organizations, 
as appropriate, serving as a clearinghouse and collector of 
mine action information for the U.S. Government. The HDTC also 
helps develop new demining methods and technology appropriate 
for lesser developed countries.
    The committee, therefore, encourages the HDTC and DOD HMA 
program to continue engaging with international partners and 
allies, when practical, including allies from the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, to ensure a coordinated and 
holistic approach to achieve geographic combatant commander 
security needs.

Improving energy efficiency and performance of military platforms

    The committee notes the critical role that fundamental 
understanding of aerodynamics, physics, and fluid dynamics play 
in support of Department of Defense (DOD) goals to enhance the 
energy efficiency of military platforms. For example, the 
design and development of systems that reduce the drag caused 
by turbulent air flow can often enhance the performance of 
military platforms and munitions, including reducing fuel 
consumption and enhancing flight performance.
    The committee notes that there exists only limited domestic 
laboratory experimentation and computer simulation capability 
to study these technical issues. The committee recommends that 
the Secretary of Defense coordinate, and to the extent 
appropriate, collaborate with government laboratories, 
universities, and other research facilities and organizations 
pursuing military-relevant aerodynamics, physics, fluid 
dynamics, and other related research to ensure that DOD derives 
maximum value and combat capability from ongoing advances in 
these important disciplines.

Incentivizing alternative fuel and fuel cell vehicle refueling stations

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the 
committee on options to support the development and deployment 
of alternative fuel vehicle refueling stations, to include 
electric, fuel cell, and compressed natural gas vehicles on 
Department of Defense (DOD) property.
    The committee is interested in an analysis of possible 
financing tools including, but not necessarily limited to, 
competitive federal research awards, contracts, credit 
assistance, public-private partnerships, coordinated government 
purchase strategies, and membership-based cooperatives.
    The committee notes that DOD actions should be consistent 
with national security priorities and market conditions.
    The Secretary shall deliver the report to the committee no 
later than March 1, 2015.

Jungle training

    The committee understands that after more than a decade of 
combat operations in the Middle East, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) is rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region. As a result, 
the committee is concerned with the potential challenges that 
the Armed Forces may face if operating in tropical environments 
which exist in the Asia-Pacific region. Among other challenges, 
triple canopy covers, dense vegetation, intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance difficulties, and limited 
sources of potable water could make for difficult conditions 
where training and education will be vital for success in 
combat operations.
    The committee understands that the U.S. Army Jungle 
Operations Training Center (JOTC) at Fort Sherman, Panama, was 
closed in 1999. The committee notes that DOD does not currently 
have an organic ability to train soldiers for jungle 
operations, and has been sending military servicemembers in 
small numbers to various countries for jungle training.
    The committee also recognizes that the 25th Infantry 
Division (ID) at Schofield Barracks has recently begun training 
for jungle operations. The committee recognizes that there is a 
valid need for this type of training and appreciates the 
efforts of the 25th ID to prepare soldiers for jungle 
operations. The committee understands that the Army has not 
programmed resources specifically for jungle training and is 
conducting the training out of existing budgetary resources. It 
appears that sufficient resources may not be aligned and 
executed in a coordinated effort to provide this important 
training.
    Accordingly, the committee encourages DOD to allocate the 
appropriate amount of coordinated resources, if DOD determines 
that there is a valid need to continue to provide jungle 
training to military personnel.

Management of conventional ammunition inventory

    The committee recognizes the efforts of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to modernize, transform, and integrate the 
Services' ammunition logistics database. The committee has 
reviewed current inefficiencies that resulted in diminished 
accountability per a recent report by the Government 
Accountability Office. Accordingly, no later than 180 days 
after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
provide a report to this committee identifying an authoritative 
DOD-wide repository of data on conventional ammunition, 
together with the total cost and timeframe for implementation, 
that: (1) Uses a standard data exchange format consistent with 
the Defense Logistics Management Standards Office; (2) Provides 
a single source of conventional ammunition data as inputs into 
DOD decision support systems, such as those used for readiness 
reporting and operational planning; (3) Collects comprehensive, 
accurate data, consistent with federal internal control 
standards, from other service ammunition systems in order to 
provide real-time or near-real-time total ammunition asset 
visibility; (4) Enables quarterly stratified reporting through 
the Office of the Executive Director for Conventional 
Ammunition or another authority; and (5) Meets the conventional 
ammunition data functionality needs of all DOD components that 
require visibility of these data.
    Additionally, the committee directs that all stratified 
reporting will include complete and detailed accounting for all 
ammunition that in a previous year was unclaimed by another 
service and categorize for disposal.

Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway

    The committee recognizes that the Marine Corps 
Prepositioning Program--Norway (MCPP-N) was established as part 
of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Cold War posture and 
relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The 
committee notes that equipment use from MCPP-N has 
predominantly been for training and joint exercises in Europe 
rather than to supplement equipment shortfalls for combat 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee is concerned 
that over the past 35 years, only 11 percent of the total use 
of MCPP-N has gone to support major combat operations.
    In the past, the DOD has stated that the need for 
prepositioning materiel and equipment should be based on 
requirements for an approved operation plan, but the Marine 
Corps has stated that there is no direct operation plan impacts 
currently associated with MCPP-N. The committee recognizes the 
current situation in Ukraine could have an effect on future 
plans for MCPP-N.
    The committee also notes that over the next several years, 
the Marine Corps plans to transition MCPP-N's equipment profile 
from primarily engineering and transportation equipment to 
support a capabilities-based Marine Aviation Group Task Force 
(MAGTF) as soon as the end of fiscal year 2015. The Marine 
Corps has indicated that the MCPP-N will include additional 
equipment to support specialized capability sets, security 
cooperation packages, and retain the ability to augment up to a 
Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized force.
    The committee is concerned that MCPP-N recently only had 48 
percent of its major equipment items on hand. Additionally, the 
committee is concerned that it is unclear what the full cost of 
the planned transition and operation to support MAGTF 
capabilities will be in the years to come. Lastly, the 
committee notes that the most recent Government Accountability 
Office review of MCPP-N was in 1989.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to prepare a briefing or report to the committee no later than 
March 1, 2015 on: (1) How MCPP-N supports the overall DOD and 
Marine Corps prepositioning program; (2) The Marine Corps' 
prepositioning plans for MCPP-N, how they were developed, and 
the military requirements they address; (3) The unique 
capabilities, if any, that MCPP-N provides to meet the 
prepositioning requirements of EUCOM and AFRICOM; and (4) the 
funding plan to transition MCPP-N to support MAGTF capabilities 
and the future projected costs to the United States and Norway.

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

    The committee believes that the use of cloud computing to 
support Department of Defense (DOD) computing missions can lead 
to significantly higher performance and reduced costs, while 
leveraging the innovative capacity of the commercial 
information technology (IT) sector, and maintaining required 
security and reliability to meet DOD needs. The committee notes 
that the President's fiscal year 2015 budget materials 
indicated that ``as a result of the Administration's Cloud 
First policy, Federal agencies adopting cloud-based IT systems 
are increasing operational efficiencies, resource utilization, 
and innovation across the Government.'' The committee is 
concerned that DOD is not moving expeditiously in evaluating 
and adopting market-tested commercial approaches to cloud 
computing to meet mission needs.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the DOD Chief 
Information Officer to sponsor an independent study to develop 
metrics to assess DOD's progress in evaluating and adopting 
commercial cloud capabilities. The committee recommends that 
metrics could include: cost savings or avoidance to DOD 
programs through use of commercial cloud services; the 
technical merit, relevance, and value of additional DOD 
security requirements on commercial cloud providers relative to 
the requirements mandated by the government-wide and industry-
supported Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program; 
the trends in new applications or services being hosted on 
military-unique clouds or computing centers versus commercial 
clouds; the time required to review, analyze, and accredit 
commercial cloud capabilities by DOD; and the application of 
DOD security and other controls to applications, systems, and 
services being hosted on military-unique clouds or computing 
centers relative to those being applied to potential commercial 
cloud systems.
    The study also should assess and compare the features, 
performance, costs, and functionality of the ``milcloud'' 
(military cloud) developed by the Defense Information Systems 
Agency using government contractors to the leading commercial 
cloud technology.
    The study should be delivered to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act.

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

    The committee notes that in a report delivered in January 
2008, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of 
Defense (DOD) Energy Strategy concluded that, ``Military 
installations are almost completely dependent on a fragile and 
vulnerable commercial power grid, placing critical military and 
Homeland defense missions at an unacceptable risk of extended 
outage.'' The report cited potential cyber-attack as a key 
source of risk to utility grids supplying power to mission-
critical military facilities, noting that, ``U.S. grid control 
systems are continuously probed electronically, and there have 
been numerous attempted attacks on the Supervisory Control and 
Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that operate the grid.'' 
Additionally, the task force underscored the overwhelming 
consequences of electricity grid failures, finding that, ``in 
addition to degrading national military and Homeland defense 
capabilities, failure of the grid for any extended period could 
significantly affect national economic and social stability. 
Pumps that move natural gas and oil through pipelines rely on 
electricity, as do refineries, communications systems, water 
and sewage systems, hospitals, traffic systems, first response 
systems, border crossing detection systems and major 
transportation hubs such as airports.''
    The committee remains concerned about DOD's continued 
dependence on ``a fragile and vulnerable commercial power 
grid,'' particularly in light of proven cyber-attack 
capabilities and demonstrated intent of adversaries to use 
cyber means to target U.S. and foreign electricity 
infrastructure. While the committee recognizes that military 
installations that rely on commercial electricity utilities 
have made some important strides in bolstering cyber defenses, 
there is no question that electricity grids supplying power to 
mission-critical DOD facilities remain highly vulnerable to 
cyber-attacks by nation-states and other sophisticated actors.
    The committee notes that in February 2014, pursuant to 
Executive Order 13636, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) issued the initial iteration of a voluntary 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 
designed to leverage existing standards, guidelines, and best 
practices to reduce cyber risk to critical infrastructure. The 
framework articulates a ``framework core,'' which ``presents a 
set of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes, and 
applicable references--including existing industry and 
governmental standards, guidelines, and best practices--that 
are common across critical infrastructure sectors.''
    The committee notes that the Department has begun to take 
some action to address electric power resilience for military 
installations, in response to section 2822 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).
    The committee further notes that in February 2014, the 
Department of Energy issued the Electricity Subsector 
Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (ES-C2M2), which was 
designed to be ``an easily scalable tool for the subsector's 
implementation of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) Cyber Security Framework.''
    The committee believes that the issuance of the NIST 
Framework and the ES-C2M2, as well as the positive embrace of 
these tools by many entities within the electricity subsector, 
are welcome signs that commercial electricity utilities are 
taking active measures to improve cyber defenses. However, the 
committee is concerned that the DOD may not have adequately 
assessed the extent to which these measures have, specifically, 
helped to address vulnerabilities in power grids serving 
mission-critical military installations.
    In order to assess continued vulnerability of mission-
critical military installations to power grid cyber-attacks, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake an 
inventory of mission-critical electricity infrastructure. This 
inventory shall include: (1) Identification of each mission-
critical military facility located within the United States; 
(2) Identification of the electricity infrastructure, including 
the utilities or entities operating such infrastructure, upon 
which each identified mission-critical military facility is 
directly dependent for electricity (for the purposes of this 
inventory, such infrastructure should be limited to 
infrastructure which, if destroyed or degraded, would directly 
cause a power outage to a mission-critical military facility); 
and (3) A survey of whether each identified electricity 
infrastructure states that it has adopted or is adopting the 
framework core of the NIST Framework for Improving Critical 
Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
    The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a 
report to Congress, within 360 days of the date of enactment of 
this Act, summarizing the results of the inventory. The report 
shall be unclassified, with a classified annex, as appropriate.

Multi-modal retrograde contracts 

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Inspector General (IG) found that the DOD did not have 
effective controls over the storing and handling of retrograde 
equipment at aerial ports of debarkation (APOD) in Afghanistan. 
The DOD IG also found that U.S. Transportation Command 
(TRANSCOM) contracting officials did not establish effective 
security and oversight requirements to safeguard cargo staged 
for shipment at APOD in Afghanistan. The DOD IG stated that 
this occurred because contracting officials omitted specific 
security requirements, did not include effective monitoring and 
surveillance requirements, and did not appoint any oversight 
officials in Afghanistan. As a result, DOD has no assurance 
that contractors are properly securing cargo at Bagram and 
Kandahar APOD. Although existing contract language requires 
contractors to use commercial best practices for security of 
cargo, the DOD IG found that TRANSCOM was unaware of the 
existence and adequacy of each multi-modal contractor's cargo 
safeguarding procedures. For example, the DOD IG report 
documented examples of military vehicles determined to be 
ammunition-free arriving in Dubai and Baku with live ammunition 
and trash inside.
    The committee notes that without stronger contract 
oversight, there is increased risk that equipment could be 
lost, damaged, or vandalized in transit.
    Accordingly, the committee directs TRANSCOM to prepare a 
briefing or a report to the committee no later than January 1, 
2015, on the contract modifications made to multi-modal 
contracts to better define security and handling requirements 
and a determination of the number and location of contractor 
officer representatives necessary to provide adequate contract 
oversight in Afghanistan. The briefing or report shall also 
include the steps taken to create and implement standard 
operating procedures and updates to the appropriate quality 
assurance surveillance plans to ensure proper securing and 
handling of equipment by military personnel, contractors, and 
their subcontractors.

Navy fire control radar and replacement

    The committee encourages initiatives that increase 
operational availability rates and reduce the maintenance cost 
of warfighting equipment, especially in the face of tightening 
resources from implementation of the Budget Control Act (Public 
Law 112-25). The committee understands that public-private 
partnerships can allow government entities and private industry 
to collaborate and develop unique efficiencies that may reduce 
costs to the taxpayers when appropriately implemented.
    No later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
a review and submit a report to this committee examining the 
Air Force public-partnership program for the repair of the dual 
mode transmitter in the F-16 fire control radar. The review 
shall determine the cost savings to date and the future 
estimated annual cost savings that this program may have 
achieved and to determine the feasibility and advisability of 
other services adopting similar programs.
    The committee notes that the Navy may benefit from pursuing 
a similar public-private initiative for Navy aircraft, 
including the F/A-18. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to examine the feasibility and 
advisability of establishing a public-private partnership for 
F/A-18 fire control radar module repair and refurbishment and 
submit a report summarizing the findings to this committee no 
later than September 30, 2014.

Network upgrades to the Kwajalein Garrison

    The Kwajalein Garrison is the Nation's primary long-range 
missile test support facility. It also hosts a number of 
critical sensors supporting space situational awareness. It has 
supported both of these missions for over 60 years and will 
continue to do so for the foreseeable future given its unique 
location. This committee has long-recognized the strategic 
importance of this garrison and the surrounding atoll.
    A critical element of the garrison is the permanent 
workforce that maintains the unique sensor systems throughout 
the atoll. It has come to the attention of the committee that 
as late as January 2014, despite the recent availability of 
broadband internet connectivity to the garrison, the workforce 
and their families are required to use dial-up modems to 
communicate with the mainland. This is a morale issue, given 
many of the families who live on this atoll must arrange for 
their children to apply online for college, some 5,000 miles 
away, using a dial-up modem. At the request of the committee, 
the U.S. Army's Network Command has undertaken an assessment of 
the actions needed to upgrade the garrison's network and has 
begun an implementation of these upgrades.
    The committee believes that the most pressing item is to 
ensure that the families who support this unique national 
security resource have the ability to communicate over the 
Internet comparable to that of their counterparts on the 
mainland. On March 6, 2014, the Army reported to the committee 
that initial efforts are now underway to permit the families on 
the atoll to use high-speed capabilities resident with other 
facilities of the garrison.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report 
no later than September 30, 2014, on whether the families on 
the garrison have high speed Internet support and, if not, the 
reason why and what actions will be taken to remedy the 
situation.
    The committee further directs the Secretary of the Army, 
based on the briefing given on March 6, 2014, to update the 
committee in the form of a briefing no later than March 31, 
2015, on what actions have been taken and are to be taken over 
the future years defense program to upgrade the communications 
infrastructure of the garrison.

Operational assessment of the Defense Readiness Reporting System

    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2013 annual report 
conducted by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 
(DOT&E;) found that the Defense Readiness Reporting System--
Strategic (DRRS-S) is not ready to proceed to initial 
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E;) based upon the system 
deficiencies and lack of functionality demonstrated during an 
operational assessment.
    The committee remains concerned that despite congressional 
direction for the Department of Defense (DOD) to first 
establish DRRS-S to eventually replace the Global Status of 
Resources and Training System (GSORTS) in the Strom Thurmond 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261), the DOD has failed to progress to IOT&E.;
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the 
timeline and funding plan to provide DRRS-S with all the 
capabilities required for GSORTS retirement. Additionally, the 
briefing or report shall include a plan to have a certified red 
team to conduct penetration and exploitation testing to verify 
correction of the DOT&E;'s information assurance findings and 
evaluate the ability of the DRRS-S to protect, detect, react, 
and restore against an operationally relevant cyber-security 
threat.

Operational energy benefits

    The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's 
fiscal year 2015 commitment to improving military capability, 
reduce costs, and decrease tactical risk through efforts to 
improve energy security and to better manage both operational 
and installation energy.
    For example, the committee understands that the Army's 
planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent 
less fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers. 
Similarly, the improved turbine engine program for Blackhawk 
and Apache helicopters is expected to reduce fuel use by 22 
percent, reduce maintenance costs by 35 percent, and increase 
engine life by 20 percent compared to current engines, saving 
almost 14.0 million gallons of fuel per year. The committee 
also notes the fleet-wide average fuel savings is 21 percent 
with the fielding of advanced medium mobile power sources 
generators.
    The committee also recognizes the role operational energy 
(OE) advisors have played on forward operating bases (FOBs). 
For example, one OE helped the Department save 2.5 million 
gallons in annual fuel avoidance, which equates to 1,000 fuel 
trucks not having to traverse dangerous roads and limits 
exposure to enemy attacks. Similarly, many FOBs require aerial 
resupply every 3 days with fuel and water making up 70 percent 
of the cargo. The investments made to date in new and emerging 
OE technologies decrease resupply convoys to every 10 days, 
again reducing risk and vulnerability of attacks to troops. 
Additionally, the return on investment captured by energy 
savings with more efficient shelter and tent liners can pay for 
the upfront cost in less than 1 year.
    The committee is encouraged by the Navy's focus on 
enhancing combat capability, increasing endurance and range, 
and using energy investments to increase readiness. Planned 
technologies such as improved ship hull coatings, more 
efficient stern flaps, and bow bulbs will create almost 1 week 
of additional steaming days on the same amount of fuel. Hybrid 
electric drives, currently installed in amphibious assault 
ships, can add 10 steaming days which would allow the Navy and 
Marine Corps more presence on station and to spend less time 
refueling and replenishing at sea. Additionally, the committee 
is encouraged by the Navy's efforts to program for energy 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects which 
factor in an energy return on investment and a yearly cost 
avoidance of $15.1 million.
    Consequently, the committee strongly encourages the 
Department to continue the progress made towards improving the 
military services' capabilities through appropriate investments 
in operational and installation energy.

Soldier equipment modernization program

    The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request the Army increased its soldier equipment modernization 
program by $33.3 million, in addition to a baseline funding 
request of $94.9 million. The committee understands that fiscal 
year 2015 is the first year of a planned multi-year program to 
provide next-generation organizational clothing and individual 
equipment and personal protective equipment to soldiers. The 
goal of the program is to provide life-saving and mission-
enhancing gear to soldiers with a lighter, scalable, and 
adaptable protective capability that allows a greater range of 
motion and more effective performance.
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request will fund the next increment of brigade combat teams 
with updated deployment equipment bundles containing enhanced 
combat helmets, load-bearing equipment, cold weather clothing, 
and flame resistant clothing.
    The committee recognizes that for several years the Army's 
rapid fielding initiative program, using overseas contingency 
operations funding, has provided flame resistant clothing to 
all deploying soldiers to minimize the risk of burn injuries 
from improvised explosive devices. The committee notes that the 
Army's flame resistant uniforms are approximately double the 
cost of non-flame resistant uniforms. However, the committee is 
encouraged that non-deployed soldiers who are the most at risk 
to fire hazards, such as aviators, armor vehicle crewmen, and 
fuel handlers, currently receive and will continue to receive 
flame resistant uniforms specifically designed for their 
military occupational specialty.
    The committee is also encouraged by the Navy's recent 
decision to field flame resistant coveralls to sailors aboard 
ships that face an increased risk to fires in tight quarters.

Strategic military infrastructure to support operation plans 

    The committee remains concerned about the structural 
condition and readiness status of the Military Ocean Terminal, 
Concord (MOTCO) and the Lualualei (LLL) annex Oahu to support 
the operational requirements of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM).
    A recent report by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) found that while the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
considered alternatives for mitigating a capability gap at 
MOTCO, alternatives have not been coordinated among the 
appropriate stakeholders, and DOD has not developed a 
coordinated and detailed plan laying out alternatives. The GAO 
also found that DOD has not agreed upon which set of 
alternatives should be pursued.
    The committee notes that given the potential for delays to 
infrastructure repair work, the DOD could be accepting 
additional risk to executing its war plans by waiting to 
develop a plan to mitigate any potential capability gaps at 
MOTCO and other strategic military infrastructure within PACOM. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a briefing or report to the committee no later than 
February 1, 2015, on MOTCO and the LLL annex, including: (1) 
The funding strategy and mitigation plan to address any 
structural and readiness concerns; (2) Any impacts to operation 
plans; (3) Alternatives to mitigate any shortfalls that may 
occur during a potential capability gap; (4) The status of 
intra-service collaboration; and (5) The status of any relevant 
environmental impacts statements. If appropriate, the briefing 
or report may be submitted in a classified format.

Stryker sustainment

    The committee notes that the Department of the Army 
currently sustains the Stryker family of vehicles under a sole 
source requirement and task order contract for ``manufacturing, 
fielding, sustaining, improving, reset, retrofit, 
recapitalization (recap) and overhaul of the Stryker Family of 
Vehicles.'' The total estimated value of this contract is $5.1 
billion. On January 30, 2012, the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology determined that 
only one source was qualified and capable of performing the 
work at a reasonable price to the government.
    In the justification for other than full and open 
competition, the Army delineated the $5.1 billion, 3-year 
contract into three broad categories: vehicles ($2.0 billion), 
engineering support ($0.6 billion), and logistical support 
($2.5 billion). This contract is up for renewal in October 
2015. The committee understands that the Army currently intends 
to award another contract for other than full and open 
competition. Of the three broad categories cited in the Army's 
justification document, it appears that logistical support 
offers the Army an opportunity to compete this contract, 
especially given the fact that eventually Stryker sustainment 
is planned to be transitioned to an organic industrial base 
capability.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Army to 
compete the logistical support aspect of the next Stryker 
requirement and task order contract in order to maximize 
efficiencies and cost savings.

Training for the Air Force weather program 

    The Air Force Weather Agency makes a significant 
contribution to improving combat effectiveness of our 
warfighters. The Air Force needs to modernize its weather 
training programs to be able to continue that contribution. The 
Air Force may be able to take advantage of different training 
regimes as it modernizes its training programs, including 
reliance on organic training, entering into or expanding 
cooperative programs with other government agencies, such as 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 
entering into or expanding cooperative programs with colleges 
and universities that have meteorological training programs. 
The committee believes that the Air Force needs to investigate 
whether the service could improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of its weather training programs by placing greater 
reliance on cooperative training programs. If this 
investigation shows promise for such programs, the committee 
encourages the Air Force to explore the options further.

Use of power purchase agreements to meet requirements for Military 
        installations 

    The committee notes that on April 16, 2014, the Acting 
Deputy Secretary of Defense signed out Department of Defense 
(DOD) Directive 4180.01, ``DOD Energy Policy,'' to provide a 
common energy framework to guide the full range of defense 
energy activities, including operational energy, facilities 
energy, and energy-related elements of mission assurance. The 
Directive established the DOD policy to enhance military 
capability, improve energy security, and mitigate costs in its 
use and management of energy.
    The committee notes that in support of this policy, the DOD 
has increased the use of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA), in 
conjunction with the authority provided by section 2922a of 
Title 10, United States Code, to enter into long-term contracts 
of up to 30 years in order to generate or provide power for a 
military installation. These contracts have the potential to 
achieve cost savings while improving energy security by 
ensuring a reliable power supply to a military facility or 
installation.
    The committee believes that PPAs, like authorities provided 
for military housing and other utilities, offer a substantial 
benefit to DOD by addressing the need for a reliable energy 
source with no upfront capital costs. The private sector 
finances and installs an energy generating system on land owned 
by DOD or on private land. A private entity owns, operates, and 
maintains the system and DOD agrees to purchase the power 
generated by the system over the life of the contract. A PPA 
generally shifts performance risk of the project from the 
government to the contractor. DOD is able to establish a known 
long-term electricity price for a portion of site load. A PPA 
provides a reliable power supply at a predictable cost for 
budget stability.
    The committee notes that DOD guidance on the use of section 
2922a recognizes the authority to enter into a contract for 
energy generating projects without the capital costs of 
construction either on a military installation or on private 
property. The committee also notes that, like housing 
privatization, regional or portfolio approaches in a contract 
that will provide energy to more than one military installation 
may offer the potential for greater savings and best value. DOD 
also has the flexibility to enter into contracts that consider 
the availability of regional resources and use more than one 
energy source to achieve greater efficiencies and lower costs. 
In addition, section 2922a does not direct that a dedicated 
transmission line or other additional infrastructure be 
required for projects on private property if the availability 
and use of existing power distribution infrastructure will 
result in a lower cost over time. The committee encourages DOD 
to use the flexibility contained within the authority to 
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of each contract.
    The committee recognizes that Part 41.201 of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations requires DOD to obtain required utility 
services from sources of supply which are most advantageous to 
the Government in terms of economy, efficiency, reliability, or 
service. While electricity prices are subject to market 
pressures, locking in a reasonable rate over a longer period of 
time will protect DOD from rate volatility. To that end, DOD 
guidance for the approval by the Secretary of Defense of the 
use of section 2922a requires the military service or defense 
agency to provide an economic/business case analysis summary to 
include the energy project cash flow display for each fiscal 
year included within the contract. The committee believes this 
analysis is critical to ensure that the projects enhance 
military capability, improve energy security, and mitigate 
costs.
    The committee encourages DOD to continue to use PPAs and 
the flexible authorities contained in section 2922a to take 
full advantage of private sector financing for projects that 
offer economy and reliability of service over time and ensure 
rates equal to or lesser than projected energy rates over the 
life of the contract.

War reserve stocks

    The committee believes that a primary element of military 
readiness is the sound management of adequate war reserves and 
that an efficient and effective war reserve supply chain is 
critical to support the warfighter in any theater of operations 
and to serve our military personnel stationed around the world. 
Accordingly, each military service establishes and maintains a 
continuing war reserve program that reflects the policies and 
guidance of the Secretary of Defense regarding enemy threats 
and capabilities, along with the Nation's current military 
strategy.
    The committee is concerned that as military force structure 
and combat operations decline over the next few years, coupled 
with sequestration effects, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
will need to carefully balance the necessity of accurately 
planning for contingency requirements and maintaining 
sufficient war reserves to meet military requirements, along 
with the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars to avoid 
excess procurement, storage, and transportation of war reserve 
stocks.
    Accordingly, the committee expects the DLA and the Services 
to maximize fiscal year 2015 resources with the utmost priority 
placed on maximizing cost-effectiveness in the planning, 
procurement, and management of war reserve stocks. The 
committee also directs the DLA and the Services to revisit and 
reevaluate their policies regarding the management of war 
reserve stocks in order to meet warfighter needs while avoiding 
unnecessary excess, and to provide a report or briefing with 
recommendations to the committee no later than March 1, 2015. 
This reevaluation should focus on those elements of war reserve 
stocks that the DLA and Services determine are most likely to 
yield cost savings and efficiencies.
    Additionally, the Comptroller General is directed to 
review, report, and provide recommendations to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2015, 
on the DLA's and the Services' efficiency and effectiveness of 
their war reserve supply chain, and whether those war reserve 
stocks accurately reflect revised end strength and force 
structure requirements and achieve cost efficiencies in the 
storage and transportation of such stocks.

Warrior power executive agent

    The committee continues to be encouraged by the Department 
of Defense's (DOD) efforts to pursue increased combat 
capability, effectiveness, and efficiency to better support the 
warfighter. For example, the committee recognizes that 
significant progress has been made to date with respect to 
individual warrior power systems and programs which provide 
expeditionary power solutions designed for combat operations in 
the most austere environments by increasing mobility, range, 
and endurance.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to notify the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 1, 2015, of the direction to designate a DOD executive 
agent for warrior power to align and advance various ongoing 
efforts across the Department, who is assigned specific 
responsibilities, functions, and authorities to support 
designated activities that involve two or more of the military 
services.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..........................................     520,000    490,000         490,000          0         -30,000
Navy..........................................     323,600    323,600         323,600          0               0
Marine Corps..................................     190,200    184,100         184,100          0          -6,100
Air Force.....................................     327,600    310,900         310,900          0         -16,700
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total...............................   1,361,400  1,308,600       1,308,600          0         -52,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................     354,200    350,200         350,200          0          -4,000
Army Reserve..................................     205,000    202,000         202,000          0          -3,000
Navy Reserve..................................      59,100     57,300          57,300          0          -1,800
Marine Corps Reserve..........................      39,600     39,200          39,200          0            -400
Air National Guard............................     105,400    105,000         105,000          0            -400
Air Force Reserve.............................      70,400     67,100          67,100          0          -3,300
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total...............................     833,700    820,800         820,800          0         -12,900
Coast Guard Reserve...........................       9,000      9,000           9,000          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2015, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for 
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last 
day of fiscal year 2015, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      27,210     27,210          27,210          0               0
Army Reserve..................................       8,395      7,895           7,895          0            -500
Air National Guard............................      21,875     21,792          21,792          0             -83
Air Force Reserve.............................      10,429      9,789           9,789          0            -640
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total...............................      67,909     66,686          66,686          0          -1,223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year 2015 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2015, 
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................       1,600      1,600           1,600          0               0
Air National Guard............................         350        350             350          0               0
Army Reserve..................................         595        595             595          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................          90         90              90          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total...............................       2,635      2,635           2,635          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2015, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2015                  Change from
                                                  FY 2014  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2015       FY 2014
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     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 Reserve..........................       3,000      3,000           3,000          0               0
Air National Guard............................      16,000     16,000          16,000          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................      14,000     14,000          14,000          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total...............................      69,200     69,200          69,200          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified 
in section 4401 of division D of this Act.

                              Budget Item

Military personnel funding changes
    The amount authorized to be appropriated for military 
personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the 
following changes from the budget request:

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

Military Personnel Underexecution.......................          -761.7
Reduction in meals-ready-to-eat.........................           -20.0
Restore lost savings from COLA change repeal............           500.0
Restore anticipated savings for TRICARE consolidation...            78.0
Increase CTC rotations for Army National Guard..........            45.0
Additional ESGR State support specialists...............             4.0
Limit A-10 retirement...................................            82.8
Limit AWACS retirement..................................            24.9
    Total...............................................           -47.0
    The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military 
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $47.0 million. This 
includes: (1) A reduction of $761.7 million to reflect the 
Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment of 
the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction of 
$20.0 million to reflect the Defense Logistics Agency's 
overstatement of meals-ready-to-eat inventory; (3) An increase 
of $500.0 million to restore retirement accrual savings that 
resulted from the revision in the cost-of-living adjustment to 
military retired pay contained in section 403 of the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2013 (H.J. Res. 59), and which were lost when 
Congress grandfathered the current force from the effects of 
that provision in section 2 of Public Law 113-82; (4) An 
increase of $78.0 million to restore MILPERS savings 
anticipated by the Department of Defense relative to its 
proposal to consolidate the TRICARE program, which the 
committee did not adopt; (5) An increase of $45.0 million to 
support additional Combat Training Center rotations for the 
Army National Guard; (6) An increase of $4.0 million for the 
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve to 
increase the number of State support specialists; (7) An 
increase of $82.8 million to fund additional personnel required 
relative to a limitation on retiring A-10s contained elsewhere 
in this Act; and (8) An increase of $24.9 million to fund 
additional personnel relative to a limitation on retiring AWACS 
contained elsewhere in this Act.
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Authority for three-month deferral of retirement for officers selected 
        for selective early retirement (sec. 501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 581 and 638 of title 10, United States Code, to 
clarify the date by which warrant officers and regular officers 
on the active-duty list who have been selected for selective 
early retirement must retire.
Repeal of limits on percentage of officers who may be recommended for 
        discharge during a fiscal year under enhanced selective 
        discharge authority (sec. 502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 638a of title 10, United States Code, by deleting the 
limitation on the total number of officers that a selection 
board may recommend for early discharge under enhanced 
selective discharge authority.
Elimination of requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight 
        officer be in command of an inactivated nuclear-powered 
        aircraft carrier before decommissioning (sec. 503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5942(a) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate 
the requirement that a qualified aviator or naval flight 
officer serve as commanding officer of a nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier that has been inactivated during the limited 
period between the inactivation and permanent decommissioning 
prior to disposal.
Authority to limit consideration for early retirement by selective 
        retirement boards to particular warrant officer year groups and 
        specialties (sec. 504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 581(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to establish selection objectives, by year 
group or specialty, or any combination thereof, for selection 
boards considering warrant officers for selective retirement.
Repeal of requirement for submittal to Congress of annual reports on 
        joint officer management and promotion policy objectives for 
        joint officers (sec. 505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 662 and 667 of title 10, United States Code, removing 
the requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit annual 
reports to Congress on joint officer management and promotion 
policy objectives for joint officers.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would 
continue to oversee the success of the military departments in 
meeting joint officer management program requirements.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Retention on reserve active-status list following nonselection for 
        promotion of certain health professions officers and first 
        lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) pursuing 
        baccalaureate degrees (sec. 511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
consideration for continuation on the reserve active-status 
list of first lieutenant and lieutenant (junior grade) health 
professions officers who have twice failed of selection for 
promotion to the next higher grade. The provision would also 
require service secretaries to retain on the reserve active-
status list health professions officers who would otherwise be 
required to be removed from the reserve active-status list 
until the officer has completed his or her service obligation.
Database on military technician positions (sec. 512)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a centralized 
database of military technician positions within the Department 
of Defense (DOD).
    The committee notes that the September 30, 2013, Center for 
Naval Analyses report titled, ``Report on the Termination of 
Military Technician as a Distinct Personnel Management 
Category,'' criticized DOD for lacking data that clearly 
identifies military technicians as a ``fundamental problem'' 
inhibiting oversight of a complex personnel program. The 
committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
by no later than January 1, 2015, on the numbers of military 
technicians within DOD, dual status and non-dual status, where 
they are assigned, and a short description of their assigned 
duties, as of September 30, 2014.
Improved consistency in suicide prevention and resilience program for 
        the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 513)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy for the development 
of a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing 
suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the 
National Guard and Reserves, and to submit this policy to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (sec. 514)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Office of Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve to take 
appropriate actions to increase the number of program support 
specialists in the States.
    To support this requirement, the committee recommends 
moving $4.0 million from funds available for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for the F-15 
Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, to the 
military personnel appropriation.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Enhancement of participation of mental health professionals in boards 
        for correction of military records and boards for review of 
        discharge or dismissal of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 
        521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that 
any medical advisory opinion issued to a board for correction 
of military records regarding a servicemember who was diagnosed 
while serving in the military as experiencing a mental health 
disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or 
psychiatrist if the individual's request for correction of 
records relates to a mental health disorder.
    The provision would also amend section 1553 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require boards for review of discharge 
or dismissal: (1) To include a member who is a clinical 
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional 
training and experience to provide advice on specialized 
medical or psychological matters relating to post-traumatic 
stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries, when the board 
considers a request for review of a discharge or dismissal by a 
former servicemember who was diagnosed as experiencing post-
traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as a 
consequence of a deployment in support of a contingency 
operation; and (2) To include a member who is a clinical 
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional 
training and experience to provide advice on specialized 
medical or psychological matters relating to mental health 
disorders, when the board considers a request for review of a 
discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember who was 
diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a 
mental health disorder.
    The committee expects that boards for review of discharge 
or dismissal would consider a new application for relief by a 
former servicemember when the member's prior application was 
denied by a board whose membership did not include a clinical 
psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with additional 
training and experience as required by this provision.

Extension of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to 
        enhance retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as amended by 
section 531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), by extending the 
authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to December 
31, 2018, with a deadline to return all participants to active 
duty by no later than December 31, 2021, adjusting interim and 
final report due dates to reflect the extended authority and 
deadline, and by requiring certain additional elements of 
information in the final reports.

Sense of Senate on validated gender-neutral occupational standards for 
        all military occupations (sec. 523)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate concerning the development of validated 
gender-neutral occupational standards pursuant to the ongoing 
process of reviewing and opening positions and occupations to 
women that are currently closed.

Comptroller General of the United States report on impact of certain 
        mental and physical trauma on discharges from military service 
        for misconduct (sec. 524)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on 
the impact of mental and physical trauma relating to post 
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, 
behavioral health matters not related to PTSD, and other 
neurological combat traumas on the discharge of servicemembers 
for misconduct.

Sense of Senate on upgrade of characterization of discharge of certain 
        Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces (sec. 525)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that Boards for Correction of Military 
Records, when considering a request for correction of a less-
than-honorable discharge issued to a servicemember who served 
during the Vietnam era, should take into account whether the 
veteran was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) as a result of such service.
    Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report within 180 days on the plans of the military 
departments to address requests for upgrades of discharges of 
Vietnam era members of the Armed Forces who may have suffered 
from service-related PTSD. The report shall include the 
following elements:
         (1) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military 
        Records and Discharge Review Boards regarding the 
        application of medically appropriate standards to 
        evaluate discharge upgrade applications based in whole 
        or in part on PTSD or other mental health conditions;
         (2) Guidance to Boards for Correction of Military 
        Records and Discharge Review Boards on use of 
        information in military service records and 
        consideration of post-discharge diagnoses of PTSD that 
        are related to their military service that the boards 
        may consider when evaluating a request for an upgrade 
        of a discharge, and consideration of waiving any 
        statute of limitations for either new applicants or 
        those previously denied for upgrade applications 
        covered by this section;
         (3) The feasibility of use of video conference 
        capabilities by Boards for Correction of Military 
        Records and Discharge Review Boards, and other 
        initiatives to increase the number of in-person 
        hearings granted;
         (4) A resourcing plan for the timely consideration of 
        applications from all eligible individuals;
         (5) Outreach initiatives to those eligible to seek a 
        discharge upgrade and available pro bono legal services 
        to assist them;
         (6) Information provided concerning the right to 
        judicial review and the availability of free legal 
        services, such as those established in collaboration 
        with the Department of Justice's Access to Justice 
        Initiative, in letters from the Boards advising 
        applicants of adverse decisions; and
         (7) Compliance with the requirement for inclusion in 
        membership of the Boards for Correction of Military 
        Records and Discharge Review Boards of a physician, 
        clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist when 
        adjudicating applications based in whole or in part on 
        PTSD or other medical condition.

               Subtitle D--Member Education and Training


Enhancement of authority for members of the Armed Forces to obtain 
        professional credentials (sec. 531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a 
service of the Navy, to carry out a program to enable members 
of the Armed Forces to obtain professional credentials while 
they are serving that relate to training and skills acquired 
during military service.

Authority for Joint Special Operations University to award degrees 
        (sec. 532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 108 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
President of the Joint Special Operations University to confer 
appropriate degrees upon graduates who meet degree 
requirements. A degree could not be conferred unless the 
Secretary of Education has recommended approval of the degree 
in accordance with the Federal Policy Governing Granting of 
Academic Degrees by Federal Agencies, and the Joint Special 
Operations University is accredited by the appropriate civilian 
academic accrediting agency or organization to award the 
degree.

Enhancement of information provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
        veterans regarding use of Post-9/11 Educational Assistance and 
        Federal financial aid through Transition Assistance Program 
        (sec. 533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, by no later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to provide additional information to 
servicemembers in the transition assistance program concerning 
certain education benefits available to them, and to ensure 
that the higher education component of the transition 
assistance program is available to members of the Armed Forces 
on an Internet web site of the Department of Defense.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a of title 10, United States 
Code, to extend the period that foreign exchange personnel are 
authorized to attend the U.S. Military Academy, the Naval 
Academy, or the Air Force Academy when the service secretary 
determines that the attendance of such persons contributes 
significantly to the development of foreign language, cross-
cultural interactions and understanding, and cultural immersion 
of cadets or midshipmen, from 2 weeks to 4 weeks.

             Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters


Ordering of depositions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
        (sec. 541)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 49 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 
U.S.C. 849) to authorize the court-martial convening authority 
or the military judge to order a deposition only if the party 
requesting the deposition demonstrates that, due to exceptional 
circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the 
testimony of the prospective witness be taken and preserved for 
use at an Article 32, UCMJ, preliminary hearing or a court-
martial.

Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence, relating to 
        the privilege against disclosure of communications between 
        psychotherapists and patients (sec. 542)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, Rule 513 of the Military Rules of Evidence be 
modified to: (1) Include communications with ``other licensed 
mental health professionals'' within communications covered by 
this privilege; (2) Clarify or eliminate the current exception 
to the privilege when the admission or disclosure of a 
communication is constitutionally required; (3) Require a party 
seeking production or admission of records protected by the 
privilege to show a specific factual basis demonstrating a 
reasonable likelihood that the records or communications would 
yield evidence admissible under an exception to the privilege, 
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
requested information meets one of the enumerated exceptions to 
the privilege, show that the information sought is not 
cumulative of other available information, and show that the 
party made reasonable efforts to obtain the same or similar 
information through non-privileged sources; (4) Authorize the 
military judge to conduct an in camera review only when the 
moving party has satisfied these requirements and an 
examination of the information is necessary to rule on the 
production or admissibility of the records; and (5) Require 
that any admission or disclosure be narrowly tailored.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
Special Victims' Counsel to represent the victim of a sex-
related offense at any proceedings in connection with the 
reporting, military investigation, and military prosecution of 
the alleged sex-related offense. The provision would also 
require that the Manual for Courts-Martial be modified not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act to 
provide that when a victim of a sex-related offense has a right 
to be heard in connection with the prosecution of such offense, 
the victim may exercise that right through counsel, and would 
also require service secretaries to establish policies and 
procedures to ensure that counsel for the victim of an alleged 
sex-related offense is provided prompt and adequate notice of 
the scheduling of any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in 
connection with the prosecution of that offense to afford 
victim's counsel the opportunity to prepare for the proceeding.

Eligibility of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
        for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel (sec. 544)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
assistance of Special Victims' Counsel for a member of a 
reserve component who is the victim of an alleged sex-related 
offense and who is not otherwise eligible for military legal 
assistance under section 1044 of this title.

Additional enhancements of military department actions on sexual 
        assault prevention and response (sec. 545)

    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
Require Special Victim's Counsel to provide advice to victims 
of sexual assault on the advantages and disadvantages of 
prosecution by court-martial or a civilian court with 
jurisdiction over the offense and would require that the 
victim's preference be considered in the determination of 
whether to prosecute the offense by court-martial or by a 
civilian court; (2) Require service secretaries to ensure that 
all written performance appraisals of servicemembers include an 
assessment of the extent to which the servicemember being 
evaluated supports the sexual assault prevention and response 
program of the military service, and the performance appraisals 
of commanding officers indicate the extent to which the 
commanding officer has or has not established a command climate 
in which allegations of sexual assault would be properly 
managed and fairly evaluated and in which a victim can report 
criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of 
retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure; (3) Amend 
section 1743(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require that the 8-
day incident report of an unrestricted report of sexual assault 
include a review of the most recent climate assessment for the 
command or unit of the suspect and the command or unit of the 
victim, and an assessment of whether another climate assessment 
should be conducted; (4) Require the service secretaries to 
establish a confidential process, through boards for correction 
of military records, by which an individual who was the victim 
of a sexual offense while in the military can challenge, on the 
basis of being a victim of the offense, the terms or 
characterization of the individual's discharge or separation; 
and (5) Require that the Military Rules of Evidence be amended, 
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, to provide that the general military character of an 
accused is not admissible for the purpose of showing the 
probability of innocence of the accused for specified offenses.

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related 
        offenses for trial by court-martial if requested by chief 
        prosecutor (sec. 546)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1744 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require that in any 
case where a convening authority decides not to refer a charge 
of a sex-related offense to trial by court-martial and the 
chief prosecutor of the service concerned requests review of 
the decision, the service secretary must review the decision as 
a superior authority authorized to exercise general court-
martial convening authority.

Modification of Department of Defense policy on retention of evidence 
        in a sexual assault case to permit return of personal property 
        upon completion of related proceedings (sec. 547)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to authorize the return to 
the rightful owner of personal property retained as evidence in 
connection with an incident of sexual assault involving a 
service member after the conclusion of all legal, adverse 
action, and administrative proceedings related to the sexual 
assault.

Inclusion of information on assaults in the Defense Sexual Assault 
        Incident Database (sec. 548)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to issue policies and procedures for the 
inclusion of certain information obtained from restricted and 
unrestricted reports of sexual assault, including known 
information about the alleged assailant, in a sexual assault 
database.
    The committee expects that the policies and procedures to 
implement this provision would ensure that information obtained 
from restricted reports of sexual assault is made available 
only to appropriate personnel for the limited purpose of 
identifying alleged suspects in multiple restricted reports of 
sexual assault. The committee expects that information in this 
database will assist law enforcement personnel to identify and 
investigate serial offenders. The committee also expects that 
victims who may later learn the alleged suspect in their report 
may have assaulted another person may be encouraged to change 
restricted reports to unrestricted reports of sexual assault to 
facilitate increased prosecutions of such serial offenders. The 
committee is mindful that failure to properly safeguard the 
privacy of the victim could risk the unintended and adverse 
consequence of undermining the confidence of victims in the use 
of the restricted report as a viable option for reporting 
sexual assault. Therefore, the policies and procedures 
developed to implement this provision should provide for 
including in the database only information freely volunteered 
by sexual assault victims who file restricted reports and to 
ensure that victims are not coerced into providing this 
information.
    The committee is also mindful that the failure to properly 
safeguard the identity of an alleged suspect resulting in 
disclosure could risk unintended and adverse consequences for 
the alleged suspects to include potential damage to their 
personal and professional reputations without the due process 
protections of the military justice system. Therefore, the 
committee directs that policies and procedures developed to 
implement this provision must also preserve the presumption of 
innocence for alleged suspects.
    The committee specifically directs that the information 
concerning the identity of an alleged suspect may not be used 
for any purpose related to assignment, training, or 
advancement.

Technical revisions and clarifications of certain provisions in the 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
        relating to the military justice system (sec. 549)

    The committee recommends a provision would make technical 
and clarifying corrections to various provisions of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66) relating to the military justice system.

Applicability of sexual assault prevention and response and related 
        military justice enhancements to military service academies 
        (sec. 550)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Service secretaries and the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
ensure that the sexual assault prevention and response 
provisions in title XVII of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and the sexual 
assault prevention and response provisions in this Act apply to 
the military service academies.

Analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses 
        identified in unrestricted reports on sexual assaults in annual 
        reports on sexual assaults in the Armed Forces (sec. 551)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require that 
the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in 
the Military include an analysis and assessment of the 
disposition of the most serious offenses identified in 
unrestricted reports of sexual assault.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a Defense 
Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 
of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces to advise the Secretary 
on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of rape, 
forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct in 
the Armed Forces and to submit a report on an annual basis to 
the Secretary and to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives.

Collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of 
        Justice in efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault 
        (sec. 553)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to jointly 
develop, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, a strategic framework for ongoing collaboration 
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice 
in their efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault.

Modification of term of judges of the United States Court of Appeals 
        for the Armed Forces (sec. 554)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 942 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
statutory termination date of the term of office of judges of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to 
align the termination date with the starting date of the 
Court's annual term.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1735 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to require the Secretary 
of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report on the 
Secretary's review of the Office of Diversity Management and 
Equal Opportunity's role in sexual harassment cases.

Repeal of obsolete requirement to develop comprehensive management plan 
        to address deficiencies in data captured in the Defense 
        Incident-Based Reporting System (sec. 556)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 543(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to 
remove the requirement that data concerning domestic violence 
incidents be recorded in the Defense Incident Based Reporting 
System (DIBRS). DIBRS is a criminal incident uniform crime 
reporting system that does not lend itself to recording 
domestic violence incidents because domestic violence is not an 
enumerated offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
The Department of Defense has developed an alternative method 
to accurately count domestic violence incidents and resulting 
disciplinary actions.

                   Subtitle F--Decorations and Award


Medals for members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the 
        Department of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack 
        by a foreign terrorist organization (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 1129a to title 10, United States Code, to require that 
the Secretary concerned treat attacks by a foreign terrorist 
organization as an attack by an international terrorist 
organization for the purposes of awarding the Purple Heart in 
certain circumstances.

Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness 
                                Matters


Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 
        benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and 
        Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance 
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by 
enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD 
civilian employees.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under 
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in 
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), 
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local 
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with 
severe disabilities.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the program 
modifications contained in that section by an additional 3 
years.

Authority to employ non-United States citizens as teachers in 
        Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' School system (sec. 
        574)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2(2)(A) of the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay 
and Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901(2)(A)) to authorize 
employment of local nationals who are not United States 
citizens to teach host nation language courses in the Defense 
Dependents' Overseas Education System.

Inclusion of domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools among 
        functions of Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (sec. 
        575)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1411 of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 
(20 U.S.C. 929) to include in the functions of the Advisory 
Council on Dependents' Education the responsibility to provide 
advice and information on the Department of Defense's domestic 
dependent elementary and secondary school system. Currently 
this council provides advice and information on the Department 
of Defense Education Activity's overseas school system, and 
does not provide advice and information on the Department's 
domestic dependent schools.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to direct the service secretaries to 
develop and implement a program to track, retain, and analyze 
information on deaths that are reported as suicides involving 
dependents of members of the regular and reserve components of 
each respective military service and to submit a report on the 
programs developed to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Enhancement of authority to accept support for Air Force Academy 
        athletic programs (sec. 581)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 9362 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of the Air Force to: (1) Accept from third parties 
funds, supplies, equipment, and services for the support of the 
athletic programs of the Air Force Academy (Academy); (2) Enter 
into leases or licenses for the purpose of supporting the 
athletic programs of the Academy; and (3) Enter into contracts 
and cooperative agreements for the purpose of supporting the 
athletic programs of the Academy. The provision would also 
authorize the corporation established to support the athletic 
programs of the Academy to enter into licensing, marketing, and 
sponsorship agreements relating to trademarks and service marks 
identifying the Academy, subject to the approval of the 
Secretary of the Air Force.

                       Items of Special Interest


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

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States, not later than February 27, 2015, to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, a report on the sexual assault prevention 
activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), containing: (1) 
An assessment of the sexual assault prevention strategy of the 
DOD; (2) A description and assessment of the actions taken by 
each military service to implement the sexual assault 
prevention strategy of DOD and of that service; (3) A 
comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention 
activities of each military service as of submittal of the 
report and of those planned for the 12 months thereafter; (4) A 
comprehensive description of the sexual assault prevention 
activities at joint installations, and an assessment of the 
collaborative efforts of the military services involved, as of 
submittal of the report and of those planned for the 12 months 
thereafter; (5) A comprehensive assessment of the sexual 
assault prevention activities of each military service, 
including an assessment of the extent to which any differences 
among such activities arise from unique qualities of a 
particular service or the efforts of a service, to pursue an 
innovative approach to sexual assault prevention; (6) A 
description and assessment of the procedures and mechanisms 
used by each military service to ensure that the sexual assault 
prevention strategy of each service, and the training provided 
pursuant to such strategy, are effective in achieving the 
intended objectives; (7) An assessment of the report of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to the President on efforts of the DOD and the Armed 
Forces to improve the prevention of and response to sexual 
assault in the Armed Forces, as required by the President, to 
be submitted not later than December 1, 2014; and (8) Such 
other recommendations on the sexual assault prevention 
activities of the DOD as the Comptroller General considers 
appropriate.

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

    According to the Department of Defense, roughly 83 percent 
of the active-duty force is comprised of enlisted personnel. Of 
these, about 95,000 are in grades below E-5. Service policies 
require most junior enlisted personnel below the grade of E-5 
to live on post. The committee recognizes the unique military 
value of requiring junior enlisted personnel to live on post, 
including improved unit cohesion, discipline, professional 
development, and esprit de corps. Many of these members, owing 
either to service policies, post restrictions, or financial 
reality, do not have a means of personal transportation other 
than public transportation. Accordingly, these members may be 
isolated from commercial amenities and services. The military 
services provide a wide array of services and programs on post 
to meet the needs of these members and others who choose to 
live on post, including dining facilities, health care clinics 
and treatment facilities, commissaries and exchanges, legal 
assistance, recreation and leisure opportunities, physical 
fitness and other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities, 
and libraries.
    The committee is concerned that some junior enlisted 
personnel living on post are experiencing difficulties in 
accessing these services due to various factors such as 
inconsistent or inadequate hours of operation or lack of 
transportation. As a result, some members may be forced to 
forego meals or miss medical appointments simply because the 
dining facility closed early or transportation was not 
available to the health clinic on the other side of post. This 
is a leadership issue that the committee expects commanders to 
address.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review the provision of services provided on military 
installations, and the policies and procedures for ensuring 
that junior enlisted personnel have ready access to those 
benefits. The committee directs the Comptroller General to 
provide a report on the results of this review to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by no later than April 1, 2015.

Comptroller General report on feasibility and advisability of longer 
        tour lengths

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than 
January 1, 2015, assessing the feasibility and advisability of 
lengthening tour rotational goals within each military 
department.
    The report shall include:
          (1) A description of current spending on permanent 
        change of station (PCS) moves and associated support 
        costs;
          (2) A review of past changes to PCS policy and costs 
        or savings associated with such changes for each 
        military service;
          (3) A description of the extent to which each service 
        is meeting existing rotational goals and, if not, the 
        causes of major shortfalls; and
          (4) An assessment of the impact lengthened tour 
        rotations could have on unit readiness, stability for 
        servicemembers and their families, career progression, 
        and potential cost savings in military service budgets.

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense progress in 
        expanding service opportunities for women

    Women have served in the military services for over a half 
a century but have been mostly excluded from direct combat 
positions. Over time, women have been assigned to select 
positions in ground combat units at certain levels or under 
certain conditions. Despite these restrictions, women have 
served in combat environments while deployed to Iraq and 
Afghanistan. During the wars over the past 13 years, more than 
800 women have been wounded and more than 130 have died. Many 
women have received awards for their performance in combat 
environments.
    On January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the 
1994 direct ground combat exclusion rule for women, which 
opened certain positions and units to women following service 
reviews and congressional notification procedures. The 
Secretary of Defense directed the military departments to 
submit detailed plans by May 15, 2013, for the implementation 
of this change and to move ahead expeditiously, with the 
process to be completed by January 1, 2016. As a result, 
according to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, since 2012 
the military services have opened approximately 57,000 
positions to women, and service efforts to validate gender-
neutral occupational performance standards continue.
    The committee is concerned about what steps the Department 
of Defense (DOD) and the military services are taking to ensure 
the effective and successful integration of women into 
previously closed positions and units, as well as the 
methodology being used to validate occupational standards. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the progress of the services in opening 
closed positions and occupations to women, and their progress 
in developing and validating gender-neutral occupational 
standards. The report should include: (1) The status of service 
efforts to open previously closed positions and units to women; 
(2) The integrity and effectiveness of the services' evaluation 
processes and testing in validating gender-neutral occupational 
standards; (3) The extent to which these processes consider the 
overall operational capability and combat effectiveness of 
units required to meet national defense objectives; (4) The 
extent to which the DOD is tracking and monitoring military 
service plans to complete the integration of women in direct 
combat positions by January 2016; and (5) Any steps DOD or the 
services have taken to mitigate potential challenges associated 
with integrating women into combat roles. The Comptroller 
General shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives on the results of this 
review by no later than February 1, 2015.

Continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

    The committee notes that since 2008, more than 1.3 million 
National Guard and reserve servicemembers and their families 
have benefited from the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 
(YRRP). Information and counseling provided during Yellow 
Ribbon events help returning guard and reserve members and 
their families manage the unique challenges associated with 
transitions between military and civilian life. YRRP is 
designed to ensure guardsmen and reservists returning home, 
often to rural areas or locations far removed from military 
installations and traditional military support networks, have 
access to similar services as their active-duty counterparts. 
The program provides training sessions and information 
regarding family assistance programs, veterans' benefits, 
resilience and suicide prevention, mental health outreach, and 
other medical information, for servicemembers and their 
families pre-deployment, during deployment, and up to 90 days 
post-deployment. YRRP also supports additional state-outreach 
programs that coordinate state and local resources to create a 
comprehensive network of support throughout the deployment 
cycle. These extended programs are particularly valuable given 
that servicemembers may continue to face reintegration 
challenges, including symptoms associated with post-traumatic 
stress disorder, up to and exceeding 180 days after deployment.
    The committee believes the YRRP has enduring value, and 
encourages the Department of Defense to continue its support 
beyond the current conflict. The committee also directs the 
Office for Reintegration Programs Center for Excellence to 
evaluate the feasibility and advisability of adding additional 
Yellow Ribbon programming 180 days after deployment and 
throughout the deployment cycle. The evaluation should include 
an assessment of possible means to provide more efficient 
delivery of services, to include leveraging the value of State-
based outreach programs.

Cyber career field

    The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Services 
to recruit and retain military personnel with the skills and 
aptitude for our Nation's cyber mission. However, the committee 
is concerned that military personnel in the cyber field have no 
clear, defined career path to success. To retain the very best 
officers and enlisted members with cyber skills, the Services 
need to provide a career track that includes progressive 
training, education, and assignments to prepare these 
servicemembers for positions of increased responsibility, 
including command and leadership positions.
    The committee directs the service secretaries to assess 
whether the cyber mission warrants new officer and enlisted 
specialty designators that are distinct from communications, 
signal, and intelligence specialties, and whether recruiting, 
retention, and assignment of servicemembers with cyber skills 
requires bonuses or special and incentive pays. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report the results of this 
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives no later than January 31, 
2015.

Department of Defense policy and plan for prevention and response to 
        sexual harassment in the Armed Forces

    The committee is disappointed that the Department of 
Defense has not complied with section 579 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) that required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, no later than January 2, 2013, a report 
setting forth a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to 
sexual harassment in the Armed Forces. The committee has not 
yet received this report.
    This legislative provision also required the Secretary to 
develop a plan to collect information and data regarding 
substantiated incidents of sexual harassment involving 
servicemembers, including the need to identify cases in which a 
servicemember is accused of multiple incidents of sexual 
harassment. The Secretary was required to submit this plan to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than June 1, 2013. The committee has 
not yet received this plan.
    The committee is aware that there is a correlation between 
sexual harassment and sexual assaults and believes that it is 
imperative to address incidents of sexual harassment before the 
perpetrator progresses to commit more serious sexual offenses.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than July 31, 2014, on the status of 
both of these requirements.

Funding for the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps

    The committee recognizes that the United States Naval Sea 
Cadet Corps (USNSCC) makes significant contributions in the 
development of our Nation's youth, the recruitment efforts of 
the United States Navy, and the awareness of the Navy and its 
mission. Since its inception in 1958, the USNSCC has trained 
over 170,000 young Americans. Today, it continues to prepare 
America's youth to become productive and patriotic citizens. 
Furthermore, the USNSCC contributes directly to the recruiting 
mission of the United States Navy. Over 11 percent of the most 
recent class at the United States Naval Academy were former 
cadets, and a total of 626 cadets accessed into military 
service in 2013.
    The USNSCC plays a significant role in both the development 
of this Nation's youth and the mission of the United States 
Navy. This committee supports its mission and encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to continue funding the USNSCC at current 
programmed funding levels, to be augmented with additional 
funds, should they become available.

Military chaplains

    The committee recognizes the historical and present-day 
significance of military chaplains. Since the Nation's 
founding, military chaplains have provided spiritual leadership 
and guidance to servicemembers. Chaplains have served in every 
war in which America has fought, and many have been decorated, 
including numerous valor awards, and even the Medal of Honor. 
The committee acknowledges that the Chaplaincies of the 
Military Departments ``are established to advise and assist 
commanders in the discharge of their responsibilities to 
provide for the free exercise of religion in the context of 
military service as guaranteed by the Constitution, to assist 
commanders in managing Religious Affairs, and to serve as the 
principal advisors to commanders for all issues regarding the 
impact of religion on military operations.'' Further, today's 
force comprises a religiously diverse population, and chaplains 
serve everyone to the best of their abilities, attending to the 
spiritual needs of servicemembers, even in circumstances where 
the chaplain's religion differs from the members they serve.
    The committee expresses its strong and continuing support 
of chaplains and their mission.

Online employment search-tool consolidation

    The committee recognizes the importance of Department of 
Defense (DOD) investment in Internet-based job search programs 
to assist servicemembers who are transitioning from Active Duty 
into the civilian workforce. However, the committee is 
concerned that efforts to help servicemember transition have 
resulted in the creation of duplicative and overlapping online 
tools. The committee strongly believes that the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense should identify ways to consolidate 
multiple existing online transitional tools into a single, 
concerted effort.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than 
October 1, 2014, that describes all current and projected DOD-
supported Internet-based transitioning servicemember, reserve 
component and veterans job assistance tools, programs, and 
processes.
    The report should include the cost of sustaining the 
current array of Internet-based job assistance tools, programs, 
and processes, and the Secretary's recommendations for 
standardizing, simplifying, and consolidating such programs. It 
is the intent of the committee that DOD maintain an efficient 
and effective online employment search-tool while avoiding 
duplication and redundancy.

Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention

    The committee remains concerned by reports of pervasive 
sexual violence within military communities. To that end, the 
committee notes that non-governmental collaborations between 
practitioners and researchers have identified a growing need 
for expanded bystander education in sexual violence prevention 
as a means to enhance deterrence, and timely reporting and 
adjudication of sexual violence. The committee believes that 
the Department of Defense sexual violence prevention programs 
should utilize evidence-based methods that evaluate the impact 
of bystander prevention curricula on participant attitudes and 
behaviors in order to inform and strengthen ongoing prevention 
and response activities.

Standardized survivor experience surveys

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
development of standardized survivor experience surveys for 
survivors of sexual assault. Survivor responses may provide 
valuable insight to ensure that DOD policies and relevant 
legislation achieve expected results. The committee encourages 
DOD to promote broad survivor participation in the survey 
process to include participation by survivors in cases where 
sexual assault was alleged in the initial complaint regardless 
of whether the sexual assault allegations were disposed of 
through a military justice process, civilian criminal process, 
or through administrative disposition.
    The committee directs DOD to ensure that the annual report 
on sexual assault in the military required by section 1602 of 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (P.L. 111-383) includes an update on DOD's progress 
towards developing and implementing such survivor experience 
surveys and a report on responses received and associated 
lessons learned.

Use and adequacy of military leave for federal employees who are 
        members of reserve components

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the use and adequacy of annual military leave used under 
section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, to meet reserve 
component readiness objectives, and to report to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on the results of this review by no later than 
February 1, 2015. The review shall include: (1) A description 
of the average number of hours per fiscal year that Department 
of Defense (DOD) employees who are also members of reserve 
components spend in any leave status (including leave without 
pay) to cover periods of active duty for training or inactive 
duty for training; (2) A description of the average number of 
hours of military leave used per year by military technicians 
(dual status) in the fulfillment of their technician duties; 
(3) An assessment of whether the leave provided under section 
6323 of title 5, United States Code, is adequate to meet the 
needs of employees, including military technicians (dual 
status), in light of the operational tempo of the reserve 
components; (4) An assessment of whether members of reserve 
components should continue to accrue and carry over military 
leave under section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, during 
periods of active duty or full-time national guard duty for 
which they volunteered; and (5) Any other matter relating to 
the use of military leave considered appropriate by the 
Secretary.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2015 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise of 1 percent for all members of the uniformed 
services in pay grades O-6 and below effective January 1, 2015.
Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau and Senior Enlisted 
        Advisor to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior 
        members of the Armed Forces for the purposes of pay and 
        allowances (sec. 602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide pay 
parity for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the 
other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The provision would 
also provide pay parity for the senior enlisted advisor to the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the senior enlisted 
advisors of the Armed Forces. The changes made by this 
provision would be prospective to the date of enactment of this 
Act.
Modification of computation of basic allowance for housing inside the 
        United States (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to revise the 
method by which the monthly amount of the basic allowance for 
housing (BAH) is determined by authorizing the Secretary of 
Defense to reduce the monthly amount by up to 5 percent of the 
national average for housing for a given pay grade and 
dependency status. Servicemembers will not see any reduction in 
their BAH until they undergo a permanent change of duty 
station.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic 
        allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily 
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas 
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx 
of personnel.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        reserve forces (sec. 611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service, the contracting bonus for cadets and midshipmen 
enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, travel 
expenses for certain inactive-duty training, and income 
replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended 
and frequent mobilization for active duty service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health 
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and 
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the 
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual 
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 
        special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the 
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and 
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special 
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and 
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in 
health professions. The provision would also extend for 1 year 
the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special 
duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and 
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military 
skills or assigned to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 
        bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus, the assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for 
active members, the enlistment bonus, the foreign language 
proficiency incentive pay, the accession bonus for new officers 
in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to 
military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the 
incentive bonus for transfer between Armed Forces, and the 
accession bonus for officer candidates.

     Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits

Inapplicability of reduced annual adjustment of retired pay for members 
        of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan 
        Budget Act of 2013 who first become members prior to January 1, 
        2016 (sec. 621)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subparagraph (G) of section 1401a(b)(4) of title 10, United 
States Code, to exempt those who first join military service 
prior to January 1, 2016, from the reduced cost of living 
adjustment (COLA) applicable to military retired pay made by 
section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 
113-67), as amended by section 2 of Public Law 113-82. Under 
current law, this reduced COLA is inapplicable to members who 
first join prior to January 1, 2014.
    This change better aligns the impact of the reduced COLA 
with Congress's consideration of the report of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, due 
February 2015.
Modification of determination of retired pay base for officers retired 
        in general and flag officer grades (sec. 622)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1407a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate the 
cap on retired pay of general and flag officers at the monthly 
equivalent of level II of the Executive Schedule, as provided 
for in section 203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code. The 
provision would ensure the equitable treatment of the service 
of general and flag officers serving on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act. The retired pay base for final pay 
retirees would be the greater of: (1) Their retired pay as 
determined by function of the pay tables existing on December 
31, 2014, in the officer's grade and years of service as of 
that date; or (2) Their retired pay as determined by applicable 
law at the time of their retirement (but subject to the cap in 
section 203 of title 37, United States Code). The retired pay 
base for high-36-month retirees would be based on applicable 
law at the time of their retirement, but would continue to 
account for uncapped months accumulated between October 1, 
2006, and the date of enactment of this Act.
Modification of per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain active 
        duty or active service to reduce eligibility age for retirement 
        for non-regular service (sec. 623)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to 
clarify that qualifying days of service under that section to 
reduce the age at which a servicemember may receive reserve 
retired pay may be accumulated between 2 consecutive fiscal 
years, effective after the date of enactment of this Act.
Earlier determination of dependent status with respect to transitional 
        compensation for dependents of certain members separated for 
        dependent abuse (sec. 624)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1059 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
the date on which a dependent child's status is determined for 
the purposes of transitional compensation under that section, 
in the case of a member being administratively separated, is 
the date on which the separation action is commenced. This 
aligns the dependent status determination with the date on 
which transitional compensation payments begin under this 
section in these cases.
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established 
        for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support 
        (sec. 625)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1448, 1450, and 1455 of title 10, United States Code, 
to authorize the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity 
to a special needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C) 
of section 1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the 
sole benefit of a disabled dependent child incapable of self-
support because of mental or physical incapacity.

    Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations

Procurement of brand-name and other commercial items for resale by 
        commissary stores (sec. 631)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2484 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to purchase any commercial item, including 
brand-name and generic items, for resale in, at, or by 
commissary stores without using full and open competition 
procurement procedures.

                       Items of Special Interest

Department of Defense pay and benefit proposals
    The Department of Defense (DOD) proposes several measures 
intended to slow the growth of personnel costs within the DOD 
budget. These proposals include:
          (1) A 1.0 percent pay raise for most military 
        personnel, lower than the 1.8 percent that would take 
        effect under current law;
          (2) Limiting increases in the housing allowance below 
        the rate of inflation, such that servicemembers will 
        eventually pay 5 percent of housing costs out of 
        pocket, as measured by average national rental costs 
        for a given pay grade and dependency status;
          (3) A phased reduction by $1.0 billion of the annual 
        direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, 
        starting with $200.0 million in fiscal year 2015, down 
        from the current annual subsidy of $1.4 billion, a 
        change that could significantly impact commissary 
        savings that servicemembers and their families depend 
        on;
          (4) A restructuring and consolidation of the TRICARE 
        Prime, Standard, and Extra programs into a single 
        TRICARE plan;
          (5) Establishment of enrollment fees for TRICARE for 
        Life beneficiaries; and
          (6) Increased pharmacy co-pays for prescriptions 
        filled outside of military treatment facilities.
    The committee reluctantly supports DOD's proposals 
concerning the pay raise, the basic allowance for housing 
(BAH), and pharmacy co-pays. The committee does not support the 
proposals affecting the commissary benefit, TRICARE for Life, 
or the TRICARE reorganization. The committee views these latter 
proposals as structural in nature; as such, they are better 
left for consideration until after the Military Compensation 
and Retirement Modernization Commission submits its report in 
February 2015. The pay raise, BAH, and pharmacy proposals, 
while undesirable, are necessary to produce a DOD budget that 
provides sufficient funding to address readiness and 
modernization deficits, authorizes a sufficiently sized and 
trained force to meet national defense objectives, and adheres 
to congressionally-mandated budget levels.
Department of Defense proposal to modify commissary benefit
    Commissaries have a major positive impact on the quality of 
life of all servicemembers--active, reserve, and retired--and 
their families. Commissaries, on average, afford savings of 
more than 30 percent on items purchased. Additionally, 
commissary patrons frequently use base exchanges when they come 
on post to shop at the commissary. Increased usage of the base 
exchanges results in additional dividends that are returned to 
the military community for morale, welfare, and recreation 
activities. The cumulative effect of all of these benefits from 
commissary patronage is particularly important to junior 
enlisted servicemembers.
    The committee is concerned that consequences of the 
Department of Defense proposal to increase costs to patrons of 
the commissary benefit in order to reduce appropriated fund 
support for the Defense Commissary Agency have not been fully 
evaluated, and that other business models that may not have the 
same detrimental impact were not considered.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission and to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not 
later than December 1, 2014, that describes: (1) How changes to 
the financial structure and funding of commissaries would 
impact the purchasing power of military families, especially 
young enlisted members and their families; (2) The impact on 
commissary sales volumes if prices for groceries and other 
goods rise significantly under a new financial and funding 
structure; (3) The collateral impact of the Department's 
proposal on sales volumes in the military exchange system; (4) 
The impact of lower sales volumes in military exchanges on 
monetary dividends provided to support the morale, welfare, and 
recreation programs of the military services; (5) An assessment 
of adoption by the commissary system of a business model 
similar to that of the military exchange system; and (6) Other 
options for consolidation of commissary and exchange system 
functions. The committee expects the Commission to consider 
this report as it addresses the commissary benefit in the 
report that it submits to Congress and to the President.
Secretary of Defense review of pay table
    The committee recognizes the service of those who choose to 
serve beyond 30 years in the military. Many of these 
servicemembers, the most experienced in the ranks, forego the 
opportunity of a second career in order to continue serving 
their nation. As a way to incentivize and reward such service, 
especially among senior enlisted and officers with prior 
enlisted service, Congress extended the pay tables to 40 years 
in section 601 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). As 
the military draws down, however, and fewer servicemembers 
serve beyond 30 years, the committee believes it is time to 
reevaluate the usefulness of the 40-year pay table, and whether 
it is necessary to continue to achieve certain retention goals.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the utility of the pay tables currently in law with respect to 
retaining experienced military personnel who would otherwise be 
difficult to retain, and whether such pay tables are necessary 
or if retention of such personnel would be equally achievable 
under a 30-year pay table, and to submit a report on this 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives by no later than February 1, 2015. 
The report shall include a description of how many personnel 
remained on Active Duty past 30 years of service, annually, 
since 2007; a breakdown by pay grade of such personnel; and the 
additional costs to the Department of Defense (DOD) since 2007 
of operating under the 40-year pay table rather than a 30-year 
pay table (adjusted for inflation). The report shall include 
the Secretary's recommendation whether to retain the 40-year 
pay table, the reasons why, and an assessment of how DOD 
believes longevity pay increases beyond 30 years impacts 
retention in the armed services.
Survey of preferences of members of the Armed Forces regarding military 
        pay and benefits
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has not adequately considered the views and preferences of 
servicemembers in making proposals designed to slow the growth 
of personnel costs, and that other proposals may yield similar 
savings with less impact on those benefits servicemembers value 
the most.
    The committee strongly encourages the Military Compensation 
and Retirement Modernization Commission to conduct a survey of 
active-duty servicemembers, reserve component members, and 
retirees on their preferences with respect to pay, allowances, 
health care, retirement, and quality-of-life benefits; how 
those benefits effect decisions to join or remain in the 
military; how they differ by grade, dependency status, and duty 
location; and to consider the results of this survey in the 
Commission's report due next February.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                      Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

Annual mental health assessments for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 
        701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a person-to-person mental 
health assessment for active duty and selected reserve members 
each year. The Secretary may provide such assessments in 
conjunction with annual periodic health assessments or pre- or 
post-deployment health assessments. In addition, the provision 
would require the Secretary to submit an annual report on the 
tools and processes used to provide the assessments.
Modifications of cost-sharing and other requirements for the TRICARE 
        Pharmacy Benefits Program (sec. 702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
TRICARE pharmacy benefits program by specifying that non-
formulary prescriptions would be available through the national 
mail-order pharmacy program, establishing prescription 
copayments from 2015 through 2024, and requiring that non-
generic prescription maintenance medications must be refilled 
through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national 
mail-order pharmacy program.
Parity in provision of inpatient mental health services with other 
        inpatient medical services (sec. 703)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to remove limits 
on inpatient mental health services, removing a potential 
barrier to receipt of mental health care that does not exist 
for other medical and surgical care.
Availability of breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling under 
        the TRICARE program (sec. 704)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling during 
pregnancy and the postpartum period as a covered benefit for 
TRICARE beneficiaries.
Authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging health care 
        products and services (sec. 705)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1073 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to provide provisional coverage or 
authorization for coverage for certain health care products and 
services that do not meet the hierarchy of reliable evidence as 
prescribed in federal regulations for the TRICARE program. This 
would authorize TRICARE coverage for a drug, device, medical 
treatment, or procedure considered unproven if the drug or 
device cannot be lawfully marketed without Food and Drug 
Administration clearance or approval, that are commonly 
utilized in medical practice, and are, in many cases, 
considered standards of practice by medical practitioners.
Report on status of reductions in TRICARE Prime service areas (sec. 
        706)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
on the status of the reduction of TRICARE Prime services areas 
conducted by the Department of Defense.
Repeal of requirement for ongoing Comptroller General of the United 
        States reviews of viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE 
        Extra (sec. 707)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement for ongoing Comptroller General review of the 
processes, procedures, and analysis used by the Department of 
Defense to determine health care and mental health care 
provider acceptance of the TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra 
benefit.
    The committee notes that the Comptroller General has 
already issued five reports under this mandate, and additional 
reviews and reports are unlikely to develop significantly new 
findings and recommendations for improvement.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 
        matters (sec. 721)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1111, 1113, 1115, and 1116 of title 10, United States 
Code, to modify the method by which the Federal Government 
makes accrual payments into the Department of Defense Medicare-
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (Fund). The provision would 
require the Secretary of Defense and other administering 
secretaries of the uniformed services to make payments into the 
Fund at the end of each month on the basis of an actuarial 
determination of the single level dollar cost per uniformed 
member multiplied by that uniformed services' total monthly end 
strength. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to change the actuarial determination required by 
section 1115 of title 10, United States Code, after the start 
of the fiscal year in the event Congress enacts significant 
changes in benefits after the fiscal year begins. This would 
allow the Secretary to modify the monthly payments into the 
Fund during that fiscal year to account for the change in law, 
and to realize attendant discretionary savings earlier. The 
provision would become effective immediately and would apply to 
payments into the Fund beginning in fiscal year 2016.
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of 
        Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 722)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend the termination 
date of the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30, 
2015, to September 30, 2016. Extension of this fund will allow 
the departments to fully assess the Captain James A. Lovell 
Federal Health Care Center demonstration project, develop and 
submit a final report, and give Congress time to consider and 
assess the effectiveness of the demonstration project.
Department of Defense-wide strategy for contracting for health care 
        professionals for the Department of Defense (sec. 723)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a Department of Defense (DOD)-
wide strategy for contracting for health care professionals for 
the DOD.
Program on medication management in the Department of Defense (sec. 
        724)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of comprehensive, 
uniform medication management in military medical treatment 
facilities and to submit a report describing this program to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

Report on military family planning programs of the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 731)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of the 
access of servicemembers and certain military dependents to 
methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration, contraception counseling, and related 
education, and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report of the 
findings of this study no later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
Interagency working group on the provision of mental health services to 
        members of the National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 732)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to convene an interagency working group to 
review and recommend collaborative approaches to improving the 
provision of mental health services to members of the National 
Guard and Reserves and to submit a report on the findings and 
recommendations of the interagency working group to the 
appropriate congressional committees not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Report on improvements in the identification and treatment of mental 
        health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of 
        the Armed Forces (sec. 733)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not 
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
report evaluating the tools, processes, and best practices to 
improve the identification and treatment of mental health 
conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of the 
Armed Forces.
Report on implementation of recommendations of Institute of Medicine on 
        improvements to certain resilience and prevention programs of 
        the Department of Defense (sec. 734)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and 
advisability of implementing the recommendations of the 
Institute of Medicine regarding improvements to programs of the 
Department of Defense intended to strengthen mental, emotional, 
and behavioral abilities associated with managing adversity, 
adapting to change, recovering, and learning in connection with 
service in the military.
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the Armed Forces 
        who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations 
        required by the Department (sec. 735)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of 
the military departments, to report on the adequacy and 
effectiveness of the policies, procedures, and systems of the 
Department of Defense in providing support to servicemembers 
who experience traumatic injury as a result of a vaccination 
required by the Department of Defense.
Comptroller General of the United States report on Military Health 
        System Modernization Study of the Department of Defense (sec. 
        736)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report 
assessing the Military Health System Modernization Study of the 
Department of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest

Autism spectrum disorder services
    The committee is aware that researchers are making progress 
in diagnosing autism in infants and young children years before 
what was previously thought possible. It is recognized that 
with early intervention, a child may make significant 
progress--potentially increasing language and social skills as 
well as circumventing the development of problematic behaviors. 
In keeping with trends in ongoing research, the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to assist military 
families with autistic children to make sure they can receive 
the full and expanding range of early evidence-based risk 
assessments and diagnostics, early interventions, and 
appropriate treatment approaches. In addition, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sufficient 
priority is given to efforts to provide timely services for 
autistic children of military families living in rural or 
underserved communities.
Behavioral health treatment of developmental disabilities under TRICARE
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to either: 
(1) Include in the defense budget for fiscal year 2016 the 
funding required to provide health care, including behavioral 
health treatment and applied behavior analysis when prescribed 
by a physician or psychologist, under section 1077 of title 10, 
United States Code, for treatment of developmental disabilities 
(as defined by section 102(8) of the Developmental Disabilities 
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
15002(8))), including autism spectrum disorder; or (2) Submit a 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives explaining why such funding is not 
included in the budget for fiscal year 2016.
    The health care described above should be provided by 
licensed or board-certified professionals. However, applied 
behavioral analysis or other behavioral health treatment may be 
provided by authorized employees, contractors, or trainees 
under the supervision of the licensed or board-certified 
professionals when the employee, contractor, or trainee meets 
minimum qualifications, training, or supervision requirements 
established by State law, an accredited national certification 
board, or by the Secretary.
Consolidated TRICARE health plan
    The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's 
proposal to consolidate the current TRICARE Prime, Standard, 
and Extra health plans into a single, consolidated plan 
designed to improve the benefit for authorized beneficiaries. 
However, the committee is concerned that this proposal would 
make significant structural changes to TRICARE that may be 
premature in light of the upcoming report of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 
established by Congress in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). This Commission 
is required to submit its report no later than February 2015. 
The committee is aware that this Commission is considering 
potential changes to the TRICARE benefit as part of its 
charter.
    The committee remains committed to a military health care 
system that provides high quality, cost-effective health care 
to servicemembers, military retirees, and military dependents, 
and looks forward to the Commission's recommendations to 
maintain and improve the TRICARE health care benefit.
Department of Defense collaboration with the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs on the disability claims processing backlog
    The committee recognizes the vitally important ongoing 
collaboration between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as they seek resolution on 
the over half a million pending disability claims, of which 
more than 50 percent are over 125 days old. Therefore, the 
committee encourages further coordination between the 
departments, specifically through: ongoing assignment of DOD 
subject matter experts to the Veterans Benefits Administration 
to review the disability claims backlog and identify cases 
where DOD involvement can assist the VA in processing claims; 
timely implementation of an interoperable electronic health 
record with integrated display of data or a single electronic 
health record; and the deployment of the Health Artifact and 
Image Management Solution. Additionally, the committee urges 
the DOD/VA Health Executive Committee to ensure expanded access 
to the Janus Joint Legacy Viewer to VA regional offices in all 
Veterans Integrated Service Networks regions and major DOD 
medical facilities in order to provide more efficient health 
care services to all veterans.
Prosthetics for servicemembers
    The committee believes that injured servicemembers should 
have access to the best and most clinically appropriate 
prosthetics available. The committee notes that section 724 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit a report to the 
appropriate congressional committees on plans to ensure that 
the most clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are 
made available to injured servicemembers and veterans using 
technological advances as appropriate. The committee looks 
forward to reviewing that report, which is due on June 24, 
2014.
    As part of the existing reporting requirements associated 
with section 724, the committee also directs the Secretary of 
Defense to include in the report the following elements:
          (1) A description of the quality and capability of 
        prosthetics currently available to servicemembers, and 
        an assessment of how the quality and capability of 
        those prosthetics compare to the best prosthetics 
        currently available in the commercial market;
          (2) A description of prosthetics that have been 
        developed with the support of the Defense Advanced 
        Research Projects Agency, and an assessment of how 
        those prosthetics compare to those currently available 
        to servicemembers;
          (3) An assessment of whether any gaps exist between 
        the prosthetics currently provided to servicemembers 
        and what is available in the commercial market; and
          (4) If any such gaps exist, a description of the 
        steps the Secretary of Defense plans to take in order 
        to eliminate those gaps.

Treatment for obesity

    The committee believes that maintaining a healthy weight 
supports overall health by reducing weight-related chronic 
disease risks. By encouraging TRICARE beneficiaries to maintain 
a healthy weight, the Department of Defense (DOD) can limit the 
direct and indirect medical costs associated with obesity. The 
committee notes that section 1079(a)(11) of title 10, United 
States Code, states that treatment of obesity may not be 
provided if obesity is the sole or major condition treated. The 
committee understands that DOD interprets this subsection to 
prohibit coverage for any treatment for obesity other than 
bariatric surgery, including FDA-approved drugs, even in cases 
where co-morbid conditions exist. The committee encourages DOD 
to broaden its interpretation to include coverage for 
clinically appropriate treatments for obesity where other major 
underlying medical conditions exist.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management

Open systems approach to acquisition of systems containing information 
        technology (sec. 801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to adopt an open systems approach 
to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Major 
Automated Information Systems (MAIS), and to other programs the 
primary purpose of which is the acquisition of an information 
technology (IT) system, entering the acquisition process after 
January 1, 2016. The committee believes that a comprehensive 
open systems approach is an important component of IT 
acquisition reform.
    The provision would provide exceptions to this requirement 
for the procurement of commercial end-items and systems, and 
for so-called Quick Reaction Capabilities acquired or developed 
in response to Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements or 
Joint Emergent Operational Needs Statements. The provision also 
would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L;)) to identify all the 
legacy systems as of January 1, 2016, that were or are MDAP or 
MAIS that are not open systems, develop a process, including 
business case analyses, for ranking the priority of such legacy 
systems for migration to open systems, and develop a plan to 
migrate the top half of that prioritized list to open systems 
within 10 years of the date of enactment.
    To support this open systems approach to IT acquisition 
reform, the provision requires the Secretary to: (1) Identify 
the distinct computing environments and mission domains in DOD; 
(2) Form or use existing voluntary and consensus based 
standards bodies to create technical reference architectures 
(TRA) and domain-specific services (DSS) for those computing 
and mission domains; and (3) Ensure that the DOD components are 
using the same TRA and DSS to avoid duplication, competing 
approaches, and lack of interoperability.
    The provision defines an open system approach as an 
integrated technical and business strategy that: (1) Employs a 
modular design and uses widely supported and consensus-based 
standards for interfaces between layers, segments, services, 
and applications; (2) Is subjected to verification testing to 
prove the openness of its interfaces; and (3) Allows components 
to be added, modified, replaced, removed, and supported by 
different vendors over the life-cycle of the system, enabling 
competition and innovation. By computing environments, the 
committee means the computing infrastructure that support 
missions and functions, ranging from embedded, real-time, 
safety-critical systems, to mobile computing, to large-scale 
enterprise or cloud-based environments.
    Traditional, closed system acquisitions typically result in 
vendor lock for the life of the system because the design is 
tightly integrated between system components and between 
software and hardware, and software and interfaces are 
proprietary and unique. In such systems, it is very difficult 
and expensive to modify any component because of the tight 
coupling; and hardware and software coupling inhibits insertion 
of new commodity hardware.
    In open systems, new hardware can be easily inserted, 
software can be extensively reused from one project to another, 
services are common and reused, new capabilities, services, and 
applications can be quickly developed and inexpensively 
integrated, and modifications and upgrades can be incrementally 
executed with low risk. Software is separated or abstracted 
from hardware, allowing substitution of new hardware or the 
application of software from one system to another.
    The committee has over a period of years encouraged DOD, 
including through legislation, to develop meaningful IT 
acquisition reform strategies in recognition of the differences 
between the IT industry and non-IT hardware development 
processes. The committee has been disappointed by the 
inconsistent nature of the DOD's response.
    In a few key areas, such as Navy sonars and submarine ship 
systems, DOD has shown that open systems architecture designs 
can yield significant benefits.
    The Navy is now applying open systems approaches to a large 
number of programs, both large and small. The Air Force is 
using this design approach for unmanned aircraft avionics and 
ground control stations through the Rapid Capabilities Office, 
and to migrate to an open system on the F-22 and the 
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). The Navy and Army 
jointly are building an open systems architecture approach for 
aviation systems through the Future Airborne Capability 
Environment. The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Task Force in USD 
(AT&L;) is applying an open systems approach to the UAS Control 
Segment initiative. The Army's Intelligence and Security 
Command is designing the next-generation version of DCGS to be 
an open system. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Intelligence has for several years been constructing an 
open systems architecture for the entire Defense Intelligence 
Information Enterprise.
    Nonetheless, DOD's approach to open systems remains spotty 
and inconsistent, and very few open systems have actually been 
built.
    Accordingly, the committee concludes that DOD would benefit 
from a policy which establishes a presumption in favor of open 
systems architectures and requires program managers to focus on 
this issue early in the acquisition cycle.
Recharacterization of changes to Major Automated Information System 
        programs (sec. 802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
requirements applicable to a Major Automated Information System 
program that fails to achieve a full deployment decision within 
5 years after the Milestone A decision or selection of the 
preferred alternative for the program.
    In lieu of a critical change report, failure to achieve a 
full deployment decision within 5 years would be determined to 
be a significant change with the attendant notification to the 
congressional defense committees required for all significant 
changes.
Process map requirement for milestone approval of defense business 
        system programs (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
business process reengineering before milestone decisions for 
Major Automated Information System programs.
Governance of Joint Information Environment (sec. 804)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to install a stronger management element 
and set of controls on the Joint Information Environment (JIE) 
initiative. Department of Defense (DOD) officials describe JIE 
as the most significant and far-reaching transformation of the 
Department's information networks ever attempted, and yet the 
Department is not managing the effort as an acquisition 
program. The committee is prepared to accept, for the time 
being, the Department's arguments for not designating JIE 
formally as an acquisition program. However, the committee is 
not satisfied with the level of rigor in DOD's planning and 
oversight of this initiative. In addition, the committee is 
concerned that the management elements in existence for JIE are 
imbalanced, with insufficient representation of those who must 
execute warfighting missions through the JIE networks and those 
who must operate and defend those networks against cyber 
attacks.
    To address these concerns, the provision would require the 
Secretary of Defense to assign a senior military or civilian 
official to serve as an assistant to the Chief Information 
Officer (CIO) as the JIE Coordinator. The JIE Coordinator shall 
have expertise in information technology planning and program 
management, command and control at the Joint Force level, and 
U.S. Cyber Command's (CYBERCOM) concept of operation for 
operating and defending DOD information systems and networks.
    The provision would require that the CIO assign to the JIE 
Coordinator responsibility for balancing the priorities and 
risks between efficient network acquisition and operation, 
effective execution of military missions, and effective network 
defense. The JIE Coordinator would also:
          (1) Define the features of the existing network 
        architecture that are critical for the transition to 
        the objective JIE architecture (the as is condition);
          (2) Develop the desired architecture for JIE (the to 
        be state);
          (3) Develop and update an integrated master schedule 
        for the migration from the as is to the to be JIE;
          (4) With the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
        Evaluation, develop and update cost estimates and 
        performance measures for the migration to JIE;
          (5) Track conformance and deviation from schedules, 
        costs, and performance metrics;
          (6) Identify gaps in the budgets and plans of the DOD 
        components that collectively make up the resources for 
        the JIE to determine requirements for development or 
        procurement actions to address those gaps; and
          (7) Oversee the development of open system 
        architectures for the joint warfighting missions of the 
        Department to complement the Defense Intelligence 
        Information Enterprise open architecture for JIE being 
        developed under the direction of the JIE Executive 
        Committee (EXCOM) by the Office of the Under Secretary 
        of Defense for Intelligence for the intelligence 
        mission of the Department.
    The provision would require the CIO, the commanders of the 
combatant commands, and the heads of the cyber components of 
the military services to assist the Coordinator by making 
available to the Coordinator experts from across the Department 
with experience in joint planning and operations at a combatant 
command, serving in the Office of the CIO or an office of the 
CIO of a military service, and on the staff of CYBERCOM or the 
cyber component of a military service. In addition, the team 
would include experts in information technology and cloud 
computing acquisition.
    The JIE EXCOM currently is tri-chaired by the DOD CIO, the 
Joint Staff J6, and the Commander of CYBERCOM. The provision 
would require the addition of the J3s from the Joint Staff and 
CYBERCOM, and the addition of representatives from the 
operational communities on the working groups staffing the JIE 
EXCOM to ensure representation of warfighter interests and 
perspectives.
    The provision would require the CIO to select from among 
competing open source candidates a standard language for 
representing cyber threat information, such as the Structured 
Threat Information Expression (STIX), Open Indicators of 
Compromise (Open IOC), Cyber Observable Expression (CYBOX), and 
Trusted Automated Exchange of Indicator Information (TAXII).
    Finally, the provision would require the CIO to identify 
and prioritize the applications in use in the Department that 
the CIO assesses are candidates for migration to a cloud 
computing environment, and to determine which applications can 
and cannot, without modification or replacement, be shifted to 
a cloud computing environment, along with a time-phased plan to 
either modify or replace those applications that are not cloud-
compatible. The committee notes that a significant percentage 
of DOD computing applications cannot be virtualized or 
otherwise are not cloud-compatible, and that the cost and time 
required to modify such applications are substantial. Without 
an understanding of what applications can be readily migrated, 
and a plan to modify or replace those that cannot, neither the 
Department nor potential commercial cloud providers will be 
able to plan effectively.

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

    In the last several decades, the commercial marketplace has 
developed a process of rapid innovation and technology refresh 
for information technologies that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has tried to leverage but often failed due to a 
cumbersome acquisition process.
    In response, DOD has received new authorities from Congress 
and developed on its own significant policies and guidance for 
the development, acquisition, and integration of information 
technologies.
    Legislation that supports a new approach includes, but is 
not limited to:
          (1) The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
        (P.L. 103-355), which encouraged executive agencies to 
        seek and acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental 
        items other than commercial items to address 
        requirements;
          (2) The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106; 
        formerly the Information Technology Management Reform 
        Act of 1996), which instituted a number of changes to 
        acquisition practices emphasizing performance- and 
        results-based management to enforce accountability for 
        information resources; authorized the Administrator for 
        Federal Procurement Policy to conduct a pilot program 
        to test alternative approaches for information 
        technology acquisition by executive agencies; and 
        directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to 
        ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that 
        information technology acquisition processes were 
        simple, clear, and understandable and that such 
        processes addressed risk management, incremental 
        acquisitions, and timely incorporation of commercial 
        information technology; and
          (3) Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization 
        Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84), which directed 
        the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a new 
        acquisition process for information technology systems. 
        The process was to take a modular, open-systems 
        approach and include early and continual involvement of 
        the user, multiple, rapidly executed increments or 
        releases of capability, and early, successive 
        prototyping to support an evolutionary approach.
    The committee notes that the Department has issued guidance 
and policies to support and implement these authorities 
including, but not limited to:
          (1) The interim DOD Instruction 5000.02, on Operation 
        of the Defense Acquisition System (dated November 25, 
        2013). This instruction specifically highlights the 
        importance of compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 
        1996 (P.L. 104-106); and
          (2) The Department's ongoing Better Buying Power 
        initiative, which since 2010 has focused on providing 
        greater efficiencies toward an affordable, value-added 
        military capability to the warfighter. Among other 
        areas, this initiative has concentrated on 
        affordability, cost control throughout the product 
        lifecycle, and incentivized productivity and 
        innovation.
    From the nonexhaustive list of laws, policies, and guidance 
listed above, it is clear that both the legislative and the 
executive branches have recognized the benefits of agile, 
incremental acquisition of information technology.
    However, from the record of successful Major Automated 
Information Systems, it is less clear that the DOD has realized 
the benefits from these laws, policies, and guidance. The 
committee notes approvingly that the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L;)) has 
initiated a review of information technology acquisition policy 
as part of his broader effort to reform and streamline defense 
acquisition.
    As part of that process, the committee recommends a 
provision that requires the USD (AT&L;) to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees by July 31, 2014 on the 
implementation of the acquisition process for information 
technology detailing the applicable implementing regulations, 
instructions, or policies. The report shall also explain any 
legislative criteria not yet implemented and a schedule for 
implementing such criteria along with any proposed deviations.

Revision of requirement for acquisition programs to maintain defense 
        research facility records (sec. 806)

    The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 
requirement for Department of Defense programs to maintain 
defense research facility records, as established by section 
2364 of title 10, United States Code.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment of items 
for the United States Special Operations Command that are 
currently under development by the Department of Defense or 
available from the commercial sector and are urgently needed to 
avoid significant risk of loss of life or mission failure, or 
needed to avoid collateral damage where no collateral damage is 
necessary for mission success.

Consideration of corrosion control in preliminary design review (sec. 
        808)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics to ensure that Department of Defense Instruction 
5000.02 and other applicable guidance require full 
consideration during preliminary design review of metals, 
materials, and technologies that effectively prevent or control 
corrosion over the life cycle of the product.

Repeal of extension of Comptroller General report on inventory (sec. 
        809)

    The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the 
reporting requirements of section 803(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).

Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 
                            and Limitations


Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear 
        defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 
        821)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and 
reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the 
Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization 
for multiyear contract authority.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or 
greater than $500.0 million, to certify that certain 
requirements will be met by the proposed contract no later than 
March 1st of the year in which the legislative authority to 
enter into such contract is requested. The Secretary must send 
a notification of the findings regarding the same requirements 
30 days before award of the contract.
    The committee finds value in both the certification and the 
notification, but believes that the timing is reversed. The 
recommended provision would reorganize the timeline so the 
Secretary provides the initial findings of the enumerated 
requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and 
then certifies the completed findings prior to contract award.
    The committee believes this will provide more reasonable 
and complete information.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend a 
pilot program that provides a bridge between the science and 
technology (S&T;) portion of a contract awarded under the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation's Broad Agency Announcement 
(BAA) authority, and the award of a contract under a new 
acquisition for advanced component development or prototyping. 
The provision also expands the authority, to include a bridge 
to the production of technologies resulting from the successful 
research and development programs.
    The committee believes that by allowing the BAA-based 
contract to include a contract line item or an option for 
potential work that bridges the gap between S&T; and advanced 
component development or procurement, contracts can be issued 
on BAAs that carry the most promising work through to 
integrated component evaluation, demonstration, validation, and 
production without having to restart the acquisition process.
    It is the committee's expectations that extending the 
authority under this section will speed the transition of S&T; 
into fielded systems pursuant to the goals of Department of 
Defense Instruction 5000.2, ``Operation of the Defense 
Acquisition System''.

Conditional temporary extension of comprehensive subcontracting plans 
        (sec. 823)

    The committee recommends a provision that extends the 
comprehensive subcontracting plan test program to September 30, 
2015, if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, 
Technology and Logistics cannot transition all active 
participants to individual small business subcontracting plans 
that meet all relevant requirements contained in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation before December 31, 2014.
    Participants transitioned shall also enhance subcontracting 
opportunities for small business concerns.

Sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit electronic parts 
        (sec. 824)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
sourcing requirements related to avoiding counterfeit 
electronic parts.

Authority for Defense Contract Audit Agency to interview contractor 
        employees in connection with examination of contractor records 
        (sec. 825)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (a)(1) of section 2313 of title 10, United States 
Code, to grant the Defense Contract Audit Agency specific 
authority to interview contractor employees similar to the 
authority granted to the Comptroller General in subsection 
(c)(1) of that same section.

Enhancement of whistleblower protection for employees of grantees (sec. 
        826)

    The committee recommends a provision that would enhance the 
whistleblower protections for employees of grantees.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
reimbursement of costs incurred by a contractor in connection 
with a congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue 
that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a 
disposition.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
Department of Defense missions in the United States Africa 
Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR) with a limited 
procurement authority giving a preference to products and 
services produced in the AFRICOM AOR.

Requirement to provide photovoltaic devices from United States sources 
        (sec. 829)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
additional acquisition opportunities for the Department of 
Defense with respect to photovoltaic devices.

 Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs


Program manager development strategy (sec. 841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
enhancing the role of Department of Defense program managers in 
developing and carrying out defense acquisition programs.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance 
for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and 
accountability of program managers for the program development 
period of defense acquisition programs.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would address the 
tenure and accountability of program managers for the program 
execution period.
    The provision would require each such program manager to 
enter into a performance agreement with the milestone decision 
authority (MDA) that establishes the expected parameters of 
performance, including the commitment of the MDA that adequate 
funding and resources are available and will be provided, and 
assurance of the program manager that the parameters are 
achievable.
    The provision would also require that program managers be 
given authority comparable to the authority given to private 
sector program managers and that they be assigned to a program 
until the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow 
waiver authority.

Removal of requirements related to waiver of preliminary design review 
        and post-preliminary design review before Milestone B (sec. 
        844)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add an 
alternative to one of the certification requirements 
established by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, 
for major defense acquisition programs entering the acquisition 
system at Milestone B.

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

    The committee notes the valuable role that the Director of 
Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E;) plays in providing 
oversight and independent reviews to Congress to ensure weapon 
systems are suitable and effective in combat.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees on the extent, if any, to 
which major weapon systems have been required to conduct 
operational testing in excess of levels necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with program requirements validated by 
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and effectiveness and 
suitability for combat, as required by section 2399 of title 
10, United States Code.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


Extension to United States Transportation Command of authorities 
        relating to prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 
        861)

    The committee recommends a provision that would include 
United States Transportation Command in the expanded 
authorities granted by section 831 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-066).

Reimbursement of Department of Defense for assistance provided to 
        nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media producers (sec. 
        862)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the reimbursement to the Department of Defense for assistance 
provided to nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media 
producers.

Three-year extension of authority for Joint Urgent Operational Needs 
        Fund (sec. 863)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 3 
years the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund, which is 
available to the Secretary of Defense for providing equipment, 
supplies, services, training, and facilities to resolve urgent 
operational needs.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army Financial Management Optimization Initiative

     The General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) is the 
Army's web-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution. 
GFEBS leverages commercial off-the-shelf business enterprise 
software (SAP) to enable the Army to compile and share 
accurate, up-to-date financial and accounting data across the 
entire active Army, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard. 
GFEBS replaces or absorbs more than 80 legacy accounting and 
asset management systems to standardize business processes and 
transactional input across the Army.
    Seeking to optimize GFEBS utilization, the Secretary of the 
Army signed a memorandum on September 11, 2012, directing the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and 
Comptroller (ASA(FM&C;)) to conduct a doctrine, organization, 
training, material, leadership, personnel, facilities (DOTMLPF) 
review of all financial management processes, policies, 
organization, and workforce composition.
    This review, known as the Army Financial Management 
Optimization (AFMO) initiative is intended to examine and 
ultimately adjust the roles, missions, and functions of Army 
financial management (FM) units to optimize the capabilities of 
the Army's enterprise-wide FM system, maximize efficiency, 
eliminate or mitigate capability gaps, and meet DOD-wide 
auditability requirements. The AFMO Task Force made numerous 
recommendations, including a plan to ``consolidate selected 
financial management activities'' into ``Command-Aligned Hubs'' 
(CAH). A pilot program to test this CAH approach will begin 
October 1, 2014.
    The committee applauds the Army's efforts. But as the Army 
works to reduce costs and achieve auditable financial 
statements, it is important that the evaluation of the CAH 
pilot program be analyzed not just from an Army perspective but 
also from a DOD-wide perspective.
    The committee therefore directs the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer to conduct a review of the CAH pilot program for any 
DOD-wide impacts and report findings of the review to the 
congressional defense committees within 120 days of completion 
of the pilot program.

Business systems modernization

     The Department of Defense (DOD) business systems 
environment supports critical functions such as human resources 
management, logistics, and acquisition that directly impact the 
lives of our fighting men and women.
    Nevertheless, this environment, which includes over 2,000 
systems, is overly complex and error-prone, and is 
characterized by little standardization, multiple systems that 
perform the same tasks, the same data being stored in multiple 
systems, and the need for data to be entered manually into 
multiple systems. The President's budget requests over $6.0 
billion in fiscal year 2015 funds to support its business 
systems.
    10 U.S. Code 2222 requires all business systems to comply 
with the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) and 
complete sufficient Business Process Reengineering before the 
systems can be certified and approved to obligate available 
funds.
    However, the ability to meet the intent of this statute is 
limited by the quality and utility of DOD's BEA and business 
process reengineering efforts. Without a meaningful 
architecture and effective means for conducting business 
process reengineering assessments, DOD will not be able to 
cost-effectively achieve its business systems modernization 
goals in a timely manner.
    Accordingly, the committee requests the Government 
Accountability Office to report on (1) How useful the current 
BEA is in guiding and constraining DOD's business 
transformation initiatives and whether more cost-effective 
alternative approaches exist to meet DOD's needs; and (2) 
Evaluate the effectiveness of DOD's approach to conducting 
business process reengineering assessments.
    The report should consider including business system 
investments covering a range of sizes (costs) and risk levels, 
among other selection factors, as part of its study. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General to issue this report 
by February 1, 2015.

Clarification on the use of energy savings performance contracts 

    The committee notes that section 8287 of title 42, United 
States Code, provides authority for energy savings performance 
contracts (ESPC). The committee believes that ESPC are a tool 
that has proven effective in reducing both cost and energy use 
by leveraging third-party private financing.
    The committee has attempted to clarify when it is 
appropriate to use such contracts in both section 828 of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (Public Law 111-383) and section 2825 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239).
    While ESPC are not available for constructing new buildings 
or facilities, the committee notes that in some cases, the 
installation of equipment meeting the standard of section 8287 
requires the modification or repair of existing facilities, or 
the construction of facilities or infrastructure that provide 
necessary support to the primary function of the operating 
equipment. In such cases, ESPC may be used.
    The committee applauds the Army for their aggressive use of 
ESPC. According to testimony by the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment on April 2, 
2014, ``The Army has the most robust ESPC program in the 
Federal Government. The ESPC program has more than 180 Task 
Orders at over 75 installations, representing $1.32 billion in 
private sector investment. . . . We have additional ESPC 
projects in development, totaling over $400.0 million in 
private investment.''
    The committee understands that the Army's use of ESPC has 
resulted in energy savings of almost 9 percent of their fiscal 
year 2013 facilities energy consumption and an annual utility 
cost avoidance of more than $168.0 million.
    The committee notes that while the Navy and the Air Force 
have also made use of ESPC, they have done so on a much smaller 
scale. The committee urges the Navy and the Air Force to adopt 
the Army's best practices wherever possible to similarly 
increase their use of ESPC.

Comptroller General of the United States report on counterfeit or 
        suspect counterfeit electronic parts 

    The committee remains concerned about the counterfeit 
electronic parts in the Department of Defense (DOD) supply 
chain. While efforts have been made to secure the supply chain, 
vulnerabilities still exist.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide the congressional defense committees a report 
within 270 days of enactment of this Act.
    The required report should contain an analysis of reports 
relating to counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts 
submitted to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program 
(GIDEP) from January 2011 to present, including: (a) The number 
of reports filed by original component manufacturers, 
authorized distributors, independent distributors, and original 
equipment manufacturers; and (b) The source of supply, i.e., 
original component manufacturers, authorized distributors, and 
independent distributors, for parts identified in reports as 
counterfeit or suspect counterfeit.
    The required report should also contain a description of 
DOD efforts to work with the defense industrial base to improve 
contractor systems for the detection and avoidance of 
counterfeit parts. Further, the report should describe 
government or industry practices that detect counterfeit or 
suspect counterfeit parts prior to their entry into the DOD 
supply chain but do not fall under the GIDEP reporting 
requirement, and make recommendations on how to best ensure 
such cases are reported in the future.

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

    The committee notes that successful execution of Department 
of Defense (DOD) military missions depends on a properly 
equipped and supplied force. Maintaining accurate, reliable, 
and accountable systems of record for mission critical assets, 
including equipment, real property, inventory, and supplies, is 
imperative.
    The availability and accuracy of cost information for use 
by Congress and DOD executives is critical in making decisions 
about allocating scarce resources, authorizing and modifying 
programs, and evaluating program performance.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a review of the DOD's plans to 
achieve audit readiness with respect to its property, plant, 
and equipment, and to submit a report on the findings to the 
congressional defense committees within 1 year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    The required report shall, at a minimum, include an 
assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of requiring 
asset valuations to be conducted as part of the statutory 
requirement for audit readiness by September 30, 2017.

Government Accountability Office review of Nunn-McCurdy reporting 
        requirements applicable to major automated information systems 
        experiencing cost or schedule overruns 

    The committee notes that Chapter 144A of title 10, United 
States Code, enacted as section 816 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, establishes a tiered 
system for reporting cost and schedule overruns for Major 
Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs, similar to the 
system established for reporting cost and schedule overruns on 
Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) under Chapter 144 of 
title 10--commonly referred to as the Nunn-McCurdy reporting 
requirements.
    Under Chapter 144A, as under Chapter 144, programs 
experiencing a critical change to program requirements are 
subject not only to congressional notification but also to a 
program evaluation assessing: the projected cost and schedule 
for completing the program if current requirements are not 
modified, the projected cost and schedule for completing the 
program based on reasonable modification of such requirements, 
and the rough order of magnitude of the cost and schedule for 
any reasonable alternative system or capability.
    No funds may be obligated for a MAIS program experiencing a 
critical change unless and until the program manager for the 
program provides a written certification to Congress that: the 
program is essential to the national security or to the 
efficient management of the Department of Defense (DOD), there 
is no alternative to the program that will provide equal or 
greater capability at less cost, the new estimates of the 
costs, schedule, and performance parameters have been 
determined, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable, and the 
management structure for the program is adequate to manage and 
control program costs.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to review DOD 
implementation of the requirements of Chapter 144A and report 
to the congressional defense committees on any findings and 
recommendations from that review.

Joint Information Environment 

    The Department of Defense (DOD) is undertaking an ambitious 
effort to realign and restructure how its many information 
technology (IT) networks are constructed, operated, and 
defended with the goal of providing better information access 
to the user, improving the security of its networks and data, 
and being more responsive to constantly changing technological 
and operational factors.
    This IT network alignment initiative is referred to as the 
Joint Information Environment (JIE) and is led by the DOD Chief 
Information Officer (CIO). According to the CIO, DOD plans on 
utilizing the Services' existing programs, initiatives, and 
technical refresh to deploy or migrate to JIE standards using 
specific implementation guidance.
    While a shared IT infrastructure across the DOD would 
improve mission effectiveness, providing our military 
commanders and civilian leaders with the most timely and 
accurate data and information, DOD does not have a strong track 
record implementing large-scale IT initiatives.
    In particular, after 10 years and at least $379.0 million, 
the DOD has still yet to develop a meaningful IT enterprise 
architecture--the blueprint for defense system 
interoperability--that has been fully federated (extended) to 
the components.
    In light of this, the committee directs the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the JIE initiative. At 
a minimum, the GAO shall (1) ascertain the scope, costs, and 
implementation plans for JIE, and (2) assess the extent to 
which DOD is executing effective executive oversight and 
governance of JIE.
    The committee expects GAO to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014.

Next Generation Enterprise Network

    The committee notes that the Navy is investing considerable 
resources in the planning, development, and implementation of 
the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN), which will serve 
to replace the current Navy Marine Corps Intranet in supplying 
information technology (IT) and data service to the Navy and 
the Marine Corps.
    The committee conceptually supports the Navy's planned 
transition and acquisition strategy that is intended to procure 
IT enterprise services, including network operating centers, 
desktop applications, service desks, and computer server farms, 
in a series of individually competed short-term contracts. If 
realized, such an acquisition strategy would allow for frequent 
recompetition allowing the Navy to acquire higher performance 
capabilities at reduced costs.
    The committee is concerned, however, that the integrated 
nature of IT systems, and the tendency for bureaucratic and 
cost barriers to prevent displacement of incumbent technologies 
and contractors, will prevent the Navy from achieving this 
desired competitive and flexible acquisition environment.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to report to the congressional defense committees by 
September 30, 2014 on the methods and strategies it will use to 
ensure it can continually re-compete contracts for hardware, 
network services, enterprise services, and other capabilities 
under the NGEN program individually, and without undue 
advantage to incumbent technologies and contractors.

Performance Based Logistics

    In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified 
performance-based logistics (PBL) as a preferred weapon system 
support strategy. Within DOD, PBL is the purchase of 
performance outcomes, such as system availability and 
readiness, rather than the purchase of individual elements of 
logistics support--such as parts, repairs, and engineering 
support.
    DOD guidance recommends that business case analysis be used 
to guide decisionmaking regarding the implementation of PBL.
    The committee supports the use of a business case analysis 
and believes that the Services should have effective internal 
controls to ensure that the analyses are prepared and that they 
provide a consistent and comprehensive assessment of costs and 
improvements to readiness.
    The committee is aware of a number of PBL, including the 
Navy's use for aviation tires and the Air Force's use for the 
sustainment of the C-17, as well as discussions to expand PBL 
to sustainment of the F117 engine fleet.
    Reportedly, since the award of the PBL in 2000, the Navy 
has achieved approximately $46.0 million in savings in 
inventory reductions while producing on-time delivery 
requirements of 99 percent and a reduction in delivery time 
from 60 days to 36 hours inside the United States and to 66 
hours outside the United States.
    The C-17 PBL reduced cost-per-flight hour, reduced engine 
overhaul turn-around time, and increased the sustained mission 
capable rate, saving the Air Force hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
    To better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of 
PBL, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide the 
congressional defense committees with a plan for the future use 
of PBL reflecting how the use of PBL can improve execution, 
efficiency, cost, and readiness of applicable programs.

Report on Statement of Budgetary Activity to assess progress toward 
        auditability 

    The committee believes that a valuable means of 
demonstrating Department of Defense (DOD) progress towards 
auditability is for the Secretary of Defense to report on the 
aggregate funding included in a Schedule of Budgetary Activity 
by service branch and defense agency and appropriation, and 
also the aggregate funding not included in such Schedules of 
Budgetary Activity.
    As the Schedules of Budgetary Activity are an interim step 
toward a complete Statement of Budgetary Resources that 
complies with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it is 
valuable for the committee to have available a means of 
assessing DOD progress toward the statutory requirement to 
produce auditable financial statements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report annually, 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, 
on the aggregate DOD funding included in Schedules of Budgetary 
Activity.
    The report should include the aggregate level of funding 
and also the percentage of total funding that is included in 
DOD's Treasury certified Statement of Budgetary Resources 
Financial Statement that is not included in a Schedule of 
Budgetary Activities.

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

    The committee believes that a healthy defense industrial 
base must include a large number of vibrant, growing, and 
technologically-advanced small defense companies. Small defense 
companies can provide a source of competition that drives down 
costs and increases performance.
    The committee is concerned that sequestration and the lack 
of fiscal certainty have created a difficult business 
environment, particularly for small companies that contract 
with the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee believes 
that DOD should continue its efforts to improve the health of 
the defense industrial base, including small businesses. DOD 
should continue to proactively seek to contract with small 
defense companies, when appropriate, and the committee expects 
DOD to strive to meet its small business contracting goals as 
set forth in 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)) 
annex.
    Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report setting forth the following:
          (1) The impact of defense sequestration on small 
        business concerns of the defense industrial base and 
        any associated national security consequences; and
          (2) A determination if the effects of defense 
        sequestration have made DOD more reliant on sole source 
        procurements or reduced the pool of small business 
        offerors for critical weapon systems components.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and related 
        matters (sec. 901)

    The committee recommends a provision that would combine the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer position and the Chief 
Information Officer position into the Chief Management Officer 
position, redesignate the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the 
Chief Operating Officer, eliminate the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense title except for Principal Deputy Under Secretaries 
of Defense established by law, and redesignate the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs 
as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations, 
Energy, and Environment.
    Additionally, this proposal seeks to make changes to 
Chapter 4 of Title 10, United States Code, in order to 
streamline the establishment provisions for certain officials 
and ensure that policymaking requirements are provided for 
separately from establishment provisions and to make other 
clerical and conforming changes.
    Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) designated the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Chief Management Officer, established an Under Secretary of 
Defense-level Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) to assist 
the Deputy Secretary, and named the under secretaries of the 
military departments as their organizations' chief management 
officers.
    This legislation was intended to strengthen the management 
of DOD's business operations and was the result of a series of 
recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
and several think tanks that argued the need for a senior 
official at DOD with significant authority and experience to 
focus attention on enterprise-wide business transformation and 
sustain progress at the highest levels of DOD.
    The framework enacted into law was a compromise between 
those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who 
advocated the creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense 
focused solely on management, and those who asserted that no 
reorganization was necessary to address DOD's persistent 
business challenges.
    Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly 
to implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of 
integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD's business 
operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by 
the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the 
new management structure put in place by the Fiscal Year 2008 
NDAA was properly scoped and defined to enable DOD to make 
significant progress in breaking down its functional 
stovepipes.
    The committee believes that while significant progress has 
been made, it has become increasingly clear that additional 
changes to the structure of the DCMO position are needed to 
position DOD for success in its business mission.
    Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-
equal of the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the 
independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and 
drive implementation of transformational change and improvement 
in the Department's business operations.
    The provision would therefore combine the DCMO position 
with the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) position 
and designate that individual as the Department's Chief 
Management Officer (CMO). The CMO would be subject to the 
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense 
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, previously designated as the CMO, would now be 
designated as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the 
Department.
    The new CMO position would be directly after the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
and service secretaries in the order precedence and before the 
remaining Under Secretaries of Defense. The position would be 
assigned two Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense 
(PDUSD) to assist in the execution of their duties, a PDUSD for 
Management and a PDUSD for Information.
    The proposed CMO position would unify roles and functions 
traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by 
making it a Senate-confirmed position again. The CMO would 
exercise authority, direction, and control over the Information 
Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency 
(NSA). The bifurcation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence into the ASD(NII) and the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) led to the USD(I) supervising 
the NSA IAD, despite the fact that the CIO, not the USD(I), is 
responsible for information systems security, which is the 
mission of the IAD.
    A strengthened CIO will provide better management and 
oversight of information technology, systems, and operations 
within DOD, including over the U.S. Cyber Command.
    Combining these offices also should produce some savings in 
overhead.
    The committee recognizes and is encouraged by the 
significant progress that has been made to date on the use of 
energy by the Department since the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs was first 
established.
    The committee is also encouraged by the DOD Energy Policy 
(4180.01) published on April 16, 2014, and strongly intends for 
the new position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, 
Installations, and Environment to: (1) Establish DOD energy 
policy, goals, initiatives, oversight, and budgetary matters 
for operational energy, installation energy, and environmental 
matters including climate change, contingency basing, and 
energy security; (2) Establish DOD energy boards and councils 
as necessary to support DOD energy policies, plans, and 
programs; (3) Oversee DOD energy planning, use, management, and 
implementation; (4) Develop policy, guidelines, and provide 
oversight for development, certification, qualification, field 
demonstration, and ongoing purchases of alternative fuels for 
operational platforms and demonstration of energy technologies; 
(5) Support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in 
the requirements process regarding energy in accordance with 
the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
Development System Manual; (6) Promote energy-related issues, 
programs, and accounts as an advisor to the Defense Acquisition 
Board and other key acquisition bodies; (7) Advise the CJCS and 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding the role of 
energy in the DOD planning process across the full range of 
military operations; (8) Oversee identification and mitigation 
of energy-related risks and commercial grid challenges for DOD 
infrastructure and missions in conjunction with other DOD risk 
management and readiness programs; (9) Ensure investments are 
made in facility infrastructure to reduce energy demand, 
increase on-site distribution (including renewables), and 
enhance the power resiliency on installations; (10) Oversee 
facility energy technology programs and identify and support 
the demonstration of energy technologies to address 
installation needs; and (11) Collaborate with other 
governmental organizations and the private sector on energy-
related matters.
    Additionally, the committee maintains that the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment 
may communicate views directly to the Secretary of Defense and 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval 
or concurrence of any other official within the DOD.
     Additionally, the new position of the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment will 
serve as the Department's designated Senior Real Property 
Officer and be responsible for providing budgetary, policy, and 
management oversight of the DOD's real property portfolio; 
managing the Base Realignment and Closure activities for 
domestic installations and facility consolidation and 
realignment efforts overseas; and managing environmental 
compliance, conservation, and clean-up programs.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (sec. 
        902)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 138 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the 
position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 
as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs, whose principal duty would be the overall supervision 
of manpower and reserve affairs of the Department of Defense.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters


Modifications to requirements for accounting for members of the Armed 
        Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as 
        missing (sec. 911)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 76 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
defense agency within the Department of Defense, headed by a 
Director, to have responsibility over the Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action accounting community. The provision would 
create a new section 1501a of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into public-private 
partnerships for the purposes of facilitating the accounting of 
missing persons. The provision would require the Secretary to 
assign or detail to the defense agency a full-time senior 
medical examiner to provide medical oversight of the 
identification process, to establish identification and 
laboratory policy, and to advise the Director on forensic 
scientific disciplines. Finally, the provision would require 
the Secretary to establish and maintain a single centralized 
database and case management system containing information on 
all missing persons for whom a file has been established.

                       Items of Special Interest


Headquarters Reductions of the Department of Defense

    The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to reduce 
management headquarters in the Department of Defense (DOD) by 
20 percent. These reductions are intended to reverse the growth 
in such headquarters and garner efficiencies that can be used 
to decrease overhead in favor of mission needs.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget materials submitted by the 
President projects that DOD will save $5.3 billion through 2019 
by such reductions. While a significant sum, this is a tiny 
fraction of DOD's overall spending and the committee is 
increasingly convinced that DOD's planned efforts will not 
result in as much of a reduction as they should be able to 
achieve.
    Moreover, in May 2013, the Comptroller General reported 
that the geographic combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central 
Command (CENTCOM) which led U.S. efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, had grown by 50 percent over the past decade. 
Ongoing work by the Comptroller General being conducted for 
this committee has found even larger growth at CENTCOM, as well 
as the functional combatant commands, the service secretariats 
and service staffs, the Joint Staff, defense-wide combat 
support agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    In general, the Comptroller General has found a lack of 
discipline in setting and validating requirements for 
individual headquarters, as well as poor visibility into the 
total resources being devoted across organizations to similar 
functions and missions. As a result, the committee lacks 
confidence that DOD has a clear grasp of the personnel it needs 
to conduct its missions or that current plans will reverse the 
extensive growth of the past decade.
    To achieve significant savings, the Secretary of Defense 
must focus on consolidating and eliminating organizations and 
personnel that perform similar functions and missions.
    In March 2012, the Comptroller General reported 
longstanding problems in the way that DOD tracks its 
headquarters spending and found that DOD could likely achieve 
additional savings by consolidating or eliminating 
organizations that are geographically close or managed by the 
same executive agent nearby and by expanding the span of 
control or by centralizing functions and services, such as 
administrative and support.
    In January 2014, the Defense Business Board (DBB) reported 
that such de-layering will be critical to achieving real 
savings and would improve efficiency by reducing layers of 
review and coordination.
    The DBB concluded that DOD's current efforts might generate 
savings near term but would not be the most efficient approach 
in the longer term for a number of reasons. The DBB estimated 
that DOD could save up to $8.0 billion annually if they took a 
more systematic approach.
    The committee is concerned about DOD's efforts to stem the 
apparent growth in support functions such as, among others, 
budget, policy, legal, and personnel management across the 
organizations.
    Of particular note is that much of the growth in 
headquarters appears to be driven by the need to support the 
growing bureaucracy itself; for instance, the personal staff of 
some combatant commanders exceeds one-fifth of their entire 
organization while others have a much lower proportion of their 
personnel in the front office. In addition, some mission-
related functions, such as intelligence and planning, also 
appear to have grown dramatically.
    To assist in ongoing congressional oversight and ensure 
that the Secretary of Defense achieves meaningful and durable 
savings in its headquarters overhead, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General to identify: (1) Trends in specific budget 
lines reflecting the growth in personnel, mission and other 
resources at headquarters units; (2) Trends in personnel, 
mission, and resource growth across functional areas across 
related organizations; (3) The extent DOD and the military 
services have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate 
overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions; (4) The 
extent to which DOD and the military services have eliminated 
both the civilian billets or contractor positions and the 
associated funding with those positions; (5) Whether efforts to 
date constitute a systematic and comprehensive approach; (6) 
Actual savings to date from announced reductions in personnel, 
mission, or other resources since fiscal year 2012; (7) any 
additional steps DOD should take to realize substantial 
additional savings; (8) Whether captured, planned, or 
recommended reductions warrant an evaluation of the rank of the 
individual heading each relevant organization; and (9) Other 
matters the Comptroller General determines are appropriate as 
this review is conducted.
    The organizations that shall be considered in this cross-
cutting review are the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretariats and staff, the 
geographic and functional combatant commands and their service 
component commands, and the defense-wide combat support 
agencies.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the 
preliminary results of the study no later than October 2014 and 
may report the results of the study in one or more reports as 
deemed appropriate to the Comptroller General as agreed to by 
the committee.

Plan on satisfying emergent warfighter needs

    The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
capture and institutionalize the lessons learned from more than 
a decade of wartime rapid acquisition and to streamline and 
consolidate the organizations, capabilities, and resources 
devoted to fulfilling urgent and emergent operational needs.
    The committee supports the efforts by the former Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, to organize DOD 
organizations and capabilities to respond quickly to emerging 
warfighter requirements as outlined in his September 6, 2013, 
memorandum.
    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a study and report on the 
effectiveness of the processes used by DOD to generate and 
satisfy urgent operational needs. The resulting Defense Science 
Board (DSB) report offered a number of improvements to this 
process.
    This DSB report predicted that as the push of wartime needs 
subsides, the ability to rapidly field critical equipment and 
weapons systems will decline. The committee believes that DOD 
should maintain this important capability.
    While it is true that unanticipated and vital warfighter 
requirements, including Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) 
and Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON), will continue to 
arise that must be addressed quickly, the committee believes 
that further consolidation of the organizations and processes 
are warranted.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L;)) in 
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Intelligence), the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, and the Director 
of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, to 
present the congressional defense committees with a plan to 
consolidate any enduring functions of the organizations, 
capabilities, and funding associated with the following 
organizations: the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization; the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell; the Warfighter 
Senior Integration Group; the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance Task Force; the Afghanistan Resources Oversight 
Council; and along with any other defense-wide or military 
department-specific organizations, capabilities, and funding 
associated with comparable JUON or JEON efforts.
    The plan shall also include the organization, or 
organizations, under which the aforementioned organizations 
will be consolidated. The objective of this consolidation 
should be to eliminate headquarters organizations to the 
maximum extent practicable while maintaining the critical 
ability to meet emergent warfighter requirements in a rapid and 
effective manner with a sense of urgency commensurate with 
identified needs and risks.
    The committee expects the required plan to include any 
lessons learned by the rapid acquisition organizations since 
2001, and how these lessons learned are incorporated into 
current policy and processes for satisfying JUON and JEON.
    The committee directs the USD (AT&L;) to provide an interim 
report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 30, 2014, and a final report no later than February 
2, 2015.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


General transfer authority (sec. 1001)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in 
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in 
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of 
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be 
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.

National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1002)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. This fund would be 
responsible for obligation and expenditure of funds for 
construction (including design of vessels), purchase, 
alteration, and conversion of strategic missile submarines.
    The committee recognizes that there will be challenges to 
affordability as the Department of the Navy and the Department 
of Defense seek to replace the Ohio-class ballistic missile 
submarines as they approach the end of their useful service 
lives. In testimony before the committee, the Chief of Naval 
Operations stated, ``I am increasingly concerned about our 
ability to fund the Ohio Replacement ballistic missile 
submarine (SSBN) program--our highest priority program--within 
our current and projected resources.''
    The committee believes that establishing a separate fund 
for pursuing construction of the Ohio-class replacement 
submarines is a first important step to ensuring that the 
program has the appropriate visibility within the 
administration and within Congress to ensure that the Ohio 
Replacement Program moves forward with the appropriate level of 
visibility and management attention.
    The committee recommends an authorization of $100.0 million 
for the fund.

Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate on the devastating impact that the 
statutory budget caps are having on the Department of Defense 
and our national security and the need for legislation to 
adjust those caps.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
3 fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 
provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and 
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia 
(section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended 
by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)), as well as extend the 
expanded congressional notification requirement.
    The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has 
made and continues to make progress against transnational 
narcotics trafficking organizations and designated foreign 
terrorist organizations. This type of flexible authority is 
still required to assist the Government of Colombia to 
consolidate its gains, but the committee expects to see 
continued reductions in the level of assistance provided to 
Colombia, as has been agreed to in our bilateral engagements 
with the Government of Colombia.

Extension and modification of authority for joint task forces 
        supporting law enforcement agencies conducting activities to 
        counter transnational organized crime to support law 
        enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 
        (sec. 1012)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended 
by section 1012 of the the National Defense Authorization Act 
of Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to: (1) Extend the 
underlying authority through fiscal year 2020; (2) Expand the 
scope of the Department of Defense (DOD) authority to provide 
support to U.S. law enforcement agencies for counterterrorism 
purposes when a nexus exists between drug trafficking or 
transnational organized crime (TOC) and a foreign terrorist 
organization; (3) Make a series of technical modifications; and 
(4) Expand the authority of DOD to support counter illicit 
trafficking activities in certain circumstances.
    As the committee notes elsewhere in this report, the 
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by 
the President on July 19, 2011, sought to increase DOD's 
support to U.S. law enforcement efforts to combat TOC. As such, 
the committee believes this modification to DOD's longstanding 
counterdrug authority is necessary to ensure DOD is able to 
fully support both U.S. law enforcement and foreign partners.
    Further, the committee expects DOD to leverage this 
modification to increase its counter threat finance 
intelligence activities. ``Cash is king'' for illicit 
organizations that operate in narcotics, transnational crime, 
and terrorism, and--as DOD has learned through its threat 
finance cell operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 
decade--understanding the financing activities of illicit 
networks is critical to minimizing the threat posed to U.S. 
national security interests and enabling the use of law 
enforcement, financial, or other tools to disrupt such 
activities. The committee expects that DOD will focus on any 
expansion of its activities pursuant to this authority on the 
Haqqani network and al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic 
Maghreb.

Extension of authority to provide additional support for counter-drug 
        activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1013)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended 
by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). Specifically, the 
provision would extend the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
authority to provide additional support for counter-drug 
activities of certain foreign governments through fiscal year 
2020, as well as increase the cap on the limitation on 
obligations from $100.0 million to $125.0 million per fiscal 
year.
    The committee notes that DOD has increased its utilization 
of this authority in recent years and in fiscal year 2014, 
according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Counter-narcotics and Global Threats, DOD has received 
validated requests for more than $100.0 million from the 
combatant commanders. The committee further notes that under 
the current funding limitation, DOD will reject validated 
requests from the combatant commanders for countries that are 
prepared to increase their capacity to combat the flow of 
narcotics and to assist the U.S. Government in its counter-
narcotics operations.
    The committee also notes that the number of countries 
eligible to receive so-called section 1033 assistance has 
increased in recent years as a result of the growing presence 
of transnational criminal organizations operating across many 
parts of Africa a region the committee continues to believe DOD 
should expand its current programming. As such, the committee 
expects that DOD will look to initiate programs in the AFRICOM 
area of responsibility with this increase in the availability 
of funds.

Extension and modification of authority of Department of Defense to 
        provide additional support for counterdrug activities of other 
        governmental agencies (sec. 1014)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), as most recently amended 
by section 1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to authorize the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide additional support for 
activities of other governmental agencies to counter 
transnational organized crime (TOC) in addition to its 
counterdrug activities. The provision would also extend the 
underlying authority through the end of fiscal year 2020 and 
reduce the dollar threshold for a notification on facilities 
projects to the congressional defense committees.
    The committee notes that the Commander of U.S. Southern 
Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command 
have testified before the committee about the corrosive effect 
of TOC on every institution in the partner nations in their 
respective areas of responsibility. Furthermore, the committee 
is aware of research indicating the increasing convergence of 
threats to U.S. national security--including narcotics 
trafficking and terrorism--with TOC networks. The committee 
notes that the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized 
Crime, released by the President on July 19, 2011, sought to 
enhance DOD's support to U.S. law enforcement. As such, the 
committee believes this modification to DOD's longstanding 
counterdrug authority is necessary to ensure DOD is able to 
fully support U.S. law enforcement and foreign partners.
    For purposes of implementation guidance, the committee 
believes the National Strategy to Combat Transnational 
Organized Crime provides a good definition of TOC. It states 
that TOC ``refers to those self-perpetuating associations of 
individuals who operate transnationally for the purpose of 
obtaining power, influence, monetary, and/or commercial gains, 
wholly or in part by illegal means, while protecting their 
activities through a pattern of corruption and/or violence, or 
while protecting their illegal activities through a 
transnational organizational structure and the exploitation of 
transnational commerce or communication mechanisms.''

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 
Navy from obligating or expending any funds in fiscal year 2015 
on inactivating the U.S.S. George Washington (CVN-73) unless 
such obligation or expenditure is to support tasks that are 
identical to tasks that would be necessary to conduct a 
refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.
    The Navy had planned to conduct an RCOH on CVN-73, 
beginning in fiscal year 2016. The fiscal year 2015 budget 
request altered that plan to drop the RCOH and inactivate CVN-
73. Congress has already authorized and appropriated $329.7 
million for the CVN-73 RCOH. The plan for fiscal year 2015 
submitted with the fiscal year 2014 budget for the Navy was to 
request another $491.1 million for advance procurement of the 
CVN-73 RCOH.
    In lieu of the plan, the fiscal year 2015 budget request 
and the future years defense program (FYDP) supports 
inactivation of CVN-73. Department of Defense (DOD) officials 
have stated DOD will defer the decision until 2016 on whether 
to refuel and maintain CVN-73 or inactivate the ship.
    The committee is concerned that DOD submitted a fiscal year 
2015 budget request and FYDP that are inconsistent with DOD's 
stated intent to defer a decision on the refueling, and with 
the requirement of section 5062(b) of title 10, United States 
Code, that the Navy maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers.
    In testimony, Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel confirmed 
that 11 carriers are a statutory requirement saying, ``We 
follow the authorization and appropriations direction of 
Congress. We follow the law.'' Secretary Hagel explained the 
dichotomy between an avowed plan to maintain 11 operational 
aircraft carriers and the FYDP by saying he was waiting for a 
sign from someone, presumably Congress, that DOD would get the 
partial relief from the effects of sequestration reflected in 
the FYDP.
    The committee has seen no evidence that the requirement for 
maintaining 11 operational carriers has diminished. In fact, 
senior Navy leaders have repeatedly stated the need for 11 
carriers as the minimum number required to execute the 
President's National Military Strategy. Senior military 
officers have testified that global requirements argue for an 
even larger number of aircraft carriers. The Commander of U.S. 
Pacific Command noted that, ``Based on the world as it is, 
about 11 aircraft carriers is just--is just barely making it 
today.''
    The aircraft carrier remains the most visible projection of 
military force abroad and is an effective instrument for 
shaping the perception of allies and potential foes alike. The 
committee is concerned that inactivating an aircraft carrier 
with 20 to 30 years of useful service life remaining is a very 
inefficient use of defense resources and would be inconsistent 
with implementing the administration's strategic shift toward 
the Asia-Pacific region, and such an action would send the 
wrong signals about our determination to support that shift.
    Complying with the letter of this section requires that the 
administration either submit a budget that supports a fleet 
with 11 operational aircraft carriers or submit a legislative 
proposal to amend title 10 to readjust the requirement. The 
administration has done neither. This provision would ensure 
that the Navy maintains a path of obligations and expenditures 
consistent with the statutory requirement to maintain 11 
operational aircraft carriers.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report 
on the effect on capabilities for power projection and global 
engagement, as it affects the Navy's ability to meet the 
Defense Strategic Guidance, moving to a permanent force 
structure of fewer than 11 operational carriers. This report 
should include a classified annex that describes the Navy's 
ability to meet the combatant commanders' requirements, both at 
the current force level and the impact of a force level with 
fewer than the required 11 operational carriers. This report 
should also specify what the effects of such action would be on 
operational deployments, overall readiness, and on sailors and 
their families. The report should identify potential effects on 
the shipbuilding industrial base, on the remainder of the RCOH 
program, on other shipbuilding programs, and on other 
acquisition programs. The Secretary of the Navy should submit 
that report with the fiscal year 2016 budget request.

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of Ticonderoga 
        class cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1022)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
rules under which the Navy could use resources in the Ship, 
Modernization, Operations, and Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) to 
implement a plan to: (1) Retain 11 Ticonderoga-class cruisers 
and 9 Whidbey Island-class and Harpers Ferry-class dock landing 
ships in active service; (2) Temporarily inactivate 11 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 3 Whidbey Island-class dock 
landing ships; (3) Modernize the inactivated ships during the 
period of their inactivation; and (4) Reactivate those ships to 
replace cruisers and dock landing ships retiring at the end of 
their expected service lives.
    The provision would require that the Secretary of the Navy 
retain the cruisers and dock landing ships until the end of 
their expected service lives, and use SMOSF only to sustain and 
modernize the vessels.
    The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit an annual report with the budget request. The report 
would describe the status of the SMOSF, including specific 
financial information, such as starting and ending fiscal year 
corpus balances, providing a detailed obligation and 
expenditure plan by vessel, and including information detailing 
all transfers into and out of the SMOSF by appropriation 
account.
    The committee further directs the Secretary to ensure that 
the annual budget justification material for the SMOSF include 
detailed information at the vessel level. In addition, the 
committee directs the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to 
provide execution reports for the SMOSF that treats each vessel 
like a line item within the SMOSF.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
additional flexibility for the Secretary of the Navy to 
maintain Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by allowing government 
personnel or U.S. contractor personnel to conduct corrective 
and preventive maintenance on an LCS vessel regardless of the 
ship's location.
    Because an LCS vessel has a smaller crew than other Navy 
vessels, much of the corrective and preventative maintenance 
must be performed by personnel not in the ship's force. The 
Secretary of Navy needs added flexibility in conducting this 
maintenance to ensure that the Navy can sustain readiness, 
particularly on forward-deployed LCS vessels.

Authority for limited coastwise trade for certain vessels providing 
        transportation services under a shipbuilding or ship repair 
        contract with the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 1024)

    The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 
Secretary of the Navy to authorize shipbuilding or ship repair 
contractors owning U.S.-built dry docks, tugboats, and towing 
vessels to engage in limited coastwise trade for purposes of 
performing a shipbuilding or ship repair contract entered into 
with the Department of the Navy.
    Currently a contractor under foreign ownership, control, or 
influence can only utilize its own vessel to perform Navy 
shipbuilding and ship repair contracts within the continental 
United States if a limited waiver for that vessel to engage in 
coastwise trade is granted. Such waivers are only granted on a 
case-by-case basis through a very burdensome administrative 
process involving three different agencies of the Federal 
Government. This is because foreign ownership precludes such a 
vessel from meeting the definition of a ``U.S.-flagged 
vessel,'' even if the vessel was built in the United States and 
was manned by crew composed of U.S. citizens.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism


Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United 
        States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit, 
for fiscal year 2015, the transfer or release of detainees held 
at Guantanamo (GTMO) to or within the United States, its 
territories, or possessions, until the Secretary of Defense 
submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a detailed 
plan to close the GTMO detention facility and Congress has 
voted on a joint resolution of disapproval under expedited 
procedures. If a joint resolution of disapproval is not 
enacted, then the Secretary would be authorized to transfer 
GTMO detainees to the United States for detention, trial, and 
incarceration. Other conditions that must be met before a 
transfer under this section can take place are a determination 
by the Secretary that doing so is in the national security 
interest of the United States, that steps have been taken to 
address any risk to public safety, and the appropriate 
congressional committees are notified not later than 30 days in 
advance of any such transfer. The provision would ensure that 
the legal rights applicable to detainees held at GTMO remain 
unchanged as a result of their transfer under this authority.

Report on facilitation of transfer overseas of certain individuals 
        detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
        (sec. 1032)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report to the 
appropriate committees of Congress on impediments to the 
transfer overseas of Guantanamo detainees and the actions that 
have been or are planned to be taken to overcome such 
impediments and facilitate overseas transfers.
    Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) provides the Secretary of 
Defense a more flexible authority to transfer Guantanamo 
detainees overseas. The committee notes that to date, a very 
limited number of Guantanamo detainees have been transferred 
overseas under this new authority. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to address diplomatic, security, and other 
impediments to overseas transfers of Guantanamo detainees and 
use the full extent of the authority provided by section 1035 
to complete such transfers, as appropriate and consistent with 
U.S. national security interests.

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for 
        emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1033)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the temporary transfer of Guantanamo (GTMO) detainees to a 
military medical facility in the United States for the sole 
purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment 
that is not available at GTMO and is necessary to prevent the 
death or imminent significant injury or harm to the 
individual's health. The detainee would not be admitted into 
the United States during the period of medical treatment and 
must be returned to GTMO as soon as medically feasible. The 
Secretary of Defense would be required to notify the 
appropriate committees of Congress of any transfer under this 
authority not later than 30 days in advance of the transfer or, 
if the need for emergency medical treatment is immediate, not 
later than 5 days after the transfer.
    The committee makes note of the U.S. obligations under 
domestic law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to 
provide for the humane treatment of detainees in its custody. 
The authority granted under this section would address concerns 
raised by the Commander, U.S. Southern Command, and others 
regarding the level of medical care available to GTMO detainees 
and the challenges, taking into account the aging of that 
detainee population, of ensuring humane treatment.

Prohibition on transfer or release to Yemen of individuals detained at 
        United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of Department of Defense funds to transfer, release, or 
otherwise assist in the transfer or release, of any Guantanamo 
detainee to Yemen during the period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015.

         Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


Reduction in Department of Defense civilian personnel and review of 
        certain headquarters spending (sec. 1041)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on Department of Defense (DOD) civilian 
positions, including the number of civilian positions created 
between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2013, as a result 
of military to civilian conversions, the number of positions 
created as temporary positions that are being converted back to 
military positions, and the number of civilian positions that 
have been or are being eliminated.
    The provision would also express the sense of Congress that 
the number of civilian positions should be reduced 
simultaneously with, and by the same percentages, as the 
corresponding reductions in military end strengths.
    The provision would also require the Secretary to review 
spending on headquarters in commands below major command with 
the objective of reducing such spending by not less than 10 
percent.
    The provision would also require the updating of various 
DOD instructions and regulations to improve tracking and 
reporting headquarters personnel and resources.

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and 
property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control 
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and persons on that 
property. The provision provides that the Secretary may 
designate personnel to: (1) Enforce federal laws and 
regulations for the protection of persons and property; (2) 
Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct 
investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD.
    This new authority would not apply in those locations 
currently under the protection of the Federal Protective 
Service, for example, office buildings provided by the General 
Services Administration in which DOD organizations are tenants.

Authority to accept certain voluntary legal support services (sec. 
        1043)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1588(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to accept voluntary legal support services 
provided by law students through internship and externship 
programs approved by the secretary concerned.

Inclusion of Chief of the National Guard Bureau among leadership of the 
        Department of Defense provided physical protection and personal 
        security (sec. 1044)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1074 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to include the Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau as one of the specified persons in 
the Department of Defense who, by nature of their positions, 
require continuous security and protection.

Inclusion of regional organizations in authority for assignment of 
        civilian employees of the Department of Defense as advisors to 
        foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1045)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-84), as most recently amended 
by section 1094 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to expand the authority 
of the Secretary of Defense to provide Department of Defense 
advisors to regional organizations.
    The committee notes that regional conflicts and other 
security challenges continue in the Middle East, Eastern 
Europe, and Africa, and that an expanded authority that allows 
the Secretary of Defense to provide advisors to regional 
organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), or other comparable regional 
organization, would better enable the Secretary to advance U.S. 
national security and mutual security objectives in specific 
regions.
    The committee notes that the United States is working with 
its GCC partner nations to improve regional air and missile 
defense capabilities, including data sharing and multilateral 
cooperation. The committee believes that such multilateral 
cooperation would enhance regional security and would provide 
significant improvements beyond national and bi-national 
capabilities. The expansion of the so-called Minister of 
Defense Advisor program to regional organizations is a prudent 
step that could assist in advancing the regional security 
objectives stated by the Secretary of Defense at the 2013 
Manama Dialogue.

Extension of authority to waive reimbursement of costs of activities 
        for nongovernmental personnel at Department of Defense regional 
        centers for security studies (sec. 1046)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement 
for the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek reimbursement for 
the costs associated with the attendance of personnel from 
nongovernmental DOD regional centers for security studies, as 
most recently amended by section 1094(b) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66).

                    Subtitle F--Studies and Reports


Reports on recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure 
        of the Air Force (sec. 1061)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit annual reports for each 
fiscal year from 2016 through 2019 on how the Air Force is 
implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on 
the Structure of the Air Force. In the first such report, the 
Secretary would be required to establish milestones for the Air 
Force's review of the Commission recommendations, and a 
preliminary implementation plan for such recommendations that 
do not require further review. Subsequent reports would 
identify progress in achieving milestones established in 
previous reports and establish milestones for implementing 
those recommendations for which analysis of the recommendation 
had been completed since the previous report.
    The Air Force staff indicates that the Air Force: (1) 
Agrees with 10 recommendations now; (2) Agrees in principle 
with 26 other recommendations, but requires some further 
clarification on those; (3) Has no position on 5 
recommendations that will require further analysis; and (4) 
Disagrees with one recommendation. The recommendation with 
which the Air Force disagrees is one to disestablish the Air 
Force Reserve Command, which would require a change in 
legislation. The Air Force staff further indicates that they 
will have completed roughly four-fifths of their reviews of the 
other 41 recommendations by the end of calendar year 2014. 
Therefore, the committee expects that the Secretary's first 
report will establish milestones for most, if not all, 41 
Commission recommendations.

Review of operation of certain ships during the Vietnam era (sec. 1062)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to review, by not later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the logs of each Navy ship 
known to have operated in the waters near Vietnam between 
January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, to determine whether the ship 
operated in the territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam 
during that period, and, for each ship that operated in these 
waters during that time, the date or dates that the ship so 
operated and the distance from the shore of the location where 
the ship operated. The Secretary would be required to provide 
this determination and information to the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), in 
consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L;)), and the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), to 
conduct an assessment of the operations research tools, 
processes, and capabilities used to support the analysis of 
requirements for new systems acquisitions and the analysis, 
validation, and prioritization of requirements for the 
allocation of existing intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) assets to the combatant commands. The 
provision would require the VCJCS, the USD (AT&L;), and the 
Director of CAPE to brief Congress on the results of this 
assessment within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
    The provision would also require the VCJCS to provide to 
the congressional defense and intelligence committees, within 
90 days of enactment of this Act, the data collected and the 
operations research analysis of that data used to validate the 
requirements submitted by the combatant commands for ISR asset 
allocation under the Global Force Management Process (GFMAP) 
for fiscal year 2015 and to determine ISR asset allocation.
    The committee has long been concerned about the 
standardization and quality of the analysis conducted of 
requirements for systems acquisition programs in the Department 
of Defense (DOD), and of the GFMAP to validate and prioritize 
resources in a manner that does not over-allocate resources to 
one combatant commander. Senior officials in the Joint Staff J-
8 Directorate (Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment) 
informed the committee 2 years ago that substantial 
improvements were needed in the analysis of requirements for 
new acquisition programs in order to adequately balance cost, 
performance, schedule, and risk. The committee was also 
informed that the J-8 lacked sufficient operations research 
expertise and planned to add personnel to the Directorate's 
staff, and to work with CAPE to access CAPE's analytic 
expertise and resources for front-end requirements analysis. 
These initiatives were not implemented.
    The Defense Science Board Advisory Group (DSB AG) on 
Defense Intelligence issued a report in January 2009, titled, 
``Operations Research Applications for Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.'' This study included a broad 
review of the use of operations research methods across DOD and 
the commitment of decisionmakers to base their decisions on the 
outcome of this rigorous type of analysis. The AG concluded 
that operations research is a ``powerful tool to help improve 
the quality of investment decision making . . . in which 
significant consequences and resources are at stake.'' The AG 
noted that operations research cannot be institutionalized 
``without strong commitment, support, and advocacy from senior 
leadership.'' The AG concluded that ``save for a few `points of 
light,' operations research is in decline and not universally 
valued in decision making, especially at the strategic level, 
and with respect to investment decisions and systems 
acquisition.''
    With respect to the GFMAP for ISR asset allocation, the 
level of analysis supporting geographic combatant command 
requirements is inconsistent, with some commands struggling to 
define and defend their requirements. There is also 
insufficient analysis and standardization of data collected for 
the validation and prioritization of submitted requirements at 
the Joint Staff level, and inadequate processes to inform 
allocation decisions with a comprehensive awareness of, and 
deconfliction with, collection assets and activities that are 
not included in the GFMAP. One consequence of these 
shortcomings has been that a few commands garner almost all of 
the ISR assets committed to the GFMAP.
    The committee fully understands that the needs of one or 
more combatant commands can be dominant, as has been the case 
for U.S. Central Command since September 11, 2001, but the 
committee doubts that a rigorous analysis would consistently 
rank the lowest priorities of one or more combatant commands 
higher than the highest priorities of other combatant commands. 
The committee notes that at least two geographic combatant 
commands have less than 10 percent of their total requirements 
being met. In the case of one of those combatant commands, U.S. 
Africa Command (AFRICOM), the threat from terrorism and the 
inability of the GFMAP to prioritize and allocate additional 
ISR resources gives the committee pause. Over the last 3 years, 
AFRICOM has seen the emergence of numerous conflicts including 
major conflagrations in Mali, South Sudan, Central African 
Republic, and Libya. The inability of the GFMAP to prioritize 
and allocate ISR resources have resulted in skewed allocations 
of ISR resources, leaving the DOD unable to predict or respond 
to emerging crises.
    A decade ago, DOD established the Joint Functional 
Component Command for ISR (JFCC-ISR) under United States 
Strategic Command. An independent assessment group was created 
in the JFCC-ISR to analyze requirements and the performance of 
deployed ISR assets. This group has some operations research 
expertise and capacity, and has endeavored to collect data and 
analyze needs for and the performance of ISR assets. However, 
the committee is concerned that these analyses have not led to 
any improvement in requirements generation and validation, or 
greater efficiency in the use of ISR assets.
    The committee believes DOD must improve its ability to 
analyze, validate, and prioritize both new systems acquisitions 
and the allocation of ISR assets to the combatant commands. If 
the Joint Staff is unable to present convincing analyses or 
arbitrate effectively between the combatant commands, changes 
need to be made.

Review of United States military strategy and the force posture of 
        allies and partners in the United States Pacific Command area 
        of responsibility (sec. 1064)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to commission an independent review of the 
U.S. Asia-Pacific re-balance, with a focus on policy issues 
that will be critical for the next 10 years, following the 
enactment of this Act.
    The organization shall submit to the Secretary of Defense 
an unclassified report along with a classified annex not later 
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
    Not later than 90 days after receipt of the report, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit the report and its annex to 
the congressional defense committees, along with any comments 
the Secretary deems appropriate.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act, a report on the policies of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) on the involvement of non-Federal entities in DOD 
community outreach events (including, but not limited to, air 
shows, parades, and open houses) that feature any unit, 
aircraft, vessel, equipment, or members of the Armed Forces.

Comptroller General of the United States briefing and report on 
        management of the conventional ammunition demilitarization 
        stockpile of the Department of Defense (sec. 1066)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing 
to the congressional defense committees on the management of 
the conventional ammunition demilitarization stockpile of the 
Department of Defense no later than April 30, 2015. The 
briefing shall be followed by a report no later than June 1, 
2015.

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1067)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or 
modify a number of reporting requirements that have been 
included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for 
repeal or modification in this provision are requirements 
identified by the committee as being no longer relevant or 
necessary and that can be repealed or modified without 
adversely affecting the committee's oversight responsibilities.

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States 
        annual reviews and report on pilot program on commercial fee-
        for-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1068)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement for a Comptroller General review of a pilot program 
on commercial fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air 
Force. Since enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-81), the pilot program has 
yet to be used.

                 Subtitle G--Uniformed Services Voting


  PART I--PROVISION OF VOTER ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

Provision of annual voter assistance (sec. 1071)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop an online system to provide 
annual voting assistance to active duty servicemembers.

Designation of voter assistance offices (sec. 1072)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1566a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize, 
but not require, service secretaries to designate offices on 
military installations to provide absent uniformed services 
voters and their family members with voting information and 
assistance.

                   PART II--ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS

Repeal of electronic voting demonstration project (sec. 1076)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct an electronic voting 
demonstration project for absent military voters.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Biennial surveys of Department of Defense civilian employees on 
        workplace and gender relations matters (sec. 1081)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 23 of title 10, United States Code, to require biennial 
surveys of civilian employees of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to solicit information on gender issues, including issues 
relating to gender-based assault, harassment, and 
discrimination, and the climate in the DOD for forming 
professional relationships between male and female employees of 
the DOD. The provision would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 
feasibility of conducting similar surveys of military 
dependents and DOD contractors.

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from 
        Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration (sec. 1082)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Department of Defense (DOD) more flexibility in engaging with 
the National Ocean Partnership Program and the Ocean Research 
Advisory Panel (ORAP). The committee believes that this 
flexibility will allow DOD and the Navy to balance the 
application of resources for this activity with other potential 
activities and is consistent with the Secretary of Defense's 
Efficiency Initiatives. The committee notes that much of the 
work of ORAP has been more related to civilian ocean research 
issues, rather than defense-related matters. The committee 
further notes that this provision was recommended by the 
Administration and DOD.

Authority to require employees of the Department of Defense and members 
        of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to occupy 
        quarters on a rental basis while performing official travel 
        (sec. 1083)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5911 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a government lodging program 
and to require its use by servicemembers and Department of 
Defense (DOD) civilians performing official travel. The 
provision would also require the Secretary to report to the 
appropriate congressional committees within 18 months on DOD's 
implementation of this program and savings achieved.

Expansion of authority for Secretary of Defense to use the Department 
        of Defense reimbursement rates for transportation services 
        provided to certain non-Department of Defense entities (sec. 
        1084)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2642 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority to provide transportation services beyond other 
Federal agencies to include: (1) State, local, and tribal 
agencies (including any organizations composed of State, local, 
and tribal agencies); and (2) Defense contractors, when those 
contractors are transporting supplies for, or destined for, a 
Department of Defense entity.

Pilot program to rehabilitate and modify homes of disabled and low-
        income veterans (sec. 1085)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a pilot 
program to award grants to qualified organizations to 
rehabilitate and modify the primary residence of eligible 
veterans.

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1086)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States 
Code, and various National Defense Authorization Acts.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army force structure and installation alignment

    The committee is aware of the Army's end strength and force 
structure reductions and changes made last year in accordance 
with the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG). The DSG 
directed the reduction of Army active end strength to 490,000 
soldiers and the inactivation of eight combat brigades.
    In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a March 
2013 letter, requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
assessment of the Army's analysis and decisionmaking processes 
associated with planned force structure reductions and their 
alignment with installations. The GAO's assessment, reported in 
December 2013, noted that the Army used a variety of analyses 
to inform its decisionmaking processes, including ``obtaining 
input through open meetings with communities around 
installations being considered for stationing changes.'' The 
GAO recommended that the Army needed to update and document its 
rules for future analysis of force structure realignments and 
stationing decisions.
    The committee notes that, in order to meet Budget Control 
Act caps, the Army plans the additional active Army end 
strength reductions to 450,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2017. 
This will result in additional unit inactivations at Army posts 
around the country. The committee is interested to learn how 
the Army has updated its analysis and decisionmaking processes 
and how it will incorporate its 2013 decisions for force 
realignments into another round of reductions. Accordingly, the 
Secretary of the Army, or designee, shall provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees, not later than April 30, 
2015, that:
          (1) Identifies the analytical methodology and 
        decisionmaking processes that will be used for force 
        structure reductions related to active end strength of 
        450,000 soldiers or less by 2017 or beyond;
          (2) Identifies the changes to the methodology or 
        process, as recommended by the GAO;
          (3) Details the schedule for conducting its analysis, 
        including completion of environmental assessments and 
        planned public meetings or information sessions with 
        installations' communities;
          (4) Details how implementation of force realignment 
        decisions made in 2013 are being or will be executed, 
        and how uninitiated, incomplete, and planned force 
        realignments will be incorporated into the assessment 
        of installations; and
          (5) Certifies that the Army will comply with the 
        requirements of chapter 55, title 42, United States 
        Code, (National Environmental Policy Act), and with the 
        requirements of section 993, title 10, United States 
        Code, for prompt congressional notification of 
        additional force structure modifications, reductions, 
        and additions.

Comptroller General of the United States review of burden-sharing 
        agreements and posture costs

    The committee notes that as part of its three strategic 
objectives listed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the 
Department of Defense (DOD) will continue to rebalance and 
sustain its global posture. This will include continuing to 
invest resources in the Asia-Pacific region in order to 
preserve critical political, economic, and security interests. 
At the forefront of this rebalancing will be the partnerships 
with two of our most important allies, Japan and the Republic 
of Korea (ROK). In addition, given DOD's deep and abiding 
interests in maintaining and expanding European security and 
prosperity and particularly in light of recent events in 
eastern Europe, DOD will also continue to work with our long-
standing European allies to promote regional stability, as well 
as to improve capacity, interoperability, and strategic access 
for coalition operations. Most of these partnerships date back 
over 50 years, allowing U.S. forces access to land and 
facilities in host countries.
    Host nation support, through burden-sharing agreements, has 
been critical to helping offset the costs of stationing U.S. 
forces in many countries. Burden-sharing arrangements, such as 
Special Measures Agreements with Japan and the ROK, have 
contributed billions of dollars to mitigate the costs 
associated with a forward-based U.S. military presence, 
including such costs as labor, utilities, and construction. Due 
to rising costs associated with stationing forces overseas and 
the security benefits that accrue to both the host nation and 
the United States, these agreements play a pivotal role in 
DOD's current and future strategic planning.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed 
several studies on U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific 
region as well as in Europe. While these reports highlighted 
areas for improvement in planning and data collection, DOD's 
process and parameters for negotiating and monitoring burden-
sharing agreements with host nations, or similar host nation 
support and payment agreements, are not clear to the committee. 
As a result of the challenges faced by DOD associated with 
Global Force Management and current fiscal uncertainties, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to analyze and report on the following:
          (1) How does DOD estimate the costs of its overseas 
        presence and use this information to develop burden-
        sharing agreements or similar host nation support and 
        payments;
          (2) Does DOD calculate the percentage of current and 
        future costs host nation support is covering and how 
        does it determine what to include in that calculation;
          (3) What is DOD's process for determining what is to 
        be included in burden-sharing agreements or similar 
        host nation support and payments; and
          (4) To what extent is DOD monitoring the execution of 
        host nation support, including the support provided 
        under burden-sharing agreements?
          (5) How does DOD account for and inform Congress of 
        host nation contributions?
          (6) Any other matters the Comptroller General deems 
        appropriate to include as a result of its review.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 
committees on the above questions by April 30, 2015, with a 
report to follow by June 1, 2015.

Comptroller General of the United States review of the National Guard 
        Counterdrug Program

    Since 1989, the National Guard has worked with law 
enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to 
perform interdiction and anti-drug activities. The National 
Guard Counterdrug Program operates in 54 U.S. States and 
territories with approximately 2,500 soldiers and airmen 
supporting more than 5,000 agencies at the local, state, and 
federal levels to prevent illicit drugs from being imported, 
manufactured, and distributed. In fiscal year 2012, the 
National Guard Counterdrug Program began implementing a threat-
based resource model to allocate funding to States and 
territories based on performance metrics and the severity of 
the narcotics threat. According to the National Guard Bureau, 
the model aligns with Department of Defense priorities as 
outlined by the National Security Strategy and Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats.
    The committee is concerned that it has an incomplete 
picture of the goals and activities of the National Guard 
Counterdrug Program as well as how resources are being 
expended. It is imperative that the National Guard Bureau have 
data, metrics, and analyses to manage the program that are 
reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and reflect the 
changing nature of narcotics trafficking activities. Moreover, 
given the inter-agency nature of U.S. counterdrug activities, 
it is critical that the National Guard Bureau cooperate and 
share information associated with its planned activities with 
relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
provide an independent assessment of the program including: (1) 
The activities and resources associated with the National Guard 
Counterdrug Program and the trends, if any, over time; (2) The 
process used to identify, prioritize, and select activities for 
funding and implementation; (3) The framework used to monitor 
and evaluate the effectiveness of activities; and (4) Whether 
the plans and activities of the National Guard program support 
the efforts of interagency partners and align with broader U.S. 
goals. The Comptroller General may include other areas in the 
assessment as deemed appropriate if such inclusion would assist 
in oversight of the program. The Comptroller General should 
brief the committee by November 15, 2014, on the preliminary 
results of the study, with a report to follow as agreed to with 
the committee.

Detention of Third Country Nationals in Afghanistan

    The Government of Afghanistan ordered the extra-judicial 
release of 65 Afghan detainees on February 13, 2014, despite 
extensive information and evidence from U.S. Forces-Afghanistan 
(USFOR-A) that the detainees posed a continuing threat if 
released. According to USFOR-A, the released detainees were 
linked to wounding or killing 32 U.S. or coalition personnel 
and 23 Afghan National Security Forces or civilians. The 
Commander, USFOR-A, objected to these releases, on the basis 
that they were in contradiction to the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) signed by the Afghan Minister of Defense 
and the Commander, USFOR-A, on March 25, 2013, regarding the 
transfer of Afghan detainees in U.S. law-of-armed-conflict 
custody to the custody of the Government of the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). The agreed-upon process was 
violated when the Afghan Review Board did not consider the 
evidence submitted by USFOR-A or engage in an information 
exchange prior to the detainees' release as set forth in the 
MOU. The committee remains concerned that the GIRoA will seek 
to release the 23 remaining dangerous Afghan detainees the 
USFOR-A has contested, and calls on the GIRoA to adhere to the 
procedures agreed to in the existing MOU.
    The committee also notes that the detainees that the GIRoA 
continues to hold have been determined to be Enduring Security 
Threats (EST). The committee supports the continued detention 
of ESTs, in accordance with the provisions of the existing MOU, 
and believes that any change to the status of ESTs other than 
as provided in the MOU should only occur as mutually agreed 
between the GIRoA and USFOR-A.
    The committee remains concerned about the disposition of 
the detainees that remain under the control of USFOR-A, and 
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the 
committee, by not later than June 30, 2014, and thereafter as 
requested by the committee, on the disposition plan for third-
country nationals (TCN) currently being held by USFOR-A. The 
briefing should include the U.S. Government's plan for the 
continued detention, transfer, or release of TCNs under U.S. 
control currently held in Afghanistan, the process for 
reviewing the status of TCNs, and any plans for the prosecution 
of TCNs.

National Guard Counterdrug Program

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
requests funding annually to support the National Guard 
Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP 
plays an important role in providing military-specific 
capabilities and expertise resident within the National Guard 
to support the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and 
local authorities. This support includes the provision of 
linguists, intelligence, transportation, logistics, 
reconnaissance, training, education, and prevention outreach. 
The committee notes that budgetary pressures have led DOD to 
decrease the annual budget request for the CDP in recent years.
    Further, the committee understands that these cuts have 
caused a disruption or curtailment of CDP operations, including 
the planned closure of the five regional counterdrug training 
centers in fiscal year 2015. The committee encourages DOD to 
continue its support for the CDP and to provide adequate 
funding to ensure the sustainability of the program.
    Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, to examine the CDP on an ongoing basis to ensure it 
keeps pace with the evolving nature of illicit trafficking 
enterprise.

Preparing for increased Arctic operations

    The committee notes that the Arctic is an area of 
increasing strategic and economic importance to the United 
States. The opening of new maritime shipping lanes and 
increased access to abundant deposits of natural resources, 
such as oil and natural gas, will provide opportunities and 
challenges to U.S. national interests. The committee commends 
the Department of Defense (DOD) for increasing its focus on 
this region and encourages DOD to continue to plan for 
operating in what will likely become a more crowded and 
potentially more contested region. The committee is also 
interested in ensuring that DOD, in coordination with the 
Department of Homeland Security, focuses on developing and 
acquiring capabilities that will enable the United States to 
operate effectively in the Arctic in the coming years. The 
United States is an Arctic nation that stands to benefit from 
increased access to that region, and it is critical that our 
national security strategies and capabilities keep pace with 
our growing interests, especially as other nations increase 
their activity in the Arctic.

Transfer of aircraft to other departments for wildfire suppression and 
        other purposes

    Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed transfers of 
Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft to 
other departments of the Federal Government for wildfire 
suppression and other purposes.
    The committee understands that discussions among the 
agencies on implementing that direction have been collaborative 
and productive. The committee knows that such transactions are 
complex.
    However, the committee has been informed that the Air Force 
General Counsel has decided that the specific word ``transfer'' 
in Section 1098(a) requires the Coast Guard to convey title, 
engineering services, and technical authority of the HC-130H to 
the Air Force. The committee understands this would be a 
cumbersome and paperwork-intensive process for the short period 
of time that the Air Force would possess the aircraft for 
modifications and depot-level maintenance prescribed in section 
1098(a) before relinquishing the aircraft. Such an 
interpretation was not the intention of the committee nor was 
it the committee's intention to complicate the process of 
implementing section 1098(a) that deals with HC-130H transfers.
    The Air Force routinely conducts depot-level maintenance 
and modifications of HC-130H aircraft on behalf of the Coast 
Guard without having to convey title from the Coast Guard to 
the Air Force. The interpretation of the Air Force General 
Counsel could significantly delay implementation of depot-level 
maintenance and firefighting modifications required by section 
1098(a), and thus delay providing much needed firefighting 
capacity improvements to the U.S. Forest Service.
    The Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Forest Service 
briefed the committee on an execution plan in February 2014. 
That plan included having the Air Force modify Coast Guard HC-
130H aircraft and provide firefighting-capable aircraft to the 
Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. This plan did 
not involve a transfer as interpreted by the Air Force General 
Counsel. The committee supports that execution plan. To that 
end, the committee directs the DOD General Counsel to review 
the interpretation of the Air Force General Counsel and ensure 
that the word ``transfer'' as used in section 1098(a) is used 
consistent with the congressional intent not to require title 
of HC-130H aircraft from the Coast Guard to the Air Force while 
the Air Force executes this modification.
                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Extension and modification of experimental program for scientific and 
        technical personnel (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical modifications to a special hiring authority used by 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and other 
agencies to hire world-class technical experts to serve as 
research and development program managers.
Modifications of biennial strategic workforce plan relating to senior 
        management, functional, and technical workforces of the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 115b of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to prepare a biennial strategic workforce 
plan that addresses the shaping and improvement of the senior 
management workforce of the Department of Defense and includes 
an assessment of the senior functional and technical workforce 
of the Department within the appropriate functional community. 
The provision would also add a requirement that the strategic 
workforce plan include an assessment of the workforce of the 
Department comprised of highly qualified experts.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium 
        pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian 
        employees working overseas (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
most recently amended by section 1101 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to 
extend through 2015 the authority of heads of executive 
agencies to waive limitations on the aggregate of basic and 
premium pay of employees who perform work in an overseas 
location that is in the area of responsibility of the 
Commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that 
was formerly in CENTCOM but has been moved to an area of 
responsibility of the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in 
support of a military operation or an operation in response to 
a declared emergency.
Personnel authorities for civilian personnel for the United States 
        Cyber Command (sec. 1104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that enhanced personnel authorities are 
needed for hiring, compensating, and promoting civilian 
personnel supporting U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), perhaps 
modeled on the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System 
(DCIPS) established in title 10 sections 1601 through 1607. The 
provision also would require the Principal Cyber Advisor, 
within 180 days of enactment, to provide recommendations to the 
Secretary of Defense to improve the support provided by 
CYBERCOM's executive agent, the Department of the Air Force, in 
the area of civilian personnel, both through administrative 
actions and legislation.
    The committee notes that the DCIPS authorities available to 
defense intelligence agencies and components provide special 
hiring, compensation, and promotion authorities that enable 
these agencies and components to compete effectively to recruit 
and retain civilian employees with critical skills and 
experience. Congress has also provided enhanced authorities to 
manage specialized civilian personnel at the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the research laboratories of the 
military services. CYBERCOM must compete directly with the 
National Security Agency and the private sector for personnel 
with technical cyber skills and is currently at a significant 
disadvantage in terms of desirable positions, rates of pay, and 
career advancement opportunities. The committee believes that 
providing enhanced personnel management authorities for 
CYBERCOM civilians is important and justified to ensure that 
CYBERCOM can fulfill its missions.

                        Item of Special Interest

Assignment of Department of Defense civilian employees with cyber 
        skills
    The committee recognizes the growth in the number of 
Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees supporting 
critical and evolving cyber missions of the DOD. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether a program 
that involves predictable assignments or details of DOD 
civilian personnel with cyber skills to other military 
departments or DOD civilian positions in U.S. Cyber Command and 
Cyber Mission Forces units would enhance the professional 
development and career progression of the civilian employees. 
The committee directs the Secretary to report the results of 
this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than January 
31, 2015.
             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Modification of Department of Defense authority for humanitarian 
        stockpiled conventional munitions assistance programs (sec. 
        1201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
definitions contained in section 407 of title 10, United States 
Code, regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled 
conventional munitions assistance.
Codification of recurring limitations on the use of funds for 
        assistance for units of foreign security forces that have 
        committed a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code, to include a 
limitation on the use of funds for training, equipment, or 
other assistance for the members of a unit of a foreign 
security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible 
information that such unit has committed a gross violation of 
human rights. In addition to a waiver for extraordinary 
circumstances, the provision would authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to provide training, equipment, or other assistance for 
disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or national security 
emergencies, as well as to conduct human rights training. 
Should an exception or waiver be exercised by the Secretary, 
the provision requires the Secretary to submit a notification 
to the congressional defense committees within 15 days. In 
carrying out this provision, the Secretary of Defense is 
required to consult regularly with the Secretary of State.
    The committee notes that since fiscal year 1999, the annual 
Department of Defense appropriations bills have included a 
provision with a similar limitation and that in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-86), this provision was expanded beyond training to 
include the provision of equipment and other assistance. The 
committee supports the intent of this annual appropriation 
limitation and, as such, is incorporating it into title 10, 
United States Code, to ensure that action on this matter is not 
needed annually in the future.
Codification and enhancement of authority to build the capacity of 
        foreign security forces (sec. 1203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would codify in 
title 10, United States Code, the authority currently under 
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) as amended (the ``section 
1206 authority''), for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
program to train-and-equip foreign security forces to build 
their capacity to conduct counterterrorism operations. The 
provision would also modify the authority to provide for 
training and equipping foreign military forces to participate 
in or support allied or coalition military or stability 
operations that benefit U.S. national security interests, and 
raise the limitation on the amount that can be used for such 
purposes from $100.0 million to $150.0 million of the total 
amount of funds authorized for the train-and-equip program 
under this section. The provision would include a limitation on 
the amount of funds authorized for the train-and-equip program 
of $350.0 million. An additional $150.0 million may be used to 
fund activities under the train-and-equip program authority if 
such additional funds are transferred for these purposes by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) under established reprogramming 
procedures. The total amount authorized, if the reprogramming 
option were to be fully executed, would be $500.0 million.
    In addition, the provision would codify the authority for 
the Secretary of Defense to use funds under the section 1206 
authority to conduct assessments of the effectiveness of the 
program in building the operational capability and performance 
of recipient units. The provision would require annual reports 
through 2025 summarizing the findings of such assessments. The 
committee supports the DOD's efforts to develop an assessment 
methodology for evaluating train-and-equip programs, which the 
committee understands is currently set out in the Section 1206 
Assessment Handbook.
    The provision would also require the Comptroller General to 
conduct, through 2025, annual audits of train-and-equip 
programs, as selected by the Comptroller General in 
consultation with the appropriate congressional committees, to 
provide an outside assessment of the effectiveness of these 
programs in meeting their objectives.
    The committee believes that, since its inception in fiscal 
year 2006, the global train-and-equip program has developed 
into a critical tool for DOD leaders and military commanders to 
build the capacity of partner nations' forces to address 
emerging and urgent threats, including to counter the threat of 
terrorism as this threat has proliferated and diversified. The 
maturity and proven track record of this program, closely 
coordinated between the DOD and the Department of State, is a 
primary motivation for codifying the section 1206 authority. 
The committee emphasizes that the focus of the section 1206 
authority on addressing emerging and urgent threats has been 
fundamental to its successful implementation and urges the DOD 
to continue to prioritize programs on this basis, including to 
counter the threat posed by terrorist groups in North Africa, 
the Arabian peninsula, and the Levant.
    The committee notes that during the last several years of 
coalition operations in Afghanistan, section 1206 authority has 
served as a valuable force multiplier by building the capacity 
of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and other 
coalition partners to participate in stability operations and 
special operations in Afghanistan--directly contributing to the 
furtherance of U.S. national security objectives. Even as 
combat operations in Afghanistan are coming to an end, there 
remains a significant requirement for interoperability with 
allied and coalition military forces, including special 
operations forces. The committee encourages the DOD to continue 
capacity-building efforts under section 1206 authority with 
NATO members and coalition partners in light of the security 
concerns in Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
Training of security forces and associated ministries of foreign 
        countries to promote respect for the rule of law and human 
        rights (sec. 1204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct human rights training of 
security forces and associated ministries of foreign countries. 
The provision would require that the activities conducted 
pursuant to this section have the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State and the provision would define the activities 
considered to be human rights training.
Modification and extension of Global Security Contingency Fund 
        authority (sec. 1205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2017 the authority under section 1207 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Global Security 
Contingency Fund (GSCF). The provision would also clarify the 
types of assistance that could be provided under the fund and 
the sources of Department of Defense funding that could be 
transferred to support the GSCF.
    The committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis 
in Ukraine and the urgent security assistance needs of Ukraine 
and other countries at risk in Eastern Europe. The committee 
notes that at the time the GSCF was presented to the committee 
as a legislative proposal, the fund was intended in large part 
to address the challenges the U.S. Government faced in 
identifying readily-available sources of security assistance 
funding following the Georgian-Russian conflict in August 2008. 
The committee encourages the administration to consider making 
full use of the GSCF as part of a security assistance program 
for Ukraine and Eastern European countries.
    At the same time, the committee has concerns about the poor 
track record with regard to the timely implementation of GSCF 
projects to date. While intended to provide a flexible 
authority, GSCF execution has suffered due to significant 
delays in developing the interagency procedures for selecting 
and implementing projects under the program. As a result, only 
recently have a number of GSCF projects begun to be 
implemented. In addition, the committee is concerned that 
certain GSCF projects, such as the effort to build the capacity 
of border security forces in Libya, are already at risk of 
being suspended, partially due to planning shortcomings. The 
committee strongly urges the Departments of State and Defense 
to quickly take the steps necessary to address these 
shortcomings and to ensure that these mistakes are not 
repeated.
Use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain 
        military equipment to certain foreign forces for personnel 
        protection and survivability (sec. 1206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority under section 1202 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), as amended, to use the procedures under 
acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain 
personnel protection equipment to foreign military forces 
participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The 
provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirement that the United 
States be reimbursed for the cost of such equipment if the 
equipment is lost in combat during coalition operations.
Cross servicing agreements for loan of personnel protection and 
        personnel survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec. 
        1207)
    The committee recommends a provision that would codify in 
title 10, United States Code, an authority for the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to 
enter into arrangements under acquisition and cross-servicing 
agreements (ACSA) to loan personnel protection and personnel 
survivability equipment to foreign military forces for their 
use in coalition operations with the United States as part of a 
contingency operation or a peacekeeping operation under the 
United Nations Charter or another international agreement. The 
provision would include a waiver of the requirement to 
reimburse the United States for the loss of such equipment if 
the loss occurred in combat during operations for which the 
equipment was loaned.
    The committee recognizes the importance to coalition 
operations in Afghanistan of the ability of the United States 
to loan personnel protection and personnel survivability 
equipment to coalition partners under the temporary authority 
of section 1202 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
The Department of Defense (DOD) has interpreted this authority 
narrowly, consistent with the memorandum titled, ``Approval and 
Delegation of Authority to Transfer Personnel Protection 
Equipment and Other Personnel Survivability Significant 
Military Equipment (SME) to Certain Foreign Forces Under 
Existing Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSAs),'' 
issued by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter on 
November 25, 2011. The committee encourages DOD to take a 
similar approach to implementing any program to loan equipment 
under ACSA under the authority of this section.
Extension and modification of authority for support of special 
        operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1208)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism 
contained in section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), as amended, through fiscal year 2016, and increase the 
annual cap on the authority from $50.0 million to $60.0 
million.
    The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) 
testified on March 11, 2014, that ``Section 1208 authority has 
been absolutely critical to our current and future efforts 
against al-Qa'ida and organizations of their ilk. It provides 
us the ability to apply a modest portion of our annual budget 
to deliver critical enablers to select irregular forces, groups 
or individuals, directly involved in the terrorism fight. This 
authority uniquely provides SOCOM with access and skill sets in 
locations where we may not otherwise be able to operate, 
subject to the Secretary of Defense granting specific 
operational authority. The strategic value of enabling and 
leveraging such forces to carry out tactical operations 
alongside, or even in lieu of, U.S. forces cannot be 
overstated.''
    The committee supports the use of section 1208 authority by 
U.S. Special Operations Forces to enhance operations in support 
of U.S. counterterrorism objectives. The committee also 
encourages continued vigilance by the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and 
SOCOM in ensuring that the authority is used to support 
operational requirements vice long-term capacity-building 
efforts with partner-nation security forces.
Assistance to foster a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria 
        (sec. 1209)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide equipment, supplies, 
training, and defense services to assist the vetted elements of 
the Syrian opposition for the purposes of: (1) Defending the 
Syrian people from the attacks of the Syrian regime; (2) 
Protecting the United States, our friends and allies, and the 
Syrian people from terrorist elements; and (3) Promoting the 
conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in 
Syria. The provision would also establish requirements for an 
element of the Syrian opposition to be deemed vetted, permit 
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to third 
countries for purposes of the provision of training and 
equipment, and the authority to accept contributions from other 
nations. The Secretary of State's concurrence would be required 
to conduct activities under this authority.
    The committee notes that the authority granted in this 
provision does not authorize the use of the United States Armed 
Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat 
operations.
    Further, should a determination be made to use this 
authority, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
brief the congressional defense committees on the Department's 
execution plan, including but not limited to: (1) the process 
established to vet prospective Syrian opposition participants; 
(2) the role the United States Armed Forces will play in the 
execution of the plan; and (3) methods for ensuring the 
accountability of lethal equipment intended to be transferred 
to the Syrian opposition. Such briefing should be provided no 
less than 30 days before plan execution.
    Given the importance and breadth of issues associated with 
U.S. activities involving the situation in Syria, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to make available to the 
intelligence committees information related to the support 
provided under this authority.
Limitations on security assistance for the Government of Burma (sec. 
        1210)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit 
security assistance funding for the Government of Burma unless 
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, certifies that the Government of Burma is taking steps 
toward implementing human rights reform, terminating military 
relations with North Korea, and implementing other steps toward 
broader military reform. The certification would also require 
that the Burma military is adhering to ceasefire agreements and 
demonstrating increased transparency and accountability. The 
provision would provide an exception to the above limitation to 
allow for security assistance funding for the Government of 
Burma for human rights and disaster relief training, including 
on issues such as the law of armed conflict, English-language 
training, regional norms of security assistance, humanitarian 
assistance and disaster relief (HADR), as well as observation 
of HADR military exercises.
    The provision would also require an annual report on, among 
other issues, the Burma Government's strategy for security 
sector reform, U.S. strategy and objectives for the military-
to-military relationship between the United States and Burma, 
and a description and assessment of the record of the Burma 
military with respect to the implementation of human rights 
reforms. It would also include reporting on the military-to-
military activities between the United States and Burma that 
have already occurred and that are planned to occur in the 
future.
    The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) will 
begin human rights, humanitarian, and disaster relief training 
and education for the Burma military, as laid out in section 
(a)(2) of the provision, in fiscal year 2015, under a DOD 
program, such as the Defense Institute of International Legal 
Studies or the Defense Institute Reform Initiative.
Biennial report on programs carried out by the Department of Defense to 
        provide training, equipment, or other assistance or 
        reimbursement to foreign security forces (sec. 1211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
biennial report to Congress in fiscal years 2016, 2018, and 
2020 describing the programs conducted by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) during the previous 2 fiscal years to provide 
training, equipment, or other security assistance or 
reimbursement to foreign security forces. The information would 
be provided on a country-by-country basis. The provision would 
supersede the reporting requirement under section 1209 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which would be repealed under this section.
Sense of the Senate on multilateral humanitarian assistance and 
        disaster relief exercises (sec. 1212)
    The committee recommends a provision that expresses the 
sense of the Senate that:
          (1) Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief 
        (HADR) multilateral exercises provide nations in the 
        Asia-Pacific region with the training, capacity 
        building, and coordination expertise necessary to 
        respond to natural disasters; and
          (2) Both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan 
        should be afforded the opportunity to attend future 
        multilateral (HADR) exercises to increase their 
        capacity to effectively respond to these types of 
        disasters.

    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq

Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1221)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 
$20.0 million available during fiscal year 2015 for the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan 
under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) as amended. The 
provision would also reduce the aggregate amount of CERP funds 
that could be spent on any one project to $2.0 million.
    The committee notes that a primary purpose of CERP has been 
to enhance force protection by winning the support of local 
communities in areas where U.S. combat forces are deployed. 
With the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the end of 
major combat operations after December 2014, the committee 
believes that reductions in CERP funding should continue to the 
minimum level commensurate with the train, advise, and assist 
mission anticipated for U.S. forces in 2015 and beyond.
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense 
        services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan 
        (sec. 1222)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 1222 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) to transfer defense articles being drawn 
down in Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in 
connection with such transfers, to the military and security 
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through 
fiscal year 2015 the exemption for excess defense articles 
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense (DOD) stocks in 
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the 
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act (Public Law 87-195).
    The committee understands that DOD has determined that 
several hundred Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles 
in Afghanistan have been determined to be excess to U.S. 
defense needs and therefore will either be transferred as 
excess defense articles to foreign security forces or 
destroyed. The committee believes that these MRAP vehicles 
could provide the Afghan National Security Forces with valuable 
mobility and personnel protection and urges the Secretary of 
Defense to consider transferring these excess MRAP vehicles 
under the authority provided in this section.
One-year extension of authority to use funds for reintegration 
        activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1223)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1216 of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383) as amended, to use Department of Defense 
funds to support the reintegration of former insurgent fighters 
into Afghanistan society. The provision would authorize the use 
of up to $15.0 million in fiscal year 2015 for these purposes.
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 
        coalition nations for support provided to United States 
        military operations (sec. 1224)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
fiscal year 2015 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds 
(CSF) payments under section 1233 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as 
amended. Under this section, the Secretary of Defense may use 
CSF to reimburse key nations for support provided to or in 
connection with U.S. military operations in Afghanistan or to 
use such funds to provide specialized training or loan 
specialized equipment to key nations participating in coalition 
operations in Afghanistan. The provision would limit the total 
amount of CSF that could be provided in fiscal year 2015 to 
$1.2 billion. Of this amount, the amount of CSF that could be 
provided to Pakistan would be limited to $900.0 million. The 
provision would also extend for 1 year certain notification and 
certification requirements relating to CSF payments to 
Pakistan. The provision would also restrict the Secretary of 
Defense from waiving the certification requirements relating to 
$300.0 million of the $900.0 million in CSF authorized for 
Pakistan unless the Secretary certifies that Pakistan has 
undertaken military operations in North Waziristan that have 
significantly disrupted the safe haven and freedom of movement 
of the Haqqani network in Pakistan.
    The committee notes that CSF payments are directly tied to 
support provided to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and 
should not be considered to be foreign assistance by another 
name. With the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the 
end of major combat operations there, the committee expects 
that CSF payments by the Department of Defense will decline 
accordingly.
One-year extension of logistical support for coalition forces 
        supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 
        1225)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
fiscal year 2015 the authority to provide logistical support to 
coalition forces under section 1234 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as 
amended.
Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and projects of the 
        Department of Defense in Afghanistan that cannot be safely 
        accessed by United States Government personnel (sec. 1226)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense (DOD) funds 
for DOD reconstruction or other infrastructure projects in 
Afghanistan if those projects are not safely accessible by U.S. 
Government personnel with authority to conduct oversight. The 
provision would include a waiver if certain specified 
conditions can be met.
Semiannual report on enhancing the strategic partnership between the 
        United States and Afghanistan (sec. 1227)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
semiannual report on building and sustaining the Afghan 
National Security Forces (ANSF) through October 2017. The 
provision would also repeal the reporting requirement under 
section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Report on bilateral security cooperation with Pakistan (sec. 1228)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to submit semi-annually a detailed report to the 
appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and extent of 
bilateral security cooperation between the United States and 
Pakistan. The report would include information on the 
cooperation of the Government of Pakistan in the search for 
Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured in Afghanistan in 
June 2009. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
make available to the intelligence committees a copy of the 
report required under this section.
Surface clearance of unexploded ordnance on former United States 
        training ranges in Afghanistan (sec. 1229)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $125.0 million of 
Department of Defense funds in each of fiscal years 2015 and 
2016 to conduct surface clearance of unexploded ordnance at 
closed training ranges used by the U.S. Armed Forces in 
Afghanistan.
    The committee notes that as U.S. Forces have drawn down in 
Afghanistan, dozens of firing ranges operated and managed by 
U.S. Forces have been closed. While strongly supportive of 
efforts to clear unexploded ordnance from these ranges, the 
committee notes that the inclusion of this authority does not 
create a U.S. legal obligation regarding the disposition of 
unexploded ordnance at these ranges or ranges transferred to 
Government of Afghanistan control and is not intended to serve 
as a precedent with respect to ranges in other countries or 
ranges transferred to Government of Afghanistan control.
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (sec. 1230)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 
1 fiscal year, and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
program.
Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 
        activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 
        1231)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2015 the authority under section 1215 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Secretary of Defense 
to support on a transitional basis the operations and 
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-
I). The provision would authorize the use of up to $30.0 
million in fiscal year 2015 to support OSC-I operations and 
activities.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional 
authority for the OSC-I to conduct non-operational training of 
Iraqi Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Counter Terrorism Service 
(CTS) personnel in an institutional environment to address 
capability gaps and integrate certain processes within the 
Iraqi security forces. In this regard, the committee 
understands the term ``non-operational'' to mean training that 
is conducted while not engaged in combat operations, and is not 
intended to preclude training of Iraqi security forces on 
operational tactics, techniques, or procedures within an 
institutional setting such as a MOD or a CTS training facility. 
In addition, the committee believes that nothing in this 
provision restricts the training of MOD or CTS personnel from 
being conducted only at those facilities owned or controlled by 
their respective ministry or service, and therefore nothing in 
this provision would preclude CTS personnel from training at 
MOD training facilities, and vice versa.

                          Subtitle C--Reports

Report on impact of end of major combat operations in Afghanistan on 
        authority to use military force (sec. 1241)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State and the Attorney General, to submit a report to the 
appropriate committees of Congress assessing the impact, if 
any, of the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan on 
the authority of U.S. Armed Forces to use military force 
against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other associated forces 
under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force or 
any other available legal authority.
United States strategy for enhancing security and stability in Europe 
        (sec. 1242)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
strategy for enhancing security and stability in Europe. The 
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a review of the contingency plans and force posture, 
readiness, and responsiveness of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) forces in Europe to ensure that such forces 
are appropriate to meet obligations under the North Atlantic 
Treaty, particularly the collective defense commitment of 
Article V. In addition, the provision would require the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop plans for reassuring our 
NATO allies and for enhancing U.S. security cooperation with 
appropriate countries participating in the NATO Partnership for 
Peace program, specifically those countries that are at risk or 
may become at risk of intimidation or threats to their 
sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring 
countries. Further, the provision would prohibit the use of DOD 
funds authorized by this Act to conduct bilateral security 
cooperation activities between the United States and Russia 
until Russia has ended its aggressive activities threatening 
the security of Ukraine and allied nations. The Secretary of 
Defense would be authorized to waive the applicability of this 
prohibition, if necessary, for critical U.S. national security 
needs.
Report on military and security developments involving the Russian 
        Federation (sec. 1243)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
detailed report on Russia's security and military strategy. The 
report would include all the elements of the report on Russia 
required under section 1254 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and 
add certain specified reporting requirements. The committee 
remains concerned about Russia's annexation and occupation of 
Crimea and the effect of Russian actions on the security and 
stability of Europe and Eurasia. In reporting on the force 
structure of the Russian military, the committee expects the 
report to include a description of Russian military forces 
stationed outside of Russia, Russian bases outside of Russia, 
and a breakout of forces stationed in Kaliningrad.
    The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives an interim briefing by December 31, 
2014, to update the information provided in the report required 
by June 1, 2014, under section 1254 of Public Law 113-66, as 
well as progress on assessments of the additional items 
required in the expanded and modified report under this 
section.
Modification of matters for discussion in annual reports of United 
        States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (sec. 
        1244)
    The committee recommends a provision that would revise and 
update the mandate of the United States-China Economic and 
Security Review Commission. The Commission's mandate has not 
been updated since the Commission was created in 2001. The 
updated mandate would include additional areas of concern for 
the committee including the People's Republic of China's (PRC) 
military plans, strategy and doctrine, strategic economic and 
security implications of its cyber operations, as well as the 
effects of energy and natural resource needs of the country on 
the foreign and military policies of the PRC.
    The committee emphasizes that the Commission and its 
members should adhere to the guidance in the Commission's 
charter. In particular, the expertise of members of the 
Commission on matters relevant to the Commission's mandate is 
essential to their ability to appropriately advise Congress. 
Members of the Commission must possess a working knowledge of 
national security matters and U.S.-China relations. The 
committee urges members of the Commission to cultivate and 
maintain expertise in such matters on an annual basis during 
their terms in order to fully and effectively comply with the 
charter.
    Further, the Commission is required to include a full 
discussion of issues listed in its mandate in each annual 
report. The committee urges the Commission to address all areas 
outlined as priorities in the Commission's revised mandate, 
including matters on which members of the Commission have 
diverse or divided viewpoints.
Report on maritime security strategy and annual briefing on military to 
        military engagement with the People's Republic of China (sec. 
        1245)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President to provide the congressional defense committees a 
report with a classified annex, if necessary, that would 
outline the Department of Defense (DOD) strategy with regard to 
maritime security in the South China and East China seas, 
including: (1) A description of planned bilateral or regional 
maritime capacity building initiatives; (2) An assessment of 
anti-access/area denial capabilities of the People's Republic 
of China (PRC); (3) An assessment of how the PRC has changed 
the status quo with regard to competing maritime claims in 
those seas; (4) An analysis and assessment of the benefits of 
the military-to-military engagement between the United States 
and the PRC and potential impact on tensions in the East and 
South China Seas; and (5) A description of the naval 
modernization efforts of the PRC and the implications of those 
efforts for U.S. strategy for maritime security in the region.
    The provision would also require that the DOD provide the 
congressional defense committees a yearly briefing on the 
military-to-military engagements between the United States and 
the PRC, including an assessment of the success of such 
engagements in meeting the objectives of the Commander of 
United States Pacific Command for such engagements.
Report on military assistance to Ukraine (sec. 1246)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annually to the 
congressional defense committees a report on U.S. military 
assistance to Ukraine. The requirement to submit this report 
would terminate on January 31, 2017.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Treatment of Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of 
        Kurdistan under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sec. 1261)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of 
Homeland Security or the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
consultation with the Secretary of State to exclude the 
Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan 
from the definition of a Tier III terrorist organization under 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
Notification on potentially significant arms control noncompliance 
        (sec. 1262)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to notify the President if the Secretary 
has substantial reason to believe that there is a potentially 
significant case of foreign noncompliance with an arms control 
treaty to which the United States is a party. It would also 
require the Secretary to submit notice to the Senate committees 
on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence not 
later than 30 days after such notification to the President.
Enhanced authority for provision of support to foreign military liaison 
        officers of foreign countries while assigned to the Department 
        of Defense (sec. 1263)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to provide the 
Department of Defense the authority to continue to benefit from 
the contributions of liaison officers from other countries 
beyond the conclusion of current named military operations in 
Afghanistan.
    The committee believes that this authority will enable the 
Secretary of Defense to better facilitate partner nation 
participation to assist the United States in a wider range of 
partnerships, cooperative ventures, and burden-sharing efforts. 
It would also allow like-minded countries to better plan and 
utilize resources when addressing common threats and it would 
enhance interoperability and working relationships between the 
United States and foreign militaries.
One-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted 
        recovery capabilities (sec. 1264)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, 
and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities 
for 1 additional year.
Inter-European Air Forces Academy (sec. 1265)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to operate the Inter-European 
Air Forces Academy for the purpose of military education and 
training to military personnel of North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) members and countries participating in the 
NATO Partnership for Peace program. The provision would also 
authorize the use of funds available for Air Force operations 
and maintenance to pay certain costs associated with the 
program. The authority would expire on September 30, 2017.
    The committee understands that the intention of the 
Department of Defense in establishing the program and 
curriculum of the Inter-European Air Forces Academy is to train 
non-commissioned officers and company grade officers of allied 
and partnered air forces, primarily from Eastern Europe, to 
help them overcome the legacy of overly centralized command and 
control structures of these air forces instilled during the 
Cold War. The program would be intended to train these 
personnel to delegate effectively within a decentralized 
organization and to improve the interoperability and 
effectiveness for future coalition operations.
Extension of limitations on providing certain missile defense 
        information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1266)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 
year the limitations in section 1246(c) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on 
providing certain missile defense information to the Russian 
Federation.
Prohibition on direct or indirect use of funds to enter into contracts 
        or agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1267)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Department of Defense (DOD) from contracting with the 
Russian state corporation Rosoboronexport or any of its 
subsidiaries or affiliates. The provision would also require 
DOD to immediately terminate all contracts with 
Rosoboronexport. In addition, the provision requires a report 
submitted to the congressional defense committees on the 
activities of Rosoboronexport.

                       Items of Special Interest

Annual report on the military power of Iran
    The committee remains concerned about the regional and 
international threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic 
missile development programs. As Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander 
of U.S. Strategic Command, stated in testimony to the committee 
on February 27, 2014, ``[i]f Iran were to make progress toward 
developing an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] capable 
of delivering a nuclear or conventional warhead and with 
sufficient range to reach CONUS [continental United States], I 
would consider that a threat to the United States.'' The 
committee agrees strongly with Admiral Haney and the committee 
remains interested in an update from the Secretary of Defense 
on Iran's military development activities in this regard.
    The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is 
required to submit, on an annual basis, a report on the 
military power of Iran (section 1245 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, as amended (Public Law 
110-84)). The committee notes that previous versions of this 
report have provided useful information on Iran's military 
power, including its ballistic missile capabilities and 
developments. The report is due on January 30 of each year. 
However, the committee notes that, as of May 2014, the report 
covering 2013 has not been provided to Congress. The committee 
expects the prompt delivery of this report each year.
    Given this delay, upon the delivery of the report covering 
2013, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
to Congress a briefing on the report which--in addition to 
covering information from 2013--should also provide an update 
from the report's information cut-off date to the present on 
any developments within Iran's ballistic missile program that 
would, at a minimum, contain the information required in 
section 1245(b)(4).
Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of 
        Defense security assistance to the Republic of Yemen
    The committee notes that Yemen continues to be threatened 
by terrorist and regional insurgent violence and racked by 
systemic socio-economic and environmental problems. Further, 
the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) 
remains a serious national security threat to the United 
States. The U.S. Government has invested more than $1 billion 
in assistance since 2007 in support of U.S. strategic goals for 
Yemen.
    While the Government Accountability Office reported in 
March 2013 that some progress has been made toward supporting 
the Government of Yemen in addressing these difficulties, 
significant challenges remain regarding Yemen's future, 
underscoring the possibility that Yemen will need further U.S. 
assistance as it navigates a demanding transition process.
    The committee remains concerned about U.S. security 
assistance programs (primarily so-called sections 1203, 1206, 
and 1207(n) assistance programs) and the long-term viability of 
the U.S. security strategy for Yemen that these programs seek 
to support. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to update the March 2013 report on 
U.S. Assistance to Yemen (GAO-13-310). The committee is 
particularly interested in: (1) Receiving an update on the 
status of Department of Defense efforts to deliver security-
related equipment on a timely basis and conduct the associated 
training within the time period permitted in the underlying 
provision of public law; (2) An analysis of the maintenance 
support programs for the Yemeni security forces on the U.S. 
provided equipment, including--but not limited to--field 
service representatives or direct training of the Yemeni 
security force; (3) An assessment of the cohesiveness and 
synergy of the collective programs and equipment provided under 
security assistance programs since 2008; and (4) Other matters 
the Comptroller General determines appropriate in the conduct 
of the review. The committee directs that the Comptroller 
General brief the congressional defense committees on its 
initial findings no later than the end of this calendar year, 
and that a final report be issued no later than March 31, 2015.
Maritime security in West Africa
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy (USD/P), in consultation with the Commander of United 
States Africa Command, to develop a framework for U.S. maritime 
security assistance and cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea. Such 
framework shall include the following for each of the principal 
maritime nations in the Gulf of Guinea and for the region as a 
whole:
          (1) An assessment of where there are shortfalls 
        within national and regional capabilities to reduce and 
        prevent current threats and illegal activities 
        including piracy, maritime oil theft, illegal fishing, 
        illegal trafficking of humans, narcotics, weapons and 
        commodities, and such other destabilizing activities 
        that may disrupt peaceful maritime governance;
          (2) An assessment of the current and expected 
        contributions of partner nations, international 
        organizations, non-governmental organizations, and 
        interagency efforts to reduce the shortfalls identified 
        in paragraph (1) and shall include how these efforts 
        can be synchronized to avoid duplication of effort;
          (3) Development and evaluation of Department of 
        Defense (DOD) alternatives to enhance the maritime 
        security capabilities of the Gulf of Guinea states and 
        region through prioritization of targeted security 
        assistance efforts; and
          (4) Development and evaluation of options for the 
        DOD, in partnership with the Gulf of Guinea states, to 
        combat official corruption facilitating piracy and 
        other illegal activity and to enable host nation law 
        enforcement actions against piracy and transnational 
        criminal networks and their support infrastructure.
    The USD/P shall submit the report to the congressional 
defense committees and the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations and the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign 
Affairs not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 
Further, the committee directs that the report include 
recommendations for action by the Department of the Navy to 
enhance maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea.
Nigeria and the threat posed by Boko Haram
    The committee has watched with great concern as Boko Haram, 
which the Department of State designated as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization in 2013 following a review of available 
intelligence directed by the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), has grown in 
strength, size, capability, lethal capacity, and geographic 
reach over the last few years, and as the Nigerian Government 
has struggled to develop effective policies to combat Boko 
Haram.
    Boko Haram's brutal tactics have included dozens of violent 
terrorist attacks against both the Nigerian Government and 
civilian targets such as civil society leaders, moderate 
religious leaders, journalists, health workers involved in 
vaccination campaigns, teachers, and students attending secular 
schools, including the nearly 300 young girls abducted in 
north-eastern Nigeria earlier this year. Boko Haram has 
achieved success by advancing a violent extremist ideology 
while tapping into grievances regarding governance, corruption, 
and underdevelopment in northern Nigeria.
    Boko Haram increasingly presents a direct threat to the 
Government of Nigeria and to stability in northern Nigeria. 
Moreover, its growth has a direct bearing on U.S. national 
security interests in the region, given its commitment to 
terrorist methods, ties with transnational terrorist groups 
such as Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), 
and reported involvement in transnational organized crime 
activities such as illicit trafficking in narcotics, arms, and 
wildlife.
    In response to Boko Haram's growing threat, the Government 
of Nigeria declared a state of emergency in several northern 
states in May 2013 and has since increased its military and 
police operations against Boko Haram. However, these operations 
have often been heavy-handed, raising human rights concerns as 
well as fears that the Government of Nigeria may be driving 
more local residents to support Boko Haram or deterring them 
from cooperating with law enforcement.
    Moreover, the Government of Nigeria has missed 
opportunities to partner with the international community to 
improve the effectiveness of its response, and has failed to 
address underlying grievances that enhance Boko Haram's appeal 
in the region. As a recent International Crisis Group Report 
noted, ``Unless the federal and state governments, and the 
region, develop and implement comprehensive plans to tackle not 
only insecurity but also the injustices that drive much of the 
troubles, Boko Haram, or groups like it, will continue to 
destabilise large parts of the country.''
    The committee recognizes Nigeria as an important partner to 
the United States but is concerned that deficiencies in the 
Government of Nigeria's current approach to confronting Boko 
Haram is undermining its ability to ensure the security of the 
Nigerian people. While the Department of Defense should 
continue bilateral counterterrorism efforts and its 
participation in the inter-agency efforts relating to the 
captured young girls, the committee believes broader 
cooperation with the Nigerian Government should be considered 
carefully in the context of the Nigerian Government's progress 
in addressing underlying grievances, discontinuing heavy-handed 
security tactics, and expanding political and economic 
opportunity in northern Nigeria.
Northeast Asian intelligence threats
    The committee understands that U.S. military facilities, 
U.S. military technology, and Department of Defense (DOD) 
personnel in Japan are strategic targets for the intelligence 
and military intelligence agencies of regional adversaries and 
competitors in Northeast Asia. The committee notes that the 
Japanese National Diet's approval of the Secrets Protection Act 
of 2013 provides a legal framework to help protect the 
Government of Japan (GOJ) and U.S. classified national security 
data. The committee encourages DOD and the GOJ to continue 
their collaborative efforts to thwart intelligence threats from 
regional adversaries and competitors.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of the 
Defense Intelligence Agency to provide a classified briefing to 
the congressional defense and intelligence committees, no later 
than October 1, 2014, on the intelligence threat to U.S. 
military facilities and personnel in Japan. This briefing shall 
include discussion of U.S. cooperation with the GOJ to counter 
regional intelligence threats, as well as an update on the 
GOJ's implementation of the Secrets Protection Act of 2013.
Plans for bases in Afghanistan
    The committee notes that the administration is still in 
negotiations with the Government of the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan on a Bilateral Security Agreement, which would 
establish missions and set the number of U.S. military forces 
to remain in Afghanistan beyond December 2014. As such, the 
administration has not yet provided a budget request or 
justification to the committee on supplemental funding required 
to support overseas contingency operations.
    If the administration decides to station U.S. military 
forces in Afghanistan, those forces will need facilities and 
supporting infrastructure that is safe and secure and enables 
efficient mission accomplishment. The committee expects the 
Department of Defense to include in future budget requests the 
plans and investments required to ensure adequate facilities 
and infrastructure for the expected duration of the post-2014 
mission.
Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the 
        Lord's Resistance Army
    The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has wreaked havoc upon 
millions for more than 2 decades throughout central Africa. The 
LRA's atrocities have included murder, rape, and the abduction 
of children to serve as child soldiers. In 2009, Congress 
passed, and the President signed into law, the Lord's 
Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act 
(Public Law 111-172), which outlined U.S. policy objectives 
focused on eliminating the threat posed by the LRA and its 
leader, Joseph Kony. In subsequent years, Congress has provided 
supporting legislative authorities and associated funding for 
U.S. military assistance, known as Operation Observant Compass, 
to regional partners combating the LRA, most recently in 
section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
    The committee remains strongly supportive of Operation 
Observant Compass and related assistance to the Africa Union 
Regional Task Force and other regional partners, including the 
deployment of U.S. military advisors and equipment. This 
support has enabled notable progress, including the removal of 
key LRA commanders from the battlefield and has contributed to 
increased defections, which the Department of State estimates 
has reduced the number of LRA fighters to approximately 200 
from nearly 1,000 6 years ago.
    However, the committee believes that continued U.S. 
support, specifically additional enablers and actionable 
intelligence, is required to increase the effectiveness of our 
regional partners in eliminating the threat posed by Joseph 
Kony and the LRA to civilian populations. As such, the 
committee urges the Department of Defense to continue its 
assistance, specifically the provision of key enabling support, 
such as mobility and targeted intelligence collection and 
analysis resources.

United States-India Defense Security Cooperation

    The committee supports the continued and growing bilateral 
security relationship between the United States and India, 
which includes the expansion of defense trade. Defense trade 
with India supports both countries and highlights the 
significance of U.S.-India cooperation in the Asia-Pacific 
region. The objective of the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
Defense Trade Initiative (DTI) with India is to nurture 
increased U.S. defense exports to India. The committee notes 
that DTI has had mixed results, and encourages the DOD to 
continue its efforts to streamline business processes to make 
U.S.-India defense trade and collaboration simpler, responsive, 
and effective.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with other departments and agencies, 
as appropriate, to provide the congressional defense and 
foreign affairs committees a classified briefing, no later than 
October 1, 2014, on the technologies that are currently being 
considered or may be considered for export to India, including 
pending or completed reforms of export controls to facilitate 
DTI.

United States Strategy on the African Union Mission in Somalia

    Since 2007, the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) 
has been the primary point of engagement for U.S. policy in 
Somalia. The United States has been the single largest 
bilateral contributor to financing AMISOM and has provided 
significant logistical, technical, and political support to 
AMISOM operations. Additionally, the U.S. Government has 
provided substantial support to AMISOM contributors through 
various security assistance programs, among other means. AMISOM 
has proven highly successful in helping the United States 
achieve its foremost national security objective in Somalia of 
disrupting and dismantling al Shabaab in order to prevent the 
planning and execution of international terrorist attacks.
    However, as the situation in Somalia has been transformed 
by the security gains against al Shabaab and the establishment 
of a permanent national government, the committee is concerned 
that strategy informing U.S. policy with regard to AMISOM 
specifically and Somalia more broadly has not kept pace with 
the evolving security and governance landscape. There appears 
to be no coherent long-term strategy or timeline for 
transitioning the AMISOM mission or associated U.S. support; 
moreover, a stagnant U.S. policy towards Somalia that continues 
to be centered upon AMISOM carries a number of risks both for 
the future of Somalia and for broader U.S. national security 
objectives in the region.
    The committee is concerned that an open-ended AMISOM 
mission without a clearly articulated transition strategy could 
crystallize the current status quo that while representing 
progress from past conditions, is not an acceptable end-state. 
Accepting the status quo as an end state would mean a long-term 
dependence by the Somali Federal Government (SFG) on AMISOM to 
fulfill its security needs; a SFG that is unable or unmotivated 
to extend its reach beyond Mogadishu; an overwhelming 
dependence by the SFG on foreign assistance; the strengthening 
or institutionalization of clan-based militias outside of 
Mogadishu; and lack of progress toward necessary constitutional 
and governmental reform. The committee notes that there already 
appears to be a relative paralysis with regard to achieving 
identified political milestones, including progressing toward 
scheduled elections and a constitutional referendum.
    An additional concern is that the continued presence of 
AMISOM soldiers on Somali soil could generate increasingly 
negative reactions from local populations, particularly given 
that AMISOM now includes substantial numbers of military 
personnel from neighboring nations which many Somali citizens 
have historically regarded with distrust. Reports of abuses 
committed by AMISOM personnel against local citizens appear to 
have increased tensions between AMISOM and local populations in 
recent months; these tensions are further exacerbated by the 
significant disparity in monthly salaries between AMISOM 
soldiers and members of the Somali National Army. Such 
tensions, should they continue to grow, could fuel a resurgence 
of al Shabaab or other violent groups intent on attacking 
foreign forces.
    The committee is concerned that continued support to AMISOM 
also risks constraining or undermining the U.S. Government's 
ability to address broader national security objectives in the 
region. Continued support for AMISOM will require continued 
support for, and dependence upon, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia 
in a way that is potentially counterproductive to U.S. 
bilateral and regional policies, particularly in the context of 
increasing human rights concerns.
    As a result, the committee believes the Department of 
Defense should be working in close coordination with the 
Department of State to plan for a U.S. Government policy toward 
Somalia in a post-AMISOM context, to include planning for 
concrete steps to transition AMISOM's mission to the SFG and 
for addressing U.S. counterterrorism interests in AMISOM's 
absence. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to 
provide a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment 
of this Act, outlining a strategy for U.S. action with regard 
to the future of AMISOM and U.S. security and political support 
to Somalia. This strategy should include:
          (1) clearly identified, long-term end states and 
        policy objectives for addressing threats to U.S. 
        national security interests emanating from al Shabaab 
        or other actors in Somalia, and a description of what 
        role, if any, AMISOM should have in achieving those 
        objectives;
          (2) a plan for assisting in the transition of 
        security responsibilities from AMISOM to the Somali 
        National Army;
          (3) a specific strategy and timeline for winding down 
        U.S. financial and logistical support to AMISOM; and
          (4) specific benchmarks and milestones by which to 
        measure progress toward achieving the end states, 
        objectives, and plans identified in (1)-(3).
    The committee further expects the Secretary to ensure that 
the aforementioned strategy informs DOD plans with regard to 
continued security assistance programs in the region.
                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                    Subtitle A--Funding Allocations

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds 
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, 
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$365 million, the amount of the budget request, for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision 
authorizes specific amounts for each CTR program element, 
requires notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary 
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for a 
purpose other than a purpose listed in the provision, and 
requires notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary 
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds in 
excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program 
element.

Subtitle B--Consolidation and Modernization of Statutes Relating to the 
       Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

Consolidation and modernization of statutes relating to the Department 
        of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (secs. 1311-
        1352)
    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
and update Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 
authorities.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, 
defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 
of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug 
activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels 
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

       Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile and Related Matters

Report on development of secure supply of rare earth materials (sec. 
        1411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, on the supply of rare earth 
materials extracted, processed, and refined from secure sources 
of supply to develop and produce advanced technologies in 
support of requirements of the Department of Defense.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
        Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
        Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, 
        Illinois (sec. 1421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $146.9 million from the 
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
Fund to be used for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell 
Federal Health Care Center, Illinois.
Comptroller General of the United States report on Captain James A. 
        Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, Illinois 
        (sec. 1422)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services and on Veterans' Affairs of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the Captain 
James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, 
Illinois, demonstration project not later than 120 days after 
the date that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submit to the Committees on Armed Services and 
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives their evaluation report on this 
demonstration project.
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
        1423)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$63.4 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 from the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Designation and responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor for the 
        Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1513A of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 
(24 U.S.C. 413a) to make technical corrections regarding the 
designation of the Senior Medical Advisor for the retirement 
home to reflect the disestablishment of the TRICARE Management 
Activity and creation of the new Defense Health Agency. The 
provision would also replace the reference to the health care 
standards of the Department of Veterans Affairs with the more 
appropriate nationally recognized health care standards and 
requirements.

                              Budget Items

Meals, ready-to-eat
    The committee request included $44.2 million for the 
working capital fund, Defense-wide, Defense Logistics Agency 
(DLA).
    The committee notes that a level of 5.0 million cases of 
meals, ready-to-eat (MRE) was initiated in 2005 to support the 
operational tempo of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. A July 
2013 DLA Operations Research and Resource Analysis (DORRA) 
found that MRE inventory levels should be set between 3.4 
million and 3.9 million cases per year.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million to the working capital fund, Defense-wide, for the DLA.
Defense Commissary Agency
    The budget request included $1.1 billion for the Working 
Capital Fund, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). The budget 
assumed savings of $200.0 million associated with a legislative 
proposal to streamline and reform commissary operations. The 
committee declined to support this proposal.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in the 
Working Capital Fund, DeCA of $200.0 million to restore these 
assumed savings.
Additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to 
        United States Southern Command
    The budget request includes $719.1 million for drug 
interdiction and counterdrug activities, of which $7.7 million 
is for United States Army Intelligence Command counternarcotics 
surveillance support and $23.9 million is for a transit zone 
maritime patrol aircraft for intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) support. This funding is intended to 
assist United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to fulfill its 
statutory mission (10 U.S.C. 124) for detection and monitoring 
of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United 
States. The committee notes that the SOUTHCOM Commander 
identified shortfalls in the ISR support provided to SOUTHCOM 
through the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) 
and, therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million for additional ISR support for SOUTHCOM.
    The amount authorized by the committee for this purpose is 
in addition to the amounts already allocated in the President's 
budget request to support SOUTHCOM's ISR requirements.
    The committee notes that on March 13, 2014, General John F. 
Kelly, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified before the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, that only about 5 percent of 
SOUTHCOM's ISR requirements are being met. Gen. Kelly further 
testified that, ``the vast majority of heroin that's consumed 
in the United States is actually produced in Latin America. The 
poppies are now grown in places like Guatemala and Colombia.''
    The committee directs not later than 60 days after 
enactment of this Act the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, in coordination with 
the SOUTHCOM Commander, provide the congressional defense 
committees a briefing on its plan to use the additional funding 
to support SOUTHCOM's narcotics and illicit trafficking 
detection, monitoring, and interdiction operations. The plan 
should also identify any other shortfalls, particularly in the 
area of maritime and fixed and rotary wing assets, and describe 
any plans to mitigate the impact of these shortfalls to 
operations.
Defense Health Program funding
    The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 
Health Program includes the following changes from the budget 
request.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation.           -88.0
Annual person-to-person mental health assessments.......            10.0
    Total...............................................           -78.0
    The committee recommends a total reduction in the Defense 
Health Program of $78.0 million. This includes a reduction of 
$88.0 million to reflect costs avoided by the Department of 
Defense relative to its proposal to consolidate the TRICARE 
program, which the committee did not adopt, and an increase of 
$10.0 million to fund annual person-to-person mental health 
assessments for servicemembers.

                       Items of Special Interest


                     Defense working capital funds

    The committee is concerned that the Department of the 
Treasury's decision to migrate from monthly to daily cash 
balances for the defense working capital funds will likely be 
delayed beyond October 1, 2014. In preparation for such a 
migration, the committee is concerned that the Services are 
purposefully building up excess cash as the Department of 
Defense (DOD) determines the appropriate amount of cash 
balances or sufficient cash balances in accordance with DOD's 
financial military regulation policy. It remains unclear to the 
committee precisely what DOD intends with respect to defining 
sufficient cash balances.
    The committee is also concerned that a projected shortfall 
of $927.0 million in the fiscal year 2015 transportation 
working capital fund may have a significant negative impact on 
readiness, with respect to the airlift readiness account (ARA). 
The $927.0 million shortfall will also negatively impact the 
Air Force working capital fund cash balance and could affect 
the solvency of the fund. The committee notes that in fiscal 
year 2013, the Air Force failed to fund ARA requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later 
than October 1, 2015, on: (1) DOD's status made on the proposed 
change to daily cash balances; (2) A specific definition of 
sufficient cash balances that DOD and each military service 
will follow; (3) The methodology used to calculate such 
definition; (4) Recommendations on how to mitigate the need to 
carry excess cash to avoid Anti-deficiency Act violations; and 
(5) A mitigation plan to address the projected ARA shortfall, 
including any initiatives that could result in savings.
    Additionally, the committee urges DOD to consider 
addressing the fiscal year 2015 ARA shortfall in its fiscal 
year 2014 omnibus reprogramming request.

Department of Defense Inspector General

    The committee recognizes that the independent audit and 
investigative functions of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Inspector General (IG) continues to serve a valuable role in 
identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs and 
operations. In fiscal year 2013, DOD IG audits and 
investigations resulted in over a $5.3 billion return on 
investment, which is an increase of $1.7 billion in returns 
compared to fiscal year 2012. The committee notes that of the 
$5.3 billion returned in fiscal year 2013, $3.2 billion was in 
achieved monetary benefits, $1.3 billion in civil judgments and 
settlements, $733.0 million in criminal fines, penalties, and 
restitutions, $81.5 million in administrative recoveries, and 
$5.2 million in recovered government property. The 147 reports 
issued in fiscal year 2013 led to 172 arrests, 242 convictions, 
138 suspensions, and 161 debarments.
    The committee remains encouraged and recognizes the DOD 
IG's efforts to date and continued progress with respect to 
audit readiness, the drawdown of military forces, acquisition 
processes and financial management, sexual assault 
investigative oversight, suicide prevention, readiness and 
safety, information and cybersecurity, healthcare, intelligence 
oversight, senior official accountability, and whistleblower 
protection.
   TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
                         CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
this title and make authorization of appropriations available 
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to 
provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency 
operations.
Overseas Contingency Operations (sec. 1502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations.

                      Subtitle--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would state that 
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1512)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related 
funding authorizations in this title among accounts in this 
title.

          Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters

Plan for transition of funding of United States Special Operations 
        Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency 
        operations to recurring funding for future-years defense 
        programs (sec. 1521)
    The committee notes that approximately one-third, or $2.3 
billion, of the enacted budget for U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM) for fiscal year 2014 was Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO) funding. Furthermore, the committee 
understands that at least $783.0 million of this OCO funding 
has been identified by the Department of Defense and SOCOM as 
an enduring requirement that will be necessary to sustain 
special operations capabilities and readiness in future years. 
For example, on March 11, 2014, the Commander of SOCOM 
testified that ``SOCOM relies heavily on OCO funding today, 
with the National Mission Force, in particular, funded with 67 
percent of OCO.''
    The committee notes that section 1534 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a plan to fully transition 
appropriate SOCOM funding from the OCO to base budget over the 
future years defense program to maintain critical and enduring 
special operations capabilities. In a June 3, 2013, letter 
responding to this provision, the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict 
stated ``As the Department's topline continues to decrease, 
finding the resources to transfer SOCOM's OCO requirements to 
the base budget remains particularly challenging. The 
Department will assess transitioning future OCO to base 
requirements during DOD's FY 2015 Program and Budget Review 
(PBR) decision cycle, which will occur in the Summer and Fall 
of 2013.
    Unfortunately, the Department still has not provided the 
congressional defense committees with the required plan. The 
committee remains concerned that the Department has not 
identified a plan to fully transition funding for enduring 
special operations requirements from the OCO to base budget in 
future years, potentially putting sustainment of such 
capabilities at risk. Therefore, the committee again recommends 
a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees, as part of the 
fiscal year 2016 budget request, with a plan to fully 
transition appropriate SOCOM funding from the OCO to base 
budget over the future years defense program to maintain 
critical and enduring special operations capabilities.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would 
thereby provide the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) with the authority to 
investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies, 
services, training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist 
United States forces in the defeat of improvised explosive 
devices for Operation Enduring Freedom or any successor 
operation to that operation. The provision would also extend 
JIEDDO's authority with respect to homemade explosives, and 
would sunset this authority on December 31, 2015. The provision 
would also direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to present to the 
congressional defense committees a plan to consolidate any 
enduring functions of the stated organizations, capabilities, 
and funding into an appropriate organization identified as part 
of that review.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1523)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces 
Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2015 continue to be subject to the 
conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended. The provision would also 
extend the requirement under subsection (c)(1) of section 1531 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66) that not less than $25.0 million of ASFF 
funding be available to be used to promote the recruitment, 
integration, retention, training, and treatment of women in the 
Afghanistan National Security Forces. The provision would also 
extend the authority under section 1531(d) of Public Law 113-66 
for the Department of Defense to dispose of certain equipment 
in Afghanistan.
    The committee understands that for logistical and security 
reasons Afghan Air Force (AAF) pilots will initially train on 
A-29 Light Attack Support aircraft in the United States. The 
committee concurs with this course of action with the 
understanding that the U.S. Government intends to transfer all 
20 A-29 aircraft used in such training to the Government of 
Afghanistan to support military operations after the initial 
training of the AAF pilots is complete, regardless of the 
outcome of Bilateral Security Agreement negotiations.
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (sec. 1524)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense funds for the 
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.
Sense of Congress regarding counter-improvised explosive devices (sec. 
        1525)
    The committee recommends a provision that express the sense 
of Congress on the importance of retaining, to the extent 
practicable, a knowledge base relating to counter-improvised 
explosive device operations.

                              Budget Item


Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    The budget request includes $115.1 million for the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat fund for the Joint IED 
Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure 
expenses.
    As it has in each fiscal year since JIEDDO's inception, the 
committee declines to recommend any funding for JIEDDO in the 
base budget and therefore recommends a reduction of $115.1 
million in the Joint IED Defeat fund. The committee understands 
that the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to request funding 
for the Joint IED Defeat fund in the overseas contingency 
operations budget request later this year.
    The committee recognizes the important work JIEDDO has done 
but notes that JIEDDO was created as a temporary wartime 
organization. The committee believes that the operational tempo 
in U.S. Central Command provides an opportunity to conduct a 
review, captured in another title of this Act, that should lead 
to consolidation and, where appropriate, elimination of 
organizations, such as JIEDDO, that provide response to 
emergent warfighter needs.
     TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

                       Subtitle A--Nuclear Forces

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 
        missile fuses (sec. 1601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would give 
authority to procure commercial parts for intercontinental 
ballistic missile fuses, notwithstanding 10 U.S.C. 1502(a), for 
fiscal year 2015.
Form of and cost estimates relating to annual reports on plan for the 
        nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear 
        weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command and 
        control system (sec. 1602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to include an update by 
the Congressional Budget Office of the report required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239) that would provide a 10-year estimate of costs 
associated with the fielding and maintaining the current 
nuclear weapons and delivery systems of the United States.
Reports on installation of nuclear command, control, and communications 
        systems at the United States Strategic Command headquarters 
        (sec. 1603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to submit an 
annual report on the installation of nuclear command, control, 
and communications (NC3) systems as part of the replacement for 
the STRATCOM headquarters. Such systems are unique, complex, 
and highly integrated within the overall U.S. NC3 architecture. 
In addition, many of the systems, such as the Strategic 
Automated Command and Control System and the Mission Planning 
and Analysis System, are based on outdated protocols, computer 
languages, and architectures that will most likely be 
incompatible with the communications systems in the new 
headquarters building. Either these outdated systems will have 
to be replaced or have interfaces built between them and the 
new headquarters building--a daunting task.
    The requirement for an annual report would terminate at 
such time as when the Commander of STRATCOM certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that all milestones have been 
completed, and the headquarters building is a fully functioning 
node in the overall NC3 architecture.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) shall review the 
existing milestones and scope of the effort and provide a 
technical briefing to the congressional defense committees no 
later than September 30, 2014, as to whether the scope of the 
current effort is complete, fully integrated, and meets 
accepted programmatic planning practices.
    The GAO shall review the report submitted each year and 
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on 
whether the installation is meeting projected milestones and 
costs and whether there are outstanding programmatic or 
technical issues that must be addressed to meet these 
milestones so that the building can become an operational hub 
in the overall NC3 network.
Reports on potential reductions to B61 life extension program (sec. 
        1604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Commander of 
U.S. Strategic Command to provide it with separate reports in 
advance of any decision to reduce the scope of the B61 Life 
Extension Program below the level proposed in the Fiscal Year 
2015 Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan. The committee notes 
that Assistant Secretary of Defense Madelyn Creedon's testimony 
last year that, ``the Nuclear Weapons Council changed the 
schedule and cumulative production quantity for the W76-1 
program. This change reduced the total LEP production quantity 
and realigned the end of the production period for all 
operational units from FY 2021 to FY 2019.'' The committee is 
not aware of any similar changes being discussed for the B61, 
but believes Congress should be notified in advance of any such 
action, since changes to the program could have far reaching 
consequences for U.S. national security and obligations to U.S. 
allies, as well as implications for the cost and schedule of 
the life extension program itself.
Sense of Congress on deterrence and defense posture of the North 
        Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express a 
sense of Congress that reaffirms and remains committed to the 
policies enumerated in the Deterrence and Defense Posture 
Review of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dated May 20, 
2012.

                  Subtitle B--Missile Defense Programs

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 1611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress on the importance of defending the United 
States Homeland against the threat of limited ballistic missile 
attack from North Korea and Iran, and would require a report 
describing the status of current and planned efforts to improve 
United States Homeland missile defense capabilities to keep 
pace with the evolving threat.
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is taking, and plans to 
take, numerous steps to improve homeland missile defense, 
including near-term, mid-term, and far-term enhancements. These 
include: (1) Near-term improvements to the reliability and 
performance of the currently deployed Ground-based Interceptor 
(GBI) kill vehicles; (2) Deployment of 14 additional GBIs in 
Alaska by the end of 2017; (3) Investments in enhanced sensor 
capabilities, including a new Long-Range Discriminating Radar 
in Alaska, and discrimination capabilities to improve 
operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system; (4) A mid-term re-design of the 
GMD Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) to improve its 
capability, producibility, maintainability, affordability, and 
testability; and (5) Plans to design a Next-Generation EKV to 
take full advantage of improvements in sensors, discrimination, 
kill assessment, battle management, and command and control, 
including the potential to defeat multiple threats with 
individual interceptors.
    The committee supports these multiple efforts to improve 
homeland missile defense, particularly the improvements to 
sensor and discrimination capabilities, and the re-design of 
the EKV and plans to design a Next Generation EKV.
    The improvements to sensor and discrimination capabilities 
should improve the operational effectiveness, cost-
effectiveness, and efficiency of the deployed inventory of GBIs 
with better targeting information that will allow the 
interceptors to defeat more targets. The committee expects MDA 
to pursue cost-effective development and acquisition approaches 
for these capabilities to ensure they are both affordable and 
effective, and directs MDA to keep the congressional defense 
committees fully apprised of progress on the acquisition of 
these capabilities.
    The committee also supports the plans to improve 
substantially the performance and reliability of future EKVs 
through the re-design (Phase 1) and the Next Generation EKV 
(Phase 2) efforts. Although MDA is still developing the 
requirements and acquisition plan for the re-designed EKV, it 
expects to flight test the re-designed EKV beginning in 2018, 
and to introduce it into the next procurement of GBIs starting 
in 2020, if development and testing prove successful. The 
committee expects MDA to use a rigorous acquisition approach, 
including realistic testing, that can achieve a demonstrated 
capability as soon as practicable using sound acquisition 
principles and practices. Elsewhere in this report, the 
committee addresses the need for a rigorous acquisition plan 
for the re-designed EKV.
    The Next Generation EKV is intended to take advantage of 
common kill vehicle technologies and improvements to the full 
range of homeland defense capabilities, such as discrimination 
and hit assessment, to defeat the evolving missile threat from 
nations such as North Korea and Iran. The MDA anticipates 
deploying the Next Generation EKV starting early in the next 
decade. It also could include the ability to defeat multiple 
threat objects with individual interceptors.
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 1612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress on the importance of effective regional 
missile defenses to protect U.S. forward deployed forces, 
allies, and partner countries against the growing threat of 
regional ballistic missiles, particularly from Iran and North 
Korea, to Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. 
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 
a report on the status and progress of efforts to improve 
regional missile defense capabilities in these regions, 
including efforts and cooperation by allies and partner 
countries.
    The Missile Defense Agency reports that the European Phased 
Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense is on track to 
deploy the Phase 2 Aegis Ashore site in Romania in 2015 and the 
Phase 3 Aegis Ashore site in Poland by the end of 2018. These 
capabilities are intended to increase the defensive coverage of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization area of Europe against 
increasingly capable and numerous Iranian missiles. The 
committee supports the continued development, testing, and 
implementation of Phases 2 and 3 of the EPAA, and believes 
these capabilities will be important components of regional 
European security.
    The committee notes that the United States is working with 
its Gulf Cooperation Council partner nations to improve 
regional air and missile defense capabilities, including data 
sharing and multilateral cooperation. The committee believes 
that such multilateral cooperation would enhance regional 
security and would provide significant improvements beyond 
national and bi-national capabilities. The committee encourages 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to make such multilateral air 
and missile defense cooperation a regional security priority.
    The committee notes the significant missile defense 
cooperation with Japan, including the co-development of the 
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor, and believes this 
cooperation is an important element of the allied response to 
North Korea's regional missile capabilities. The committee 
encourages DOD to continue working with other allies and 
partners in the region, particularly including South Korea and 
Australia, to enhance protection against North Korean regional 
missile capabilities.
    The committee notes that U.S. regional missile defense 
capabilities in each of these regions would be enhanced by 
increased interoperability and coordination among the 
geographic combatant commands and the capabilities under their 
control, and encourages DOD to take steps to maximize such 
interoperability and coordination.
Availability of funds for missile defense programs of Israel (sec. 
        1613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$350.9 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the 
Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range 
rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome 
parts and components in the United States by U.S. industry. The 
provision would also provide that, if the Government of Israel 
determines that it is a higher priority for its national 
security, up to $175.0 million of the amount authorized for 
Iron Dome may be used for the following U.S.-Israel cooperative 
missile defense programs: (1) The Arrow System Improvement 
Program; (2) The Arrow-3 Upper Tier interceptor development 
program; and (3) The David's Sling short-range ballistic 
missile defense system.
    The provision would also require that the funds authorized 
for Iron Dome would be available subject to the terms, 
conditions, and co-production targets specified for fiscal year 
2015 in the ``Agreement Between the Department of Defense of 
the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the 
State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System 
Procurement,'' signed on March 5, 2014. If the Government of 
Israel decides to use part or all of the $175.0 million 
authorized for the three specified cooperative missile defense 
programs, the provision would require that such funds be 
subject to the terms and conditions of the joint U.S.-Israel 
Project Agreements governing the management and execution of 
these cooperative programs.
    The committee notes that the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome 
agreement specifies that the funding level for Iron Dome for 
fiscal year 2015 would be $175.9 million, the amount in the 
budget request, and the final amount of the $677.0 million the 
United States agreed in 2012 to seek for Iron Dome from fiscal 
years 2012 to 2015. However, the Government of Israel has 
requested an additional $175.0 million for Iron Dome 
procurement in fiscal year 2015.
    The committee notes that Iron Dome has played an important 
role in protecting Israel's population from short-range rocket 
and mortar attacks. The United States has supported Israel's 
procurement of Iron Dome interceptors and batteries by 
providing Israel more than $700.0 million since fiscal year 
2011. The committee continues to be supportive of Iron Dome, 
and of co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in 
accordance with the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome agreement. However, 
the committee also has been supportive of the three cooperative 
missile defense programs that were jointly developed by the 
United States and Israel, and recognizes that they may be a 
higher priority for Israel to receive additional funding. This 
provision would provide the authority to permit Israel to use 
part or all of the additional $175.0 million for the missile 
defense programs that are the higher priority.
Acquisition plan for re-designed Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 
        1614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a robust acquisition plan for 
the re-design of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) of the 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The provision 
would require the acquisition plan to include rigorous elements 
for systems engineering, design, integration, development, 
testing, and evaluation to ensure that the re-designed EKV is 
operationally effective, reliable, producible, cost-effective, 
maintainable, and testable. Consistent with the fly-before-you-
buy acquisition approach, the provision would also require the 
re-designed EKV to be tested and demonstrated to have a high 
probability of working in an operationally effective manner 
prior to its operational deployment.
    The committee notes that on February 25, 2014, Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
Frank Kendall described problems with the GMD system as being 
related to ``a lot of bad engineering,'' saying it was 
``because there was a rush--to get something out.'' As 
acknowledged by Vice Admiral James Syring, Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), at a press conference on March 4, 
2014, the current GMD system was deployed with prototype kill 
vehicle designs that were developed and deployed without robust 
and rigorous acquisition practices, noting that ``we cut short 
the design cycle'' and the ``systems engineering cycle.'' 
Consequently, the GMD system has experienced several flight 
test failures since 2010 with both models of deployed kill 
vehicles, the Capability Enhancement-I and the Capability 
Enhancement-II. In a January 2014 report to Congress, the 
Director Of Operational Test and Evaluation wrote that these 
test failures ``raise questions regarding the robustness of the 
EKV design,'' and recommended that MDA consider re-designing 
the EKV ``using a rigorous systems engineering process to 
assure its design is robust against failure.''
    As reflected in the budget request, MDA is planning to re-
design the EKV, to increase its reliability, performance, 
producibility, and affordability, among other features. The 
committee supports this effort. At a hearing before the 
committee on April 2, 2014, all witnesses agreed that the re-
design effort should be based on a rigorous acquisition 
process. Admiral Syring testified to Congress that ``we have 
one chance to get it right. And circumventing the system 
engineering, design cycle, prototype testing and qualification 
will not happen. There's a very rigorous process that's 
followed for properly engineered missile systems.''
    The committee agrees on the need for a rigorous application 
of existing acquisition requirements established in law and 
regulation, and believes that a rigorous acquisition process is 
essential to ensure that the re-designed kill vehicle works in 
an operationally effective and cost-effective manner.
Testing and assessment of missile defense systems prior to production 
        and deployment (sec. 1615)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to 
follow a ``fly before you buy'' approach to adequately test and 
assess the elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
(BMDS) before final production decisions or operational 
deployment. The provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that, prior to making a final production 
decision for, and prior to the operational deployment of, a new 
or substantially upgraded interceptor or weapon system of the 
BMDS, sufficient and operationally realistic testing of the 
system is conducted and that the results of such testing have 
demonstrated that the interceptor or weapon system will work in 
an operationally effective and cost-effective manner when 
needed. The provision would also require the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation, prior to any such final 
production decision or operational deployment, to provide an 
assessment to the Secretary of the testing, including an 
assessment of whether the system will be sufficiently 
effective, suitable, and survivable when needed, and to provide 
to the congressional defense committees a written summary of 
the Director's assessment.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted 
numerous studies of missile defense acquisition programs and 
found that excessive concurrency has plagued a number of these 
programs, particularly the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
system. The GMD system was deployed starting in 2004 without 
having conducted adequate testing and assessment of the design 
of the Ground-Based Interceptor and its Exo-atmospheric Kill 
Vehicle. The system has suffered several flight test failures 
since 2010 that have required more than $1.3 billion and 4 
years of effort to correct.
    One of the keys to avoiding excessive concurrency, and to 
ensuring that missile defense systems will be operationally 
effective and cost-effective, is to follow the ``fly before you 
buy'' approach of testing systems realistically to assess their 
performance, prior to making final production decisions or 
deploying them operationally. In the 2010 Ballistic Missile 
Defense Review, the DOD stated that it would conduct 
operationally realistic testing of new missile defense systems 
to assess their performance prior to deployment. This provision 
would help ensure that this policy is implemented, and help 
avoid post-production and post-deployment problems like those 
encountered with the GMD system.

                      Subtitle C--Space Activities


Update of National Security Space Strategy to include space control and 
        space superiority strategy (sec. 1621)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of 
National Intelligence to update the space control and space 
superiority strategy pursuant to the Space Posture Review 
conducted under section 913 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Allocation of funds for the Space Security and Defense Program; Report 
        on Space Control (sec. 1622)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
preponderance of the funds used within the Space Security and 
Defense Program be allocated to offensive space control and 
active defense strategies with a statement on the use of such 
funds at the time of the President's budget submission to 
Congress.

Prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of critical space 
        launch supplies for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
        Program (sec. 1623)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from entering into a new contract or 
renewing a current contract for space launch supplies if those 
supplies are provided by Russian suppliers.
    The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle currently relies on a 
partially state-owned Russian company to provide engines to 
launch a portion of the Department of Defense's national 
security satellites--including our intelligence community's 
satellites. The committee finds this reliance on a Russian 
company for rocket engines to be inconsistent with the need for 
assured access to space. Also, given recent geopolitical 
events, this reliance on Russian suppliers reduces options 
available to respond to actions affecting the national security 
interests of the United States and our allies.
    Further, this reliance is unnecessary given potential 
future competition in the area of space launch and the 
potential development of a new domestically-produced rocket 
engine supported by the committee.
    The committee also strongly recommends that if the 
Secretary of Defense determines that a waiver is issued under 
this section for the procurement of rocket engines, the waiver 
should be approved well in advance of the start of contract 
negotiations.

Assessment of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1624)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Government Accountability Office to assess the advisability of 
the Secretary of Defense to require that launch providers 
establish business systems complying with data requirements and 
cost accounting standards of the Department of Defense.

Report on reliance of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program on 
        foreign manufacturers (sec. 1625)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Government Accountability Office to submit within 180 days of 
enactment of this Act, a report on the reliance of the risks to 
the Expendable Evolved Launch Vehicle program of reliance on 
foreign manufacturers.

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

    The committee recommends a provision, based upon the Fiscal 
Year 2015 National Security Space Launch Forecast, that the 
Secretary of Defense shall make available during fiscal year 
2015 one additional core for open competition. The provision 
also requires that between fiscal years 2015 and 2017, one 
additional competitive core shall be made available unless the 
Secretary determines that there is no practicable way to 
implement this requirement while remaining in compliance with 
the terms and conditions of the 36 core block buy under the 
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Upon making 
such a determination, the Secretary shall certify within 45 
days that there is no practicable way to add the second 
additional core for open competition as well as describing the 
basis for such a determination and providing both to 
congressional defense committees.
    The National Security Space Launch Forecast is the number 
the cores to be procured (as a function of payload) under the 
EELV program between fiscal years 2013 to 2017.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
competitive procedures be used to launch the payload for the 
Operationally Responsive Space program mission number five.

Limitation on funding for storage of Defense Meteorological Satellite 
        Program satellites (sec. 1628)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
funding the storage of the last Defense Meteorological 
Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite #20 unless the Secretary of 
Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that 
the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to launch the satellite 
and will have sufficient funding to do so in the future years 
defense program and that storing the satellite until a launch 
in 2020 is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the 
requirements of DOD.
    The committee is concerned that the budget requested 
funding to store a satellite the Air Force has no intention of 
launching. Despite the Air Force's analysis demonstrating the 
high cost of long-term storage and the low-added mission 
benefit of launching DMSP #20 in the 2020 timeframe, the budget 
requested funding to store the satellite for an additional 
year. In addition, the Air Force terminated the funding to 
procure the launch vehicle for DMSP #20. This disconnect is 
especially troubling given the numerous funding shortfalls 
across the defense space budget, not to mention the greater DOD 
budget. The committee is concerned that the Air Force would 
request significant funding to keep a satellite they have no 
intent of launching into space.
    Storing satellite #20 will cost $87.0 million in fiscal 
year 2015 and approximately that same amount each year 
thereafter. The satellite is built on components that are not 
supported, its sensors must be stored at different vendors 
around the United States and approximately one half of the 
costs are related to keeping staff on hand until the satellite 
is launched to support its payload integration at launch.
    This year DOD is finalizing an alternative that will meet 
military needs with fewer sensors and less cost. The committee 
directs DOD to brief the committee when this alternative is 
approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Plan for development of liquid rocket engine for medium or heavy lift 
        launch vehicle; transfer of certain funds (sec. 1629)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a program plan for the 
production of a liquid rocket engine capable of supporting the 
requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) for a medium or 
heavy lift launch vehicle to support national security launch 
missions by no later than 2019. The plan shall be due by 
September 30, 2014. The provision would require that the plan 
be based on competition. The committee expects that in 
developing this program, DOD should consult with other agencies 
with liquid rocket engine expertise, such as the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The committee also understands that there are propulsion 
systems in addition to liquid rocket engines that could provide 
capabilities in the future that support DOD requirements for 
medium or heavy launch vehicles, and encourages DOD to 
continually review the potential of using such propulsion 
systems. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 
180 days of the enactment of this Act given the potential that 
other propulsion systems have to support this mission.

Study of space situational awareness architecture (sec. 1630)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to task the Defense Science Board to 
assess the architecture of the ground and space sensors used 
for space situational awareness (SSA) for both defensive and 
offensive space operations over a 5-, 10-, and 20-year budget 
plan. The assessment shall also include ground systems to task 
the sensors and process the data. The SSA sensor system is a 
collection of sensors that either have been explicitly designed 
for SSA or are dual purpose sensors that can contribute to SSA 
when not performing their primary mission, such as missile 
warning. Each of these sensors are added over time to close 
specific gaps as the need has arisen and the number of objects 
to track in space has grown. This assessment shall look at the 
threats over the next 20 years and determine the optimal mix of 
SSA sensors from an integrated viewpoint, taking into account 
the ground systems to process the data. Given the sensitive 
nature of this assessment, the report shall be classified with 
an unclassified summary.

Sense of the Senate on resolution limits on commercial space imagery 
        (sec. 1631)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should 
support the relaxation of panchromatic, spectral, and infrared 
imagery resolution limits on the sale of commercial space 
imagery. The provision would also call for the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy to provide a recommendation to Congress 
by April 1, 2015, on the design and development of a flexible 
and dynamic capability to control the collection and sale of 
commercial space imagery to protect national security.
    The administration is now considering a proposal to relax 
the resolution restrictions on the sale of commercial space 
imagery in stages through 2017. The committee believes that the 
Secretary of Defense, in interagency proceedings, should 
support an official commitment now that industry will be able 
to sell imagery at the targeted resolution limits in 2017. This 
step should be taken now to provide certainty for industry to 
enter into business arrangements in order to be ready to 
provide products at the improved resolution limits when the new 
limits go into effect.
    The licensing terms for U.S. companies who want to sell 
images collected from space allow the U.S. Government to impose 
prohibitions on the collection of imagery on specific places on 
the ground at specific times. Also, through contract 
arrangements, the Government can control the tasking of 
collection operations and thereby prevent the collection of 
imagery of any specific places or events. Alternatively, the 
Government can buy such images, classify them, and prevent 
their sale and dissemination. However, the Government has not 
chosen to utilize these means to protect national security. 
Instead, it has placed restrictions on the resolution of images 
that can be sold commercially on a global basis, despite the 
fact that there are relatively few places or events for which 
the capture in high resolution imagery would pose a risk to 
national security. Since the commercial space imaging industry 
emerged in the 1990s, the Government's policy has been to relax 
resolution limits only when U.S. companies begin to face 
significant competition from non-U.S. providers. This policy 
unnecessarily restrains U.S. industry, not only to the 
detriment of consumers but also to national security, because 
the intelligence community, our military forces, and emergency 
responders all have needs for higher resolution imagery 
products, and especially the unclassified products that 
commercial industry provides.
    In exercising the Government's rights to prevent the 
collection of sensitive events, the committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to pursue cost neutral arrangements and 
to avoid unnecessary image purchases to conserve resources 
wherever security plans do not require alternative collection.

     Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters


Cyberspace mapping (sec. 1641)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 60 days of the date of enactment 
of this Act, to designate a network or network segment within 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to support the execution of a 
pilot program to demonstrate large-scale cyberspace mapping 
technology, as approved by the Cyber Investment Management 
Board (CIMB). The provision also would require the Principal 
Cyber Advisor, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to 
recommend policy to the Secretary of Defense regarding the 
mapping of cyberspace to support the missions of U.S. Cyber 
Command (CYBERCOM).
    The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence approved a pilot demonstration of technology to 
comprehensively and rapidly map information networks in fiscal 
year 2013. The CIMB approved it as a cyber acquisition pilot 
early in fiscal year 2014. The pilot has not proceeded, 
however, because no network owner within DOD has volunteered 
for their network to be the test subject for this pilot, which 
would require creating an accurate topology to serve as ground 
truth against which to measure the performance of the mapping 
technology. The purpose of the provision is to make a decision 
in order to get the assessment conducted.
    As the committee has emphasized in recent years, DOD does 
not possess the ability to map large portions of cyberspace 
quickly a--prerequisite for conducting military operations. 
Military forces can no more operate on the virtual terrain of 
cyberspace without cartographic support than they can in 
physical space without maps to guide them. There are a wide 
variety of mapping techniques used extensively by commercial 
industry and academia, as well as proposed refinements, that 
could meet the needs of CYBERCOM. The committee is concerned 
that a lack of policy is hindering practical planning in this 
critical area. DOD needs to determine what can be done and 
under what authorities and circumstances to enable CYBERCOM to 
develop requirements and the acquisition community to fulfill 
those needs.

Review of cross domain solution policy and requirement for cross domain 
        solution strategy (sec. 1642)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to review the policies of the Department 
of Defense (DOD), and develop a strategy concerning the 
procurement, approval, and use of capabilities to transmit 
information across networks and systems at different security 
classification levels.
    Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have repeatedly 
shown both the need for, and the perils involved in, 
transferring critical intelligence and other operational data 
across networks with different security levels quickly and 
efficiently. In April 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
publicly reported on a widespread intrusion into some of the 
most sensitive networks in the U.S. Government. This intrusion 
was enabled by an infected thumb drive that was used, along 
with countless others, as an expedient means of transferring 
data quickly across classified and unclassified network 
domains, in violation of DOD policy, to meet warfighters' 
needs. This incident shows the importance of effective cross 
domain capabilities, policies, and oversight to protect the 
confidentiality and integrity of DOD networks. Although cross 
domain solutions are recognized as critical enabling 
technologies, DOD still lacks a cohesive strategy to acquire, 
use, and audit the capabilities that it requires to securely 
transfer data. This need is exacerbated by DOD's planned 
transition to increased uses of enterprise resources and cloud 
computing. The evolution of DOD and the intelligence agencies 
to the Joint Information Environment, the Defense Intelligence 
Information Enterprise, and the Intelligence Community 
Information Technology Environment will bring both 
opportunities and challenges for the application of cross 
domain solutions, and a comprehensive strategy will be vital.
    Beyond planning for the future, the committee is also 
concerned that the variety of cross domain solutions fielded to 
date have inconsistent levels of security and performance, are 
applied haphazardly, and lack key capabilities to protect 
against sophisticated threats. DOD needs a better understanding 
of the current and future requirements, more consistent and 
enforceable policies, and greater investment in improved 
technological solutions.
    The committee is aware that the Chief Information Officer 
and the Defense Information Systems Agency are working on a 
cross-domain enterprise service. In addition, the National 
Security Agency (NSA) has sponsored development of integrated 
cross domain solutions with improved security to enable 
tailoring of cross domain tools to specific security risks and 
data transfer requirements. NSA and the National Reconnaissance 
Office have also initiated investments in technology for 
virtualizing cross domain appliances for cloud applications. 
However, NSA's program has faltered due to budget cuts, and no 
initiatives have been taken to modify the current information 
assurance certification and accreditation process, which is 
based on the tight coupling of hypervisors to hardware, to 
support cross domain virtualization.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the Secretary of Defense, for fiscal year 2017 and every 
succeeding year, for the President's annual budget submission 
and supporting documents, to develop a major force program 
(MFP) category and program elements for the Department of 
Defense (DOD) future years defense program for the training, 
arming, and equipping of the cyber mission forces. The 
provision would also require the Secretary to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of establishing a general fund 
transfer account to execute the funds programmed in the MFP and 
provide a recommendation to the congressional defense 
committees by April 1, 2015.
    The committee believes that the cyber mission, conducted by 
large cyber mission forces under a sub-unified command and 
component command elements in the combatant commands, is 
important enough and sensitive enough to warrant the degree of 
visibility and focus provided by a MFP designation and 
dedicated program elements. The committee recognizes that 
establishing a MFP could create difficulties in executing funds 
through existing channels and therefore directs DOD to consider 
whether to recommend using a transfer account to translate 
funds from MFP categories to existing ones.
    The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor, in 
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness, to shift the majority of the funding for cyber 
mission forces personnel from the Military Intelligence Program 
(MIP) to reflect the warfighting mission of U.S. Cyber Command. 
MIP funding should be restricted to those personnel whose 
primary responsibility is providing intelligence support to the 
operational forces. There is a growing recognition that 
military operations in cyberspace will, in fact, be 
substantially different from signals intelligence collection in 
the cyber domain. Military cyber forces will need distinctly 
different tools, infrastructure, training, range support, 
exercise support, and concepts of operation.
    The committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor to 
provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees by March 15, 2015, on DOD's actions and plans to 
comply with this direction.

Requirement for strategy to develop and deploy decryption service for 
        the Joint Information Environment (sec. 1644)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for a decryption 
service for the Joint Information Environment (JIE). The goal 
of the strategy would be to acquire the ability to securely and 
efficiently decrypt and re-encrypt communications to enable the 
inspection of communications content to detect cyber threats 
and insider threat activity. The provision would require the 
strategy to include a requirements definition, an architecture, 
a concept of operations, a cost estimate, and an assessment of 
the security benefit of such a service. The provision would 
require a briefing on the strategy to be provided to the 
congressional defense and intelligence committees by October 1, 
2015.
    The use of encryption to provide security for client-server 
communications and transactions, and by applications and search 
engines, has been growing steadily, and comprised a large 
percentage of total communications traffic traversing 
Department of Defense (DOD) Internet Access Points (IAP) even 
prior to the leaks by Edward Snowden. The Snowden revelations 
are causing an acceleration of this trend. The committee 
believes it is unwise for DOD to let encrypted traffic pass by 
its intrusion detection and prevention, packet capture, next-
generation firewalls, and behavior-based detection systems 
because of an inability to decrypt and re-encrypt encrypted 
communications at IAPs and regional security centers. The 
entire burden of defense is placed on endpoint or host-based 
defenses, which are not equal to the task.
    The committee recognizes that there are complex choices and 
trade-offs to be made when such a service is inserted into an 
enterprise between users, web sites, and applications, but 
believes that DOD needs to work through those issues and decide 
on a solution before this problem gets much worse.

Reporting on penetrations into networks and information systems of 
        operationally critical contractors (sec. 1645)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary to establish procedures for designating contractors 
as ``operationally critical contractors,'' notifying such 
contractors that they have been designated, and requiring 
designated contractors to report successful penetrations of 
their computer networks by known or suspected advanced 
persistent threat (APT) actors. The provision narrowly defines 
an operationally critical contractor as a company designated by 
the Secretary as a critical source of supply for airlift, 
sealift, intermodal transportation services, or logistical 
support that is essential to mobilization, deployment, or 
sustainment in a contingency operation.
    The provision would require that the procedures include 
mechanisms for the Department of Defense (DOD) to assist 
contractors in detecting and mitigating network penetrations 
and include protections for trade secrets, commercial or 
financial information, and information that could be used to 
identify a specific person. The provision stipulates that the 
procedures issued by the Secretary will permit DOD to share 
reported cyber intrusion information with agencies that conduct 
counterintelligence investigations for their use in such 
investigations.
    The provision also would require the Secretary to assess 
existing contractor reporting requirements and department 
policies and systems for sharing of information on successful 
cyber intrusions into DOD contractor networks. Upon completion 
of that assessment, the provision would require the Secretary 
to designate a single DOD component to receive cyber intrusion 
reports from contractors and other government agencies and 
issue or revise guidance to ensure that cyber intrusion-related 
information is shared by the designated DOD component with 
other appropriate DOD components.
    The private sector plays a crucial role in force 
mobilization, deployment, and sustainment operations. In fact, 
the former head of U.S. Cyber Command estimated that more than 
80 percent of our logistics are transported by private 
companies. According to U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), 
private airlines, for example, provide more than 90 percent of 
DOD's passenger movement capability and more than one third of 
its bulk cargo capability. In addition, the overwhelming 
majority of DOD deployment and distribution transactions--the 
former Commander of TRANSCOM estimated more than 90 percent--
occur over unclassified networks.
    The Department's reliance on private companies and 
unclassified networks to conduct contingency mobilization, 
deployment, and sustainment operations make the networks of 
operationally critical defense contractors attractive targets 
for foreign governments and other APT actors.
    According to DOD, Chinese military analysts, for example, 
have identified logistics and mobilization as potential U.S. 
vulnerabilities and the Department has said that Chinese 
military doctrine ``advocate[es] targeting adversary command 
and control and logistics networks to impact their ability to 
operate during the early stages of conflict.'' U.S. experts on 
Chinese military planning have raised the prospect of China 
using cyber capabilities to impede U.S. force deployment in the 
event of a contingency.
    It is critical that DOD be aware of successful cyber 
intrusions by APTs into the computer networks of operationally 
critical contractors so that TRANSCOM and other potentially 
affected combatant commands can assess the risks to contingency 
operations posed by those intrusions and adjust operational 
plans, if necessary.
    The committee recently completed an investigation into how 
much information was known to TRANSCOM about successful APT-
attributed cyber intrusions into the computer networks of 
command contractors. The investigation found that TRANSCOM was 
not aware of the overwhelming majority of such intrusions. 
Reasons for the lack of awareness included gaps in requirements 
for cyber intrusion reporting and failures within DOD to share 
information known about successful APT-attributed cyber 
intrusions with TRANSCOM. The provision is directed at 
addressing those reporting gaps and improving the way in which 
the Department receives, assesses, and disseminates information 
about successful APT intrusions into the networks of 
operationally critical contractors.

Sense of Congress on the future of the Internet and the .mil top level 
        domain (sec. 1646)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should:
          (1) Advise the President to transfer the remaining 
        role of the United States Government in the functions 
        of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to a 
        global multi-stakeholder community only if the 
        President is confident that the .mil top level domain 
        and the Internet protocol address numbers used 
        exclusively by the Department of Defense (DOD) for 
        national security will remain exclusively used by the 
        Department; and
          (2) Take all necessary steps to sustain the 
        successful stewardship and good standing of the 
        Internet root zone servers managed by DOD components.
    The committee urges the Secretary to seek an agreement 
through the IANA transition process, or in parallel to it, 
between the United States and the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers and the rest of the global Internet 
stakeholders that the .mil domain will continue to be afforded 
the same generic top level domain status after the transition 
that it has always enjoyed, on a par with all other country-
specific domains.

                Subtitle E-Intelligence-Related Matters


Extension of Secretary of Defense authority to engage in commercial 
        activities as security for intelligence collection activities 
        (sec. 1651)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
current statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense to 
authorize the conduct of those commercial activities necessary 
to provide security for authorized intelligence collection 
activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense by 
amending subsection 431(a) of title 10, United States Code, to 
change the current sunset date from December 31, 2015, to 
December 31, 2017.

Authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities 
        as security for military operations abroad (sec. 1652)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsections 431 through 437 of title 10, United States Code, 
to: (1) Allow the Secretary of Defense to employ commercial 
activities as security for military operations, in addition to 
existing authority for using such activities for intelligence 
operations; (2) Direct that reports of audits on commercial 
activities used as security for intelligence operations as 
reported to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees, and reports on audits of commercial activities used 
as security for military operations are reported to the 
congressional defense committees only; and (3) Make conforming 
changes throughout these subsections.

Extension of authority relating to jurisdiction over Department of 
        Defense facilities for intelligence collection or special 
        operations activities abroad (sec. 1653)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 926(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to extend the sunset dates 
in the provision in paragraph (1) by striking ``September 30, 
2015'' and inserting ``September 30, 2017''; and by striking 
``fiscal year 2016'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2018.''

Personnel security and insider threat (sec. 1654)

    The committee recommends a provision to enable the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to respond appropriately to the 
direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense to the 
numerous serious security and insider threats that have 
affected the DOD. The provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish an interim continuous evaluation (CE) 
system not later than September 30, 2015, to continuously 
evaluate the security status of DOD employees and contractors 
who are approved to access secret or top secret classified 
information by the DOD Central Adjudicative Facility. The 
provision would require that the Secretary achieve the ability 
to at least continuously monitor personnel with access to the 
most sensitive classified information and privileged access to 
networks and databases.
    The provision also would require the Secretary to 
capitalize on the interim system to develop business rules, 
requirements, lessons learned, privacy standards, and 
operational concepts that will be valuable for the development 
of an objective CE capability.
    The provision would require that both the interim system 
and the objective CE system be engineered to interface with the 
larger insider threat detection capability mandated by 
Executive Order (EO) 13587. The provision would also require 
that the objective CE capability be acquired competitively to 
take advantage of the best commercial technology, and be 
designed as an open system to enable upgrades as technology 
evolves.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a multi-disciplinary team of experts from across the 
Department to assist the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence (USDI), as the Senior Agency Official for insider 
threat detection and prevention under EO 13587. This team would 
be composed of experts in counterintelligence, personnel 
security, law enforcement, physical security, human resources, 
privacy and civil liberties, network monitoring, cybersecurity, 
systems engineering, information technology, large-scale data 
analysis, and program acquisition.
    This collection of expertise is vital to fulfill the 
President's mandate in EO 13587 to create an automation-
assisted insider threat capability that is integrated across 
all the currently stove-piped functions listed above. Achieving 
the ability to conduct integrated insider threat analyses in 
all these functional areas across the military services, 
defense agencies, and commands is a daunting management, 
information technology acquisition, and systems engineering 
challenge. Currently, the USDI has no structure or team of 
personnel with the expertise necessary to meet this challenge.
    In addition to this management team, the provision would 
require the Secretary, through the Senior Agency Official, to 
designate an official to be responsible and accountable for the 
Department's efforts to create an integrated insider threat 
detection and prevention capability. The provision also calls 
for the creation of an Executive Committee, composed of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, and the Chief Information Officer, to support the 
Senior Agency Official to ensure the cooperation of all 
components of DOD.
    Finally, the provision would require the Senior Agency 
Official to establish a plan by September 30, 2015, to develop 
the insider threat capability.

Migration of Distributed Common Ground System of Department of the Army 
        to an open system architecture (sec. 1655)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army, within 3 years of the date of enactment 
of this Act, to migrate the Distributed Common Ground System 
(DCGS), including the so-called Red Disk or any successor to 
Red Disk under development at the Army Intelligence and 
Security Command (INSCOM), to an open systems architecture. The 
provision would require that the DCGS open systems architecture 
be compliant with the Defense Intelligence Information 
Enterprise open architecture.
    Migrating the Army DCGS to an open system would enable the 
rapid, competitive acquisition and integration of any DCGS 
segment, upgrades to any portion of the system, and new 
applications. Migration would also enable competition for 
sustainment, which would speed up the modernization cycle, 
improve capabilities, and lower costs. The committee notes that 
INSCOM has briefed the committee on plans to make the Red Disk 
next-generation DCGS upgrade to DCGS an open systems 
architecture. This provision is consistent with actions the 
committee recommends on open systems approaches to systems 
acquisition elsewhere in this bill and report.

                              Budget Items


Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites

    For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $87.0 million for 
the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program to store satellite 
#20. The committee recommends a reduction by $87.0 million as 
excess to need.

Mobile Ground System

    For fiscal year 2015, the budget proposes $319.5 million 
for the Space Based Infrared System, PE 0604441F. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5 million for the Mobile Ground 
System to meet a U.S. Strategic Command unfunded requirement to 
procure spare parts and address obsolescence issues with the 
Nation's sole survivable missile attack and warning system.

Space Based Infrared System

    The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and 
Evaluation budget request for the Space Based Infrared System, 
PE 0604441F, is $319.1 million. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $5.0 million to the hosted payloads and $8.0 
million to the wide field of view test bed as excess to need.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engine development

    The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to 
PE number 0604853F to be used in the development of a liquid 
rocket engine consistent with section 1629.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite

    The fiscal year 2015 Research Development Test and 
Evaluation budget request for the Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency satellite, PE 0605431F, is $314.4 million. The 
committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million to interim 
contractor support and $7.0 million to the protected satellite 
communication demonstration as excess to need.

Operationally Responsive Space

    The fiscal Year 2015 budget requested no funding for the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program office. On 
February 25, 2014, the ORS Executive Committee adopted the U.S. 
Strategic Command's recommendation for ORS-5 to be a low-cost, 
short-time-to-launch space situational awareness payload which 
will launch in fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends $20.0 
million to support activities in fiscal year 2015 in developing 
this payload and other mission needs. The committee expects the 
Air Force to budget for the follow-on activities in fiscal year 
2016.
    The Secretary of the Air Force informed the committee on 
April 14, 2014, that the ORS program would be integrated in the 
Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in order to use the ORS 
program office's unique streamlined acquisition authorities to 
``maintain expertise in the rapid fielding of space 
capabilities in a manner similar to that of the Air Force's 
Rapid Capabilities Office.''
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
brief the congressional defense committees within 180 days 
after the enactment of this Act on how details of the ORS 
program office and its personnel will be integrated into the 
SMC and the programs that SMC plans to use in the ORS office 
with its unique mandate and acquisition authorities to execute 
programs ordered to drive down the cost of satellite payloads 
and launch.

                       Items of Special Interest


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

    The committee notes that the Air Force and the Navy have 
established an Executive Steering Group to identify 
opportunities and oversee investments for collaborative 
sustainment and modernization of strategic systems. The 
committee commends Air Force and Navy strategic programs 
leadership for pursuing collaborative efforts aggressively, 
thereby expanding their joint knowledge base and capabilities, 
leveraging efficiencies, and realizing cost savings in a 
challenging fiscal environment.
    The committee directs the Air Force, the Navy and the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to submit a 
joint report to the congressional defense committees on a plan 
to expand strategic systems collaboration among the military 
services and the NNSA. The report shall include a description 
of current collaborations among the military services on 
strategic system programs, to include elements of the nuclear 
triad, the conventional prompt global strike, other strategic 
forces, and other matters of importance to increase commonality 
and reduce cost. The Secretary of Defense will also provide a 
description and assessment of any additional opportunities for 
new or enhanced collaboration, including programs that may 
benefit from those efforts, risks, and benefits that may be 
realized by cross-service or departmental collaboration, and 
the potential costs and benefits for collaborative research, 
development, and production. This report shall be submitted no 
later than March 1, 2015.

Ammonium Perchlorate

    Ammonium perchlorate (AP) is an inorganic compound and 
solid oxidizer that is critical to key weapons systems--
including the Trident II D5 missile.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
relies on a single supplier of AP. The committee also notes 
that the price DOD pays for AP has increased in recent years.
    In light of the fiscal constraints confronted by DOD, the 
committee believes the department should seek to promote 
competition in the AP supplier base that will result in DOD 
paying more competitive prices for AP.
    Therefore, the committee directs DOD to provide a briefing 
to the congressional defense committees, no later than 
September 30, 2014, on DOD's use of AP, as well as DOD's 
efforts to diversify its supplier base and achieve more 
competitive prices for AP.

Analysis of satellites available for open competition

    For fiscal year 2015, the Air Force moved the launch 
vehicle for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) 
geostationary orbit (GEO) Satellite 4 from a phase 1A potential 
competitive launch opportunity to the 36 core block buy. The 
committee understands that this satellite falls within the 
launch parameters that a new entrant is capable of launching. 
The committee encourages increased opportunities for 
competition and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
report to the committee whether it is feasible to move the 
SBIRS GEO Satellite 4 back to the phase 1A competitive 
opportunities within the future years defense program (FYDP) or 
any other satellite to help offset the decrease in the 
allotment of open competition satellites across the FYDP.

Analytic support to cyber policy and planning

    The committee reiterates its concern that the growth in the 
strategic and operational importance of the cyberspace domain 
has not been accompanied by parallel growth in independent, 
public interest-oriented cyber policy analysis. Therefore, the 
committee directs that the Principal Cyber Advisor to the 
Secretary of Defense shall assess the amount and quality of 
support for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Cyber Command, and the combatant commands 
that is currently available from existing federally funded 
research and development centers and academia in the areas of 
operational integration of cyber with other military 
capabilities, independent analysis of cyber defense policy, 
deterrence policy, acquisition policies and practices, total 
force development and management, and cyber risk and threat 
assessment. The committee further directs that within 180 days 
of the enactment of this Act, the Principal Cyber Advisor shall 
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees of 
the conclusions and recommendations of this assessment.

Assessment of cost of Space Situational Awareness system

    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
to estimate the cost of the space situational awareness system 
over the current future years defense program. The assessment 
shall be in the form of a briefing due no later than February 
28, 2015.

Authorities and responsibilities of the Department of Defense Inspector 
        General

    The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-259) established the defense intelligence 
agencies of the Department of Defense (DOD) as ``designated 
Federal entities'' under section 8G of the Inspector General 
Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452), as amended, which under that 
Act provides a statutory foundation for the Inspectors General 
(IGs) of those agencies. Since that change was implemented, the 
IGs of these DOD components have questioned the authority of 
the DOD (IG) to supervise their activities.
    The committee supports strong and independent IGs, 
especially in the intelligence agencies that are involved in 
sensitive classified activities. However, the independence the 
committee values is from undue influence of the officials 
managing the agencies they oversee, not from reasonable 
supervision by the DOD IG.
    Section 8 of the IG Act of 1978 itself states that the DOD 
IG shall ``provide policy direction for audits and 
investigations relating to fraud, waste, and abuse and program 
effectiveness; develop policy, monitor and evaluate program 
performance, and provide guidance with respect to all 
Department activities relating to criminal investigation 
programs; monitor and evaluate the adherence of Department 
auditors to internal audit, contract audit, and internal review 
principles, policies, and procedures; [and] develop policy, 
evaluate program performance, and monitor actions taken by all 
components of the Department in response to contract audits, 
internal audits, internal review reports, and audits conducted 
by the Comptroller General of the United States.'' The 
committee concludes that the law clearly provides that the DOD 
IG has the authority to direct and set audit and investigative 
policy across all DOD components, including the designated 
Federal entities.
    In April 2012, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued an 
updated DOD Directive (DODD 5106.01) on the DOD IG, which 
reaffirms the role of the DOD IG as ``the principal advisor to 
the Secretary of Defense on all audit and criminal 
investigative matters and for matters relating to the 
prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs and 
operations of the DOD.'' This role includes the responsibility 
to provide ``policy and direction for audits, investigations, 
evaluations, and inspections; monitor and give particular 
regard to the activities of the internal audit, investigations, 
evaluation, inspection, and IG units of DOD Components . . . 
with a view toward avoiding duplication and ensuring effective 
coverage, coordination, and cooperation; [and] audit, evaluate, 
monitor, and review the programs, policies, procedures, and 
functions of the DOD Intelligence Components to ensure that 
intelligence resources, including those funded through the 
National Intelligence Program, are properly managed.'' This 
Directive also clearly establishes the authority and 
responsibility of the DOD IG to set policy for audits and 
investigations across DOD, and to coordinate with all component 
IGs to achieve effective oversight.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, the heads 
of the defense intelligence agencies, the DOD IG, and the 
defense intelligence agency IGs to develop a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) that sets forth the relationship of the 
component IGs to the DOD IG, consistent with the requirements 
of section 8 of the IG Act and DODD 5106.01. The committee 
expects to receive regular updates on the progress of this 
effort.

Electro-optical infrared capabilities for the follow on weather 
        satellite 

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
brief the congressional defense committees on whether other 
technical capabilities, agencies, and/or countries can provide 
or fulfill the military requirement for electro-optical and 
infrared weather imaging. This briefing should address the 
cost-effectiveness and performance record of the various 
options as well as how the Air Force intends to avoid reliance 
on non-allied foreign sources. This briefing shall occur no 
later than September 30, 2014.

Foreign interest in United States air and missile defense technology

    In light of the growing regional missile threats around the 
world, the committee believes it is important for the 
Department of Defense to work closely with allied and partner 
nations to help them establish and improve their air and 
missile defense capabilities.
    Therefore, no later than November 1, 2014, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report detailing the nations that have approached the United 
States Government with requests to acquire, improve, or expand 
air and missile defense systems and capabilities--including 
lower-tier air and missile defense systems and capabilities. 
This report should also describe the maturity of these 
discussions and progress toward securing the appropriate export 
control permissions with each nation that has expressed 
interest. The report shall be unclassified, but may include a 
classified annex.

Information assurance and certified workforce training

    The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 
its ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to 
personnel responsible for Information Assurance (IA) activities 
pursuant to DOD Directive 8570, which establishes the policy 
and assigns the responsibilities for Department IA training, 
certification, and workforce management. The committee also 
understands the importance of testing to verify skills, which 
raises the effectiveness of information technology 
professionals and can help identify gaps in training. The 
committee therefore encourages the DOD to continue to evolve 
the performance-based assessment of skills and progression 
toward certification.

Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System

    The committee is encouraged that the March 2014 ``Agreement 
between the Department of Defense of the United States of 
America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel 
Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement'' resolves many 
aspects of coproduction of Iron Dome components and 
interceptors in the United States. The committee is aware that 
the Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Missile Defense 
Organization have entered into this international agreement to 
govern how the United States will support up to $605.8 million 
from fiscal years 2013 to 2015 for Iron Dome.
    Given the significant U.S. taxpayers' investment in the 
Iron Dome system, the committee believes that coproduction of 
parts and components should be done in a manner that will 
maximize U.S. industry participation in interceptor and battery 
deliveries for Israel's defense needs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees, not later than November 1, 
2014, on its ongoing efforts to resolve details and agreements 
required for U.S.-based coproduction of Iron Dome technology, 
including coproduction of parts, components, and all-up-rounds 
of the Iron Dome system.

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor

    The committee notes that U.S military forces and those of 
our allies confront a growing threat from cruise missiles, 
large caliber rockets, tactical ballistic missiles, and 
unmanned aerial vehicles.
    The committee also notes the completion of the Joint Land 
Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program in 
December 2013.
    The JLENS is a bi-static tethered aerostat system intended 
to provide persistent elevated sensor data to detect, track, 
and help defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles, 
manned and unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets, 
including swarming boats.
    Based on the successful EMD and the potential of JLENS to 
meet combatant commander requirements in varying areas of 
responsibility, the committee supports the budget request for 
JLENS through the Army's Aerostat Joint Project Office.
    The committee also supports the decision of the Department 
of Defense to deploy a JLENS orbit to the National Capital 
Region (NCR) to demonstrate its capabilities in a 3-year 
operational exercise in support of the North American Aerospace 
Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their NCR 
homeland defense mission, to improve the system, and to 
evaluate its potential ability to meet the requirements of 
other combatant commanders.
    The committee notes that the report accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Senate 
Report 113-44), directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
90 days after the initiation of the JLENS operational exercise 
demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it plans 
to use from the demonstration to guide potential future 
acquisition and deployment decisions for JLENS. The committee 
continues to believe that it is important for DOD to have 
clearly defined objectives and metrics for this demonstration 
before it begins and looks forward to submission of this 
report.
    The committee notes that several combatant commands have 
expressed an interest in a persistent, elevated sensor capable 
of supporting cruise missile defense. The committee also notes 
that an incomplete set of equipment for a second JLENS orbit 
remains in long-term storage in the United States. As a result, 
the committee requests a briefing no later than October 30, 
2014, regarding the status of the additional JLENS equipment 
and the options and considerations for a potential deployment 
of a second JLENS orbit to another combatant command in a 
future fiscal year.

Mobile User Objective System Ground Terminals

    The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) is a satellite 
constellation that will replace the aging Ultra High Frequency 
Follow On (UFO) satellite constellation. The committee has a 
number of ongoing concerns. First, whether the MUOS 
constellation becomes fully operational in time to replace the 
aging UFO fleet of satellites. The second issue of concern is 
the fielding of a valid terminal to fully utilize the MUOS 
waveform. Third, questions remain about the end-to-end system 
integration of the ground stations to satellites and the ground 
terminals, including associated costs. The committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to report, no later than October 31, 
2014, on the status of launching the MUOS satellites in order 
to replace the UFO fleet, the end-to-end integration of the 
MUOS system, the ability to procure user terminals meeting the 
MUOS waveform, and whether existing software defined or other 
terminals can be upgraded to utilize the waveform at a lower or 
comparable cost.

New START Treaty Force Structure

    The committee supports the nuclear force structure proposed 
by the President to meet the requirements of the New Strategic 
Arms Reduction Treaty (START), as described in the report 
provided to Congress pursuant to section 1042 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). In particular, the committee supports the decision to 
maintain, in an operational status, the 50 active 
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos that will be 
emptied as a result of the reductions. In testimony before the 
committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee on 5 March, 2014, 
Major General Garrett Harencak described the important 
infrastructure sustainment benefits associated with this 
posture and explained that, ``We need to keep the silos in a 
warm status so [that] we maintain a continuity between them and 
the communication aspect that was built for many, many, many 
good reasons back in the [19]60s. . . . It'd be my highest 
recommendation.''
    Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, in his April 8, 2014, 
testimony before the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces also noted that the new force structure ``is 
very much in concert with the course that has been set as we 
move towards the Ohio replacement program of 12 submarines with 
16 tubes. So, the deactivation of four tubes on Ohio is very 
consistent with the long-range decision that has already been 
made by the Secretary of Defense and the administration.''
    The committee appreciates that the proposed schedule allows 
the Department of Defense to implement the required reductions 
efficiently and provides sufficient time to accommodate 
unforeseen delays.
    The committee notes that the Air Force intends to 
distribute empty silos across the ICBM force. The committee 
supports this approach that will maximize the Air Force's 
ability to maintain all silos in the inventory as well as 
provide the highest possible mission-capable rates.

Ohio Replacement Program

    The committee remains committed to the full funding of the 
Ohio-class Replacement Program (ORP) and supports the research 
and development activities budgeted in fiscal year 2015. The 
committee notes that in fiscal year 2014, the Department of 
Energy budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
and specifically the Naval Reactors Office, fell below 
requested levels. One reported impact of this shortfall was 
insufficient funding to support a planned capital equipment 
procurement for High Performance Computers (HPC) that are 
necessary to complete the reactor core design for ORP. In 
testimony before this committee, Chief of Naval Operations, 
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated, ``The program has to stay on 
track. We have no slack in this program,'' and he has since 
indicated the possibility of a military interdepartmental 
purchase request (MIPR) to reconcile the Naval Reactors funding 
shortfall.
    The committee remains concerned that a lack of funding for 
essential equipment and technologies for nuclear reactor core 
development could further delay this critical program and 
jeopardize the future of our sea-based strategic deterrent. 
Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
status of the ORP, the status of the Naval Reactors Office's 
reactor core development, and any collaborative efforts with 
the Department of Energy to address the identified funding 
shortfalls no later than 90 days after the enactment of this 
Act.

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

    The Secretary of Defense shall provide a briefing and 
accompanying supporting material to the congressional defense 
committees no later than September 30, 2014, explaining the 
process for coordinating security arrangements to convey 
sensitive compartmented information from the Department of 
Defense to the congressional defense committees, including in-
person briefings and meetings, secure telephone conversations, 
physical transmission of documents, and electronic 
communications. The briefing shall include the requirements and 
processes for exchanging and verifying accesses and clearances, 
confirming identities and identifications, the receipting of 
documents, arranging the use of secure rooms and SCIFs, and any 
other processes or procedures relating to this topic.

Projected workload at wide band satellite operations centers

    The Army is the designated scheduling agent for all 
Department of Defense owned wide band communications satellites 
whose workload continues to increase. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army to project the workload requirements for 
scheduling wideband communication over the next 10 years 
consistent with the mix of media study. The report shall be due 
no later than February 28, 2015.

Replacement of the Mission Planning and Analysis System

    The U.S. Strategic Command's Mission Planning and Analysis 
system (MPAS) is a 1980s tool that supports the command's 
responsibilities for strategic deterrence planning and global 
strike. MPAS uses outdated interfaces and programming languages 
that are becoming unsupportable. The U.S. Strategic Command is 
updating MPAS through increments 4 and 5 of the Integrated 
Strategic Planning and Analysis Network (ISPAN). The committee 
directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review 
the ongoing effort to update MPAS against generally accepted 
program planning and cost guidelines and whether ISPAN 
increments 4 and 5 will resolve the documented deficiencies of 
MPAS. The GAO shall present their findings in the form of a 
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 
January 31, 2015.

Report on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile readiness

    In order to inform the ongoing Intercontinental Ballistic 
Missile (ICBM) guidance modernization effort, the Secretary of 
the Air Force shall direct the Air Force Scientific Advisory 
Board to report on the range of inertial navigation and 
guidance technologies, including those currently used, that 
will give a range of accuracy and time to launch so as to 
determine whether it is possible to maintain the same strategic 
alert posture with additional decision time associated with 
launch. Additionally, in the course of this review the Board 
shall determine whether it is necessary to maintain the same 
alert status as is used today.
    The current inertial navigation and guidance systems are 
based on 1970s mechanical gyroscopic technologies, which must 
be continuously powered and rotated to maintain their alert 
status. These systems are aging out due to material wear and 
are in need of a technology refresh. There are more modern 
technologies that are solid state in nature, that do not 
mechanically wear as much, and where it is possible to achieve 
the same alert posture while giving more time for senior 
leadership decision making. This increase in senior leadership 
decision making time is consistent with the 2010 Nuclear 
Posture Review (NPR), which in an effort to strengthen 
Presidential Decision Time, notes that efforts should be made 
to ``maximize the time available to the President to consider 
whether to authorize the use of nuclear weapons,'' including 
``[f]urther strengthening the U.S. command and control system 
to maximize presidential decision time in a nuclear crisis.'' 
Technologies have advanced considerably since the inertial 
guidance and navigation systems of the 1970s that required 
mechanical systems to gyroscopically spin continuously and 
should be explored consistent with the NPR.
    As noted earlier, this report requirement shall not be 
construed to suggest or recommend a change to the U.S. 
strategic force alert posture for the ICBM. The 2010 NPR 
considered the possibility of reducing alert rates for ICBMs 
``and concluded that such steps could reduce crisis stability 
by giving an adversary the incentive to attack before `re-
alerting' was complete.'' The existing strategic alert posture 
was again reaffirmed in the 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy of 
the United States.
    The report shall include technology readiness level and 
cost to implement. The report shall be due to the congressional 
defense committees no later than January 31, 2015.

Report on the Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas

    The committee finds the following:
          (1) The capability provided by the nuclear capable, 
        air launched cruise missile (ALCM) is critical to 
        maintaining a credible and effective air-delivery leg 
        of the triad, preserving the ability to respond to 
        geopolitical and technical surprise, and reassuring 
        U.S. allies through credible extended deterrence.
          (2) Additionally, the committee has received 
        testimony that relying on a single weapons storage 
        areas (WSA) has negative operational impacts and could 
        increase the burdens placed on other legs of the triad 
        in an operational situation.
          (3) The committee has previously supported that 
        enhanced WSA could improve the resiliency of the bomber 
        force, provide redundancy in a critical national 
        security mission, and reduce operational risk.
          (4) The committee notes that the Air Force has 
        completed the report, ``Reconstituting Air Force 
        Weapons Storage Areas,'' as requested in the committee 
        report (S. Rpt. 113-44) accompanying the National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
        Law 113-66).
          (5) In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it 
        currently does not have a funded project to 
        reconstitute a second WSA for ALCMs.
          (6) Additionally, the report states that the Air 
        Force's WSA modernization plan, the WSA 
        Recapitalization Corporate Initiative, is in the 
        preliminary stages, and indicates that it should be 
        finalized in time to be programmed in fiscal year 2016.
          (7) However, the Air Force did not include in its 
        report an analysis of the requirements and costs of 
        reconstituting a second nuclear WSA capability for 
        ALCMs and the potential benefits or savings of 
        shortening the recapitalization timeframe as requested 
        in S. Rpt. 113-44.
    The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of the Air Force, in 
coordination with the Commander of the United States Strategic 
Command, shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
the following information on the plan for the WSA 
Recapitalization Corporate Initiative including:
          (1) A business-case analysis of the requirements and 
        costs for reconstituting a second WSA for ALCMs;
          (2) An analysis of potential cost-savings and 
        benefits achieved through a shortened recapitalization 
        timeframe;
          (3) An analysis of potential cost-savings and 
        benefits of advances in physical and security 
        surveillance technologies; and
          (4) A validation of requirements.

Review of GPS III Operational Ground Control

    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
to review the cost, scope, and schedule of the Global 
Positioning System (GPS) III Operational Control System (OCX) 
including synchronization with the launch of the GPS III 
constellation with recommendations for improvement. An interim 
briefing shall be given to the congressional defense committees 
no later September 30, 2014, with a final briefing no later 
than February 28, 2015.

Science and technology talent options for the Missile Defense Agency 

    The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
is faced with a myriad of highly complex technical challenges 
in executing its designated missions, both in the near- and 
far-term. These technical challenges will require the agency to 
leverage the best technical talent and resources available in 
government, industry, small businesses, and academia. The 
committee notes that MDA has the authority to partner with high 
quality technical organizations through a number of pathways, 
including--but not limited to--grants, cooperative agreements, 
contracts, technology prizes, access to Federally Funded 
Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and government 
laboratories, establishment of and access to University 
Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and the Small Business 
Innovative Research program. These can all serve to harness the 
best innovative minds and ideas in the Nation, and engage with 
and build the technical workforce that can help address MDA's 
significant technology challenges in the future.
    The committee encourages MDA to consider all of these 
options to address its technical goals. The committee directs 
MDA to develop a report describing its strategy and actions to 
address it long-range science and technology challenges, 
including its engagement strategy with universities, small 
businesses, UARCs, FFRDCs, and government laboratories, and to 
submit the report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than December 1, 2014.

Security of Department of Defense industrial control systems 

    In March 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) reissued two 
DOD Instructions related to cybersecurity: 8500.01, ``Risk 
Management Framework for DOD Information Technology'' and 
8510.01, ``Cybersecurity''. These Instructions for the first 
time mandated specific actions to secure industrial control 
systems (ICS) through the implementation of a Risk Management 
Framework. In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L;)) 
issued a memorandum in March 2014 that focused on the security 
of ICS. This memorandum provided access across DOD to a 
standard security assessment tool developed by the Department 
of Homeland Security, and established an enterprise-wide 
working group to develop design criteria for new ICS equipment 
and systems.
    The newly issued Instructions require DOD components to 
inventory and register all ICS, and apply to them the new risk 
assessment methodology. The committee recognizes that this 
important initiative is just getting underway, but seeks to 
ensure that it is implemented immediately. Therefore, the 
committee directs that the USD(AT&L;) and the Chief Information 
Officer provide a briefing to the congressional defense 
committees within 1 year of the enactment of this Act, on the 
results of the inventory, along with an assessment of the risks 
from ICS vulnerabilities to critical DOD operational missions.

Standing and Implementation of Nuclear Forces 

    The committee believes that the United States must maintain 
its commitment to ensuring the safety, security, reliability, 
and credibility of its nuclear forces. The committee supports 
longstanding principles of strategic military balance including 
that effective deterrence requires forces of sufficient size 
and flexibility to attack selectively a range of military and 
other targets yet enable us to hold back a significant and 
enduring reserve. Each leg of the nuclear triad delivery 
systems continues to provide unique contributions to stability. 
As the overall force shrinks, their unique values become more 
prominent. The committee is concerned that since 2011, nuclear 
modernization efforts have encountered funding setbacks, cost 
overruns, schedule delays, mismanagement, and reductions in 
scope. The committee supports the view established within the 
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review that the United States nuclear 
triad has no equivalent mission.
    The committee requests the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
report back to the committee on the additional investments that 
will be needed in future years to avoid a militarily 
significant disruption to the nuclear enterprise.
        (1) DOD should incorporate how the possible return of 
        sequester-level budgets in the next fiscal year would 
        impact the Secretary of Defense's priorities for 
        nuclear modernization programs; and
        (2) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
        Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and corresponding 
        commanders, should report under what conditions the 
        June 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy meets our 
        national security objectives.

Update on nuclear command, control, and communications systems 
        acquisition 

    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
to update recent prior assessments of nuclear command, control, 
and communications acquisition programs with an interim 
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 30, 2014, and a final briefing no later than January 
31, 2015.
       TITLE XVII--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY

National commission on the future of the Army (secs. 1701-1709)
    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
commission to study the size and force structure of the Army, 
including active-duty forces, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and 
the Army National Guard (ARNG). The committee is aware that the 
Army and the Department of Defense continue their analysis, 
course of action development, and decisionmaking process with 
respect to the distribution of reductions of both end strength 
and force structure necessary to achieve the savings required 
by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The committee believes that 
under these circumstances an independent and objective review 
of Army size and force structure by a national commission is 
worthwhile. The commission would be required to submit a report 
to the congressional defense committees not later than February 
1, 2016.
    The provision would prohibit the use of funds in fiscal 
year 2015 to reduce the end strength of the regular Army, ARNG, 
or USAR below the levels provided in the budget request. The 
provision would also prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year 
2015 to divest, retire, or transfer any AH-64 Apache aircraft 
assigned to the ARNG. An exception to this aircraft 
prohibition, however, would allow the transfer of up to 48 
Apache aircraft from the ARNG to the regular Army.
    The commission would be made up of four members appointed 
by the chairman and ranking members of the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 
four members appointed by the President.
    The commission would undertake a comprehensive study of the 
structure of the Army and policy assumptions related to the 
size and force mixture of the Army. In addition to the review 
of the Army's structure, the commission would conduct a study 
of plans to transfer Apache aircraft from the ARNG to the 
regular Army. The commission would also evaluate the 
distribution of responsibility and authority, as well as the 
strategic basis or rationale, analytical methodology, and 
decisionmaking process, related to the allocation of ARNG end 
strength and force structure to the states and territories.
    In its assessment of the Army's size and structure, the 
commission should also consider the need for any changes to 
existing legislation--such as the Militia Act of 1903, the 
National Defense Act of 1920, the National Security Act of 
1947, and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986--that establishes 
the roles and missions of the active and reserve components.
    The committee notes the difficulties expressed by the 
National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 
associated with the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
interpretation and application of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA) as amended (Public Law 92-463). The 
commissioners stated in their report that, ``As the Commission 
proceeded with its work, it became increasingly clear that the 
DOD's interpretation of FACA's purpose would have a 
significant, and frequently negative, impact on the 
Commission's work.'' It is apparent from the views of the 
commissioners that the Department's interpretation of the 
oversight safeguards intended by the FACA may have 
unnecessarily complicated the conduct of their study. The 
committee expects the Secretary of Defense to support the 
National Commission on the Future of the Army in a balanced 
manner and in a spirit consistent with congressional intent and 
appropriate FACA oversight while avoiding the negative impacts 
that were experienced by the Air Force Commission.
    The committee is also aware that certain aspects of the 
Army's ``1993 Offsite Agreement'' pertaining to reserve 
component core competencies has, in part, for the last 20 
years, guided its analysis and decisionmaking with respect to 
reserve component force structure. This agreement, between 
senior leadership of the regular Army, ARNG, USAR, and the 
associations representing their members, guided the realignment 
of combat arms, combat support, and combat service support 
force structure between the ARNG and USAR. The agreement 
provides that the ARNG should retain a mix of combat arms and 
support structure while the USAR would divest its combat arms 
and retain combat support and combat service support 
capabilities. In this manner the core competencies of the 
Army's reserve components are established: for the ARNG a 
balance of combat and supporting arms, and for the USAR combat 
support and service support.
    By and since this agreement, therefore, the ARNG has been 
and remains the reserve component within which the Army places 
those combat arms capabilities to reinforce, supplement, or 
compliment the combat capabilities of the active Army. The 
committee notes that, as appropriate and necessary to address 
the national security and support for civil authorities 
requirements of the United States, there are several examples 
of units and capabilities in the regular Army that are not in 
the reserves, as well as units and capabilities in the reserves 
that are not in the regular Army.
    This system for the alignment of core capabilities among 
the Army's reserve components has served the Nation, the Army, 
and the domestic support and public safety needs of the states 
very well ever since. The committee recognizes the success of 
this agreement, as evident by the successful partnerships in 
combat, security, and support missions by active and reserve 
servicemembers in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 
committee encourages the Army to continue to maintain the 
reserve components as an operational reserve and manage the 
distribution of combat arms, combat support, and combat service 
support capabilities and forces consistent with and respectful 
of the intent of its ``1993 Offsite Agreement'' regarding 
reserve component core competencies.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It 
includes funding authorizations for the construction and 
operation of military family housing as well as military 
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, 
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure 
accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by 
account.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget requested $6.56 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$5.1 billion was requested for military construction, $1.19 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $270.1 million for base closure activities.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure 
activities totaling $6.45 billion. The total amount authorized 
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing 
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities 
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2017, 
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later.
                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $539.4 million for military construction and $429.6 million 
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$544.8 million for military construction and $429.6 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
    The budget request included $96.0 million for the third of 
six planned phases of construction of a Command and Control 
Facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The committee understands 
that all six phases are necessary to provide for a complete 
facility that meets the requirements of U.S. Army Pacific. 
Furthermore, the committee understands that combining the 
remaining four phases into a single authorized project would 
save the Army significant military construction funding and 
accelerate facility construction by up to 4 years.
    Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of $311.4 
million for the remaining four phases of the Command and 
Control Facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. This authorization 
assumes at least 10 percent savings will be achieved through 
construction and contracting efficiencies. Consistent with 
these efficiencies, the committee recommends an authorization 
of appropriations for fiscal year 2015 of $86.4 million for the 
first increment of this project. The committee believes that it 
is inappropriate to phase, rather than increment, large 
military construction projects when each distinct phase does 
not fully meet the requirements of the user and directs the 
Army to refrain from requesting similarly phased projects in 
the future.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes that the Army's military 
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 52 percent less 
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in 
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large 
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the 
committee recommends $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping 
Center at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, the Army's top 
unfunded military construction priority.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the active component of the 
Army for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on 
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Army for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty 
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report 
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project 
        (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B 
of Public Law 108-136) for construction of an Explosives 
Research and Development Loading Facility at Picatinny Arsenal, 
New Jersey.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 
        projects (sec. 2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239), for construction of an Aircraft 
Maintenance Hangar at Fort Drum, New York, a Battalion 
Headquarters at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, a Vehicle Storage 
Building at Fort McNair, District of Columbia, and a Secure 
Administration/Operations Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
    With regard to the Secure Administration/Operations 
Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the committee understands 
that the third phase of construction currently planned for 
fiscal year 2018 is necessary to provide a complete facility 
that meets the requirements of the Army. Furthermore, the 
committee understands that modifying the authorization for the 
second phase of construction to include the third phase of 
construction, as recommended by the committee in the provision, 
would save the Army at least $11.0 million in construction 
costs, accelerate completion of the facility by 18 months, and 
avoid at least $16.0 million in operation and maintenance costs 
that would no longer be necessary for leased facilities. The 
committee believes that it is inappropriate to phase, rather 
than increment, large military construction projects when each 
distinct phase does not fully meet the requirements of the user 
and therefore directs the Army to refrain from requesting 
similarly phased projects in the future.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2015, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is 
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2107)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military 
        Academy, New York (sec. 2108)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to certify to the congressional defense 
committees that the Secretary intends to award a contract for 
the renovation of MacArthur Long Barracks concurrent with 
assuming beneficial occupancy of the renovated MacArthur Short 
Barracks before obligating or expending funds for construction 
of increment 3 of the Cadet Barracks at the United States 
Military Academy, New York.
Limitation on funding for family housing construction at Camp Walker, 
        Republic of Korea (sec. 2109)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for 
construction of military family housing units at Camp Walker, 
Republic of Korea (ROK), until 30 days following the delivery 
of a report to the congressional defense committees validating 
on-post housing requirements in the ROK, including Camp Walker 
and Camp Humphries, and a plan for meeting such requirements.
    As outlined in the committee's April 2013 report titled 
``Inquiry Into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support 
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas,'' the annual cost of 
supporting U.S. troops in the ROK is more than $3.0 billion 
each year. The ROK contributes funding to support U.S. military 
presence in the country, known as Special Measures Agreement 
(SMA) funds, which can be used to offset U.S. labor, logistics, 
and construction costs.
    The military family housing requirement of U.S. Forces-
Korea (USFK) is significant, largely unfunded, and has been 
exacerbated in recent years because of a decision by USFK to 
increase the number of authorized Command Sponsored Families 
(CSF) from approximately 1,700 in 2007 to more than 4,600 
today. Furthermore, the Commander of USFK has specified a 
requirement that at least 40 percent of the 3,308 families 
assigned to Camp Humphries live on post. In total, the 
committee understands that USFK currently faces an on-post 
housing deficit of 1,021 homes at Camp Walker and Camp 
Humphries that would require at least $530.0 million in 
military construction to resolve.
    The committee is concerned that the military family housing 
requirements in the ROK are unaffordable in the current budget 
environment and believes that USFK should revalidate its CSF 
and on-post housing requirements. If such requirements are to 
remain valid, the committee believes that USFK should look at 
alternative sources of funding, to include using SMA funds, to 
satisfy all or a significant portion of the housing 
requirement. The committee believes USFK should also consider 
reengaging with the ROK Government to determine whether funds 
set aside for low-priority Yongsan Relocation Plan projects 
could be reallocated for family housing. The committee believes 
that SMA funds used for construction of facilities must be 
prioritized to ensure lower priority projects are not funded 
before higher priority projects, such as military family 
housing.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that section 2807 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66), as clarified elsewhere in this bill, requires that 
all future military construction projects funded using in-kind 
payments and in-kind contributions pursuant to bilateral 
agreements with partner nations be submitted for congressional 
authorization in the Military Construction Authorization Act. 
The committee reiterates that this provision applies to ROK-
funded construction under the new SMA signed February 2, 2014, 
and all future SMAs or bilateral agreements that allow for in-
kind military construction.
                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.02 billion for military construction and $370.4 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2015.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$993.2 million for military construction and $370.4 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
    The budget request included $120.1 million for a Center for 
Cyber Studies Building in Annapolis, Maryland. The committee 
understands the Navy would be unable to expend the full amount 
of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $90.1 
million reduction.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes that the Navy's military 
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 40 percent less 
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in 
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large 
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the 
committee recommends $13.8 million for a Regional Ship 
Maintenance Support Facility at Kitsap, Washington, and $50.7 
million for a Radio Battalion Complex at Camp Lejeune, North 
Carolina, the top unfunded military construction priorities of 
the Navy and Marine Corps, respectively.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Navy for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2015 to improve existing Navy family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015. This 
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 
authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the 
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 
        projects (sec. 2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666), for construction of a 
Double Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Yuma, Arizona, an 
Infantry Squad Defense Range at Camp Pendleton, California, and 
a Crab Island Security Enclave at Kings Bay, Georgia.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66), for construction of Small Arms Ranges at 
Yorktown, Virginia.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec. 
        2207)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for two projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2208)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2012 authorization for seven projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.

                        Item of Special Interest

Quarterly reports on Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters restoration
    The committee strongly supports the Navy's effort to 
restore the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Headquarters at 
the Washington Navy Yard following the tragic shooting incident 
that occurred there in September 2013. The committee believes 
the project is important to reestablish a sense of normalcy for 
Navy personnel, civilians, and contractors who survived that 
day and to honor those who were lost by carrying on their work.
    However, the committee has concerns about the acquisition 
strategy that was chosen for the restoration project. Using the 
Global Contingency Construction Multiple Award Contract (GCC 
MAC), the Navy awarded a competitive task order to one of the 
four GCC MAC contract holders for facility stabilization, basic 
repairs, and development of plans for a complete restoration of 
the facility. The inclusion of restoration plans in that 
initial task order appears to have locked the Navy into a sole-
source follow-on task order for the restoration of the facility 
at a cost of approximately $74.0 million. The committee 
recognizes that other factors, including the expedited timeline 
necessary to allow NAVSEA personnel to vacate temporary and 
expensive leased facilities, influenced this acquisition 
strategy, but the committee is concerned that such an approach 
may have prevented the Navy from considering other competitive 
offers and may have resulted in additional cost for the 
restoration project.
    Given these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to:
          (1) Provide the congressional defense committees with 
        a report not later than July 1, 2014, that, at a 
        minimum, includes the following:
                  (a) an explanation of the acquisition 
                strategy used for the renovation project;
                  (b) the cost and schedule of the renovation 
                project;
                  (c) an accounting of and explanation for any 
                deviation from the original cost and schedule 
                for the renovation project; and (d) a 
                description of any lessons learned from the 
                acquisition strategy used for this project and 
                how they are being applied to improve future 
                GCC MAC contacting actions.
          (2) Provide the congressional defense committees with 
        a report every 90 days after the initial report in 
        paragraph (1) above and until completion of the NAVSEA 
        Headquarters restoration project that, at a minimum, 
        includes an accounting of, and explanation for, any 
        deviation from the original cost and schedule for the 
        renovation project.
              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $811.7 million for military construction and $327.7 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$846.2 million for military construction and $327.7 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes that the Air Force's military 
construction request for fiscal year 2015 is 30 percent less 
than what was requested for fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in 
light of savings achieved by incrementally funding large 
military construction projects elsewhere in the bill, the 
committee recommends $34.4 million for a Corrosion Control and 
Composite Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, the Air 
Force's top unfunded military construction priority.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2015. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty 
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this 
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project 
        (sec. 2303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B 
of Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 515), for acquisition of land 
at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2015, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is 
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2012 authorization for two projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.
           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary 
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $2.06 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies, $38.7 million for chemical demilitarization 
construction, and $61.1 million for family housing for the 
defense agencies for fiscal year 2015.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.86 billion for military construction, $38.7 million for 
chemical demilitarization construction, and $61.1 million for 
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2015.
    The budget request included $259.7 million for the Medical 
Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The 
committee understands the Department of Defense would be unable 
to expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, 
recommends a $200.0 million reduction.

               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation 
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military construction and family housing 
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction 
for fiscal year 2015. This provision would also provide an 
overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the defense 
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2404)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for three projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2405)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2012 authorization for six projects until October 
1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever 
is later.

                 Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization


                             Authorizations


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the chemical 
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2015. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project 
        (sec. 2412)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2401(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B 
of Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 2412 
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383), for construction of a 
munitions demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot, 
Kentucky.
   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $199.7 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2015 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Security Investment Program (NSIP).
    The committee understands that the NSIP has expended prior-
year funds more slowly than anticipated and does not require 
the full requested amount for fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a $25.0 million reduction.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an 
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized 
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due 
to the United States for construction previously financed by 
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $174.7 million for the U.S. contribution to 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program for fiscal year 2015.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $426.5 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2015 for facilities for the guard and reserve 
components.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$532.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2015 
for facilities for the guard and reserve components. The 
detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state 
list table included in this report.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes that the Department's military 
construction request for the guard and reserve components for 
fiscal year 2015 is 38 percent less than what was requested for 
fiscal year 2014. Therefore, in light of savings achieved by 
incrementally funding large military construction projects 
elsewhere in the bill, the committee recommends $5.0 million 
for a Readiness Center in Alamogordo, New Mexico; $13.2 million 
for a Consolidated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility 
at Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Arkansas; $25.0 million for an 
Army Reserve Center in Riverside, California; $47.9 million for 
a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center in Everett, Washington; and 
$14.5 million for a Guardian Angel Operations Facility at 
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Each of these projects 
were identified as the top unfunded military construction 
priorities of the respective guard and reserve components.

 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2015 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters


Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
        year 2012 projects (sec. 2611)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for construction of Army Reserve Centers 
in Kansas City, Kansas, and Attleboro, Massachusetts. The 
provision would also extend the authorization for these 
projects until October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of 
an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 
year 2016, whichever is later.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 
        (sec. 2612)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2601 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239), for construction of a Combined 
Maintenance Shop at Stormville, New York.

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2613)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2015, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is 
later.
          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $270.1 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The 
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the state list table included 
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account (sec. 2701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 
        (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a 
future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in 
the bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.8 million 
for BRAC planning activities.
HUBZones (sec. 2703)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 632 of title 15, United States Code, to expand the area 
around former military installations closed under the Base 
Realignment and Closure process that can be considered for 
purposes of satisfying employee residency requirements under 
the HUBZone program and would extend the period of 
applicability from 5 to 8 years.
         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes

Clarification of authorized use of in-kind payments and in-kind 
        contributions (sec. 2801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
requirement of section 2687a of title 10, United States Code, 
as amended by section 2807 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), 
that military construction projects built with in-kind payments 
or in-kind contributions required by bilateral agreements be 
specifically authorized by law.
    The committee released a report in April 2013 titled 
``Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support 
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas'' that, among other things, 
found that in-kind payments and in-kind contributions from 
partner nations to support the overseas presence of U.S. 
military forces in Germany, South Korea, and Japan have been 
used to fund questionable military construction projects.
    The committee is disappointed that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) has chosen to interpret the requirements of 
section 2807 of Public Law 113-66 as applying only to military 
construction projects funded with in-kind residual value 
payments made by foreign governments in exchange for the return 
of U.S. facilities, despite the clear intent of Congress that 
the provision apply to any military construction projects built 
using in-kind payments or in-kind contributions pursuant to a 
bilateral agreement.
    The DOD interpretation is surprising given the statement in 
the November 18, 2013, Statement of Administration Policy that 
section 2807 applied to ``military construction projects 
provided pursuant to bilateral agreements with host countries 
or as in-kind payment of residual value.'' Further, the Acting 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment gave no indication that there were questions about 
the provision's scope of applicability when he pledged DOD 
would comply with the law in his testimony before the committee 
on April 2, 2014.
    The committee reiterates its intent that section 2807 of 
Public Law 113-66 and the clarifications made by this provision 
apply to bilateral agreements including, but not limited to, 
the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) with the Republic of Korea 
signed February 2, 2014 and any successor SMA agreements, the 
U.S.-Korea Land Partnership Plan, and residual value payments 
in-kind for the return of facilities to Germany and elsewhere. 
This provision would exclude projects built using voluntary in-
kind payments or in-kind contributions, including those under 
the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program, since they are not 
required by a bilateral agreement.
    Given that DOD has chosen to interpret the requirements of 
section 2807 of Public Law 113-66 in a manner inconsistent with 
congressional intent, the committee directs the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to 
notify the congressional defense committees at least 30 days 
prior to the initiation of any military construction project 
built for DOD personnel outside the United States that is not 
specifically authorized by law or that is funded with other 
than appropriated dollars during fiscal year 2014.
Residential building construction standards (sec. 2802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
residential buildings designed and constructed using funds 
authorized by this bill to meet an above code green building 
standard or rating system to use the ICC 700 National Green 
Building Standard, the LEED Green Building Standard System, or 
an equivalent protocol.
Modification of minor military construction authority for projects to 
        correct deficiencies that are life-, health-, or safety-
        threatening (sec. 2803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the maximum amount of unspecified minor military construction 
funding that can be used to correct facility deficiencies that 
threaten the life, safety, or health of personnel from $3.0 
million to $4.0 million. The committee recommends an increase 
in this threshold to reflect its view that life, safety, and 
health deficiencies are at least equal to, if not more 
important than, laboratory revitalization for which the 
unspecified minor military construction threshold is $4.0 
million.

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and 
        maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas 
        outside the United States (sec. 2804)

    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 
United States for an additional year.

Limitation on construction projects in European Command area of 
        responsibility (sec. 2805)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense or a secretary of a military 
department from awarding a contract for any new military 
construction and family housing project, with certain 
exceptions, in the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) area of 
responsibility until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that the installations and 
specific military construction requirements authorized in this 
Act have been examined as part of the ongoing European 
Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment (EICA), have been 
determined to be of an enduring nature, and most effectively 
meet military requirements at the authorized location.
    The committee understands that the proposed Joint 
Intelligence Analysis Complex (JIAC) consolidation at Royal Air 
Force Croughton, United Kingdom, would be expected to result in 
annual recurring savings of approximately $74.0 million, an 
approximately 4.5 year payback on the cost of construction, and 
allow for the divestment of 21 dispersed and aging facilities 
that do not meet current requirements. Furthermore, the Chief 
of Staff of the Air Force testified before the committee on 
April 10, 2014, on the operational benefits of consolidation, 
saying ``There's some great benefits to this program from an 
intelligence perspective. First, is it allows U.S. European 
Command and U.S. Africa Command, who are supported by this 
Joint Analysis Center, to keep their intelligence and analysis 
capability on the same continent . . . it's really important to 
be in the same time zone for coordination of activity. The 
second thing it does is it allows them to keep an integrated 
intelligence coordination organization between European 
Command, Africa Command, and NATO. A lot of the colonial powers 
that know a lot more about Africa than we do are actually 
connected to U.S. European Command. This allows their analysts 
to be connected to U.S. Africa Command for their support. It 
also lets us be interoperable and interchange and share more 
intelligence with NATO.''
    The committee strongly supports the JIAC consolidation and 
believes projects of this type illustrate the intent of the 
EICA review. The committee encourages DOD to proceed with 
planning and design of the JIAC as soon as possible and 
recommends that consideration be given to combining future 
phases of the project to achieve cost, schedule, and 
contracting efficiencies, where possible.

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
        (sec. 2806)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit 
funding authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that any new construction of 
facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have enduring military 
value independent of a high-value detention mission.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


Deposit of reimbursed funds to cover administrative expenses relating 
        to certain real property transactions (sec. 2811)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
reimbursements paid by non-federal persons or entities for 
administrative expenses incurred by the military departments 
for certain real property transactions to be merged with those 
in the current appropriation, fund, or account used by the 
military departments for payment of such expenses.

Renewals, extensions, and succeeding leases for financial institutions 
        operating on Department of Defense installations (sec. 2812)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
the renewal or extension of existing real estate leases in 
support of an on-base financial institution without 
competition.

  Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment


Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific region (sec. 2821)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement 
the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan.
    The committee remains concerned about the overall 
affordability of the realignment of Marine Corps forces in the 
Asia-Pacific region and believes that responsible stewardship 
of taxpayers' funds requires that Congress be provided high-
confidence estimates of construction costs and schedules before 
initiating construction of new facilities in support of the 
realignment. In an October 24, 2013, letter to Chairman Levin, 
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, 
and Environment, Mr. Dennis V. McGinn, described the Marine 
Corps estimate of $12.1 billion for the proposed relocation as 
``conservative and programmatic'' and noted that the estimate 
``does not include any potential costs for strategic lift or 
for the relocation of marines to Australia.'' While the 
committee remains supportive of projects which have military 
utility independent of the permanent realignment of marines to 
Guam, including supporting training requirements, the committee 
believes that the costs associated with the realignment need to 
be accurately quantified and informed by the Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision that is 
expected to be complete in early 2015. Strategic lift 
requirements necessary to support the distributed laydown must 
also be specifically addressed before moving forward.
    Additionally, the committee stresses that the requirements 
of the recommended provision should be fulfilled prior to any 
Department of Defense (DOD) funds being spent for the 
development of civilian infrastructure, including water and 
wastewater infrastructure, on Guam in preparation for the 
permanent relocation of marines and their families. The 
committee reiterates the congressional intent outlined in the 
January 16, 2014, colloquy between Senators Durbin, Levin, and 
McCain that section 8102 of the DOD Appropriations Act 
contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2014 (Public 
Law 113-76) should not be interpreted to supersede section 2822 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66).
    Lastly, the committee remains concerned about the 
sustainment of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma on 
Okinawa until the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) is 
complete and operational at Camp Schwab. While actions taken by 
the Governor of Okinawa late last year to allow construction of 
the FRF to move forward were significant and encouraging, the 
committee believes that the complexity of the project, the long 
construction timeline, and the potential for additional delays 
make it critical that the Marine Corps and the Government of 
Japan continue to adequately sustain operations, support and 
housing facilities at MCAS Futenma. The committee understands 
that MCAS Futenma has identified approximately $52.0 million in 
necessary facilities sustainment projects in fiscal years 2015 
and 2016 and will require approximately $20.0 million on an 
annual basis thereafter to meet its facilities sustainment 
requirements. The committee strongly supports the commitment of 
the Marine Corps of approximately $22.0 million in facilities 
sustainment funding for MCAS Futenma in fiscal year 2015 and 
encourages a similar level of funding each year until the FRF 
is complete and operational.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances


Land conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 2831)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 1.2 acres at 
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Honolulu 
Authority for Rapid Transportation for the public benefit of a 
rail platform.

Land exchange, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2832)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to exchange real property with 
Arlington County, Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
for purposes of expanding the contiguous land available to 
Arlington National Cemetery.
    The committee understands Arlington County's desire to 
utilize the land south of a realigned Columbia Pike for a 
variety of uses, including public transportation uses and 
facilities, a museum to honor the history of Arlington County 
and the Freedman's Village, and to accommodate the indoor space 
and parking needs of the Air Force Memorial. The committee 
encourages all interested parties to work together in the 
development of their respective parcels, making sure these 
objectives can be achieved while not detracting from the 
dignity, honor, and solemnity of Arlington National Cemetery.
    Additionally, the committee notes that Arlington County and 
the Army signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 
2013 intended to serve as a guiding document for the land 
exchange. The committee encourages the Army and the 
Commonwealth of Virginia to enter into a similar MOU, if it 
would help facilitate the land exchange.

Transfers of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and 
        Lake Lanier, Georgia (sec. 2833)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to transfer approximately 10 acres 
adjacent to Lake Lanier, Georgia, in exchange for the transfer 
of approximately 282 acres at Camp Frank D. Merrill, Dahlonega, 
Georgia, by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma (sec. 
        2834)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of property at Camp 
Gruber, Oklahoma, to the Department of the Army for the purpose 
of military training.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Establishment of memorial to the victims of the shooting at the 
        Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 (sec. 2841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to permit a third party to establish 
and maintain a memorial dedicated to the victims of the 
shooting attack at the Washington Navy Yard that occurred on 
September 16, 2013. Prior to establishment of the memorial 
authorized under this section, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees detailing, at a minimum, the design, 
specific location, and funding dedicated to the construction 
and long-term maintenance of the memorial.

                       Items of Special Interest


Design build contracts

    The committee notes that section 3309 of title 41, United 
States Code, provides for a two-phase process for selecting 
contractors eligible to compete for design-build military 
construction contracts. For the second competitive proposal 
phase of such contract solicitations, section 3309 states that 
``the maximum number specified in the solicitation shall not 
exceed five unless the agency determines with respect to an 
individual solicitation that a specified number greater than 
five is in the Federal Government's interest and is consistent 
with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection 
process.'' The committee has been made aware of industry 
concerns that the Department of Defense frequently includes 
more than five eligible contractors in the second phase of 
design-build solicitations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Installations and Environment to submit to the 
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2015, 
a report describing its use of the two-phased selection process 
for design-build contracts, including benefits and 
disadvantages, and the criteria that are used when making a 
determination that inclusion of more than five contractors in 
the second phase of such solicitations is in the best interests 
of the Federal Government.

Laboratory revitalization

    Historically, Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory 
facilities and test centers have not fared well in the internal 
competition for limited military construction and facility 
sustainment funds. The committee notes that the maintenance and 
construction of world-class research and development (R&D;) 
facilities is an important part of ensuring that the best new 
technologies and capabilities are delivered to warfighters, and 
that reports indicate that global competitors are investing 
increased resources in advanced research infrastructure. The 
quality of these facilities is also key to efforts to attract 
and retain world-class technical talent at all experience 
levels in DOD organizations.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Department's budget request 
includes $116.4 million for R&D; facilities out of a total 
military construction request of $6.56 billion. Neither the 
Army nor the Air Force included any funding for R&D; facilities 
in their budget requests for either fiscal years 2014 or 2015. 
The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of 
recapitalization rates of these facilities and has provided a 
number of tools, including expanded minor military construction 
authorities and the ability for DOD laboratories to accumulate 
funds, known as section 219, for up to 5 years for 
revitalization projects up to $4.0 million in cost.
    The committee also notes that section 2805 of title 10, 
United States Code, required the Secretary of Defense, not 
later than February 1, 2014, to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees on the use of expanded minor 
military construction authority for laboratory revitalization. 
The committee encourages DOD to complete and submit the 
required report as soon as possible.

Privatized lodging

    The committee notes the success of the Privatized Army 
Lodging (PAL) program in eliminating inadequate lodging 
facilities. Furthermore, the committee understands that by the 
end of fiscal year 2016, the Army expects to have privatized 
more than 14,000 rooms at 41 different installations. While the 
committee supports the PAL initiative, it is also concerned 
that some PAL hotels, in the interest of improving occupancy 
rates, may have provided lodging to persons who wouldn't 
otherwise have access to the installation. Such practices have 
the potential to expose Department of Defense (DOD) 
installations to unnecessary security threats.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination 
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, 
Energy and Environment, to conduct a review to ensure that DOD 
policies regarding base access for persons utilizing privatized 
lodging facilities are being consistently and appropriately 
applied at all PAL locations and to provide the results of such 
review to the congressional defense committees not later than 
October 1, 2014.

Report on military construction unfunded requirements

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
military construction (MILCON) request for fiscal year 2015 is 
40 percent less than was requested for fiscal year 2014. In 
particular, the Army's MILCON funding request declined by 52 
percent compared to its request for fiscal year 2014.
    As the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 
and Environment testified on April 2, 2014, ``infrastructure 
degradation is not immediate, so DOD Components are taking more 
risk in the MilCon program in order to decrease risk in other 
operational and training budgets. This funding will still 
enable the Department to respond to warfighter requirements and 
mission readiness. However, the reduced budget will have an 
impact on routine operations and quality of life as projects to 
improve aging workplaces are deferred.''
    The committee is concerned about the significant cuts to 
MILCON and their likely impact of increasing the number of 
facilities in poor to failing condition. The committee is 
concerned that MILCON cuts will ultimately lead to lasting 
negative impacts to our military's readiness and their ability 
to effectively respond to crisis abroad and at home.
    These concerns apply not only to the active component, but 
to the guard and reserve as well. The committee believes that 
MILCON funding should be equitably distributed among each 
service's active, guard, and reserve components based on a 
comprehensive MILCON strategy. Furthermore, the committee would 
like to have a better understanding of how National Guard 
MILCON funding is prioritized and distributed among the States.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Installations and Environment, in coordination 
with each of the Service secretaries, to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on DOD MILCON 
requirements, with focus on each of the Services--active, 
guard, and reserve facilities. The report shall include, at a 
minimum: an accounting of unfunded MILCON requirements over the 
future years defense program by Service, component, and State; 
an assessment of the risk to readiness assumed by not funding 
these requirements; a review of the procedures the Army and the 
Air Force, in collaboration with the National Guard Bureau, use 
to allocate National Guard MILCON funding among the States; and 
procedures used by each Service and their components to 
prioritize and allocate MILCON funding and balance risk across 
the active, guard, and reserve components.

Reprogramming packages for military construction projects

    While the Department of Defense (DOD) complies with 
notification requirements for the use of various standing 
authorities under title 10, United States Code, to construct 
facilities not specifically authorized by Congress, the 
committee is concerned that the DOD does not routinely submit 
reprogramming requests to fund such projects, including the 
source of funds to be used for the project, to the Armed 
Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. Rather, such reprogramming requests are 
generally only submitted to the Appropriations Committees of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives for approval, 
thereby depriving the authorizing committees of visibility 
into, and oversight of, reprogrammings of military construction 
funds that had previously been authorized for other purposes.
    Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to ensure that 
courtesy copies of all reprogramming requests for military 
construction funds be provided to the Armed Services Committees 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Scope of work variations

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has proposed modifications to section 2853 of title 10, United 
States Code, that would allow the DOD to increase the scope of 
a military construction project by up to 10 percent above the 
amount authorized by Congress.
    On February 27, 2012, the DOD Inspector General (DOD IG) 
published a report titled, ``Guidance Needed to Prevent 
Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved 
Scope of Work.'' The report found that in 3 of 17 case studies, 
military construction projects carried out by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Air Force Center for Engineering 
and the Environment (AFCEE) officials did not comply with 
facility sizes on the congressional request for authorization. 
According to the report, ``This occurred because the scope of 
work variations permissible by section 2853 of title 10, United 
States Code, from the congressional request for authorization 
are unclear and inconsistently applied. As a result, DOD 
officials do not have assurance that military construction 
projects are built consistent with congressional intent and in 
accordance with legislative requirements.''
    The committee strongly supports the new guidance issued in 
response to congressional concerns and the DOD IG report by the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment on June 24, 2013, that seeks to provide greater 
clarity and consistency in defining the authorized scope for 
military construction projects. The committee reiterates its 
position that the cost and scope of projects identified on 
Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also known as DD 
Form 1391, define the authorized limits of the contract 
authority for projects included in the annual National Defense 
Authorization Act. Given the problems identified by the DOD IG, 
the relatively recent implementation of revised guidance, and 
the critical importance of thorough planning and design 
activities to reduce uncertainty with regard to project cost 
and scope, the committee believes it would be inappropriate to 
provide additional flexibility under section 2853 of title 10, 
United States Code.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal 
year 2015, including: the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment, research and 
development, nuclear weapons, naval nuclear propulsion, 
environmental restoration and waste management, operating 
expenses, and other expenses necessary to carry out the 
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public 
Law 95-91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 
categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), (2) Defense environmental cleanup, and (3) Other 
defense activities.
    The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at 
the Department totaled $17.842 billion, a 4.6 percent increase 
above the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. Of the total 
amount requested (rounded up to the first significant decimal 
point):
          (1) $11.7 billion is for NNSA, of which:
                  (a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities;
                  (b) $1.5 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities;
                  (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and
                  (d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator;
          (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental 
        cleanup;
          (3) $753.0 million is for other defense activities; 
        and
          (4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security.
    The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy 
defense activities.
    Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
          (1) $12.0 billion for NNSA, of which;
                  (a) $8.3 billion is for weapons activities;
                  (b) $1.9 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities;
                  (c) $1.4 billion is for naval reactors, the 
                amount of the budget request; and
                  (d) $410.8 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator, the amount of the budget 
                request;
          (2) $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup 
        activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium 
        Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund);
          (3) $753.0 million for other defense activities, the 
        amount of the budget request; and
          (4) $104.0 million for Idaho site-wide security.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $12.0 billion for the DOE in fiscal year 2015 for the 
NNSA to carry out programs necessary to national security.
Weapons activities
    The committee recommends $8.3 billion for weapons 
activities, the amount of the budget request.
    The committee recommends funding for these programs as 
follows: $2.7 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.8 billion 
for campaigns; $2.05 billion for Readiness in Technical Base 
and Facilities; $233.8 million for the secure transportation 
assets; $173.4 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident 
response; $76.9 for counterterrorism and counter-proliferation; 
and $797.8 million for defense nuclear security and the Chief 
Information Officer.
    The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional 
support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons 
complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the 
committee urges the NNSA to find efficiencies where and 
whenever possible. The ability to robust modernization funding 
during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be 
increasingly difficult as time goes on. Good stewardship of the 
funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons 
complex, is critical to the long-term support for and 
sustainment of the projected increases.
Directed stockpile work
    The committee recommends $2.7 billion for directed 
stockpile work. The directed stockpile account supports work 
directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-
day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, 
and certification activities to support planned life extension 
programs. This account also includes fabrication and assembly 
of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons 
dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment.
    The committee understands that for fiscal year 2015, the 
B61 is undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one 
variant reducing the overall number of such B61 systems by 50 
percent and once certified operational by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) will permit the elimination of the B83 weapon 
system, the last Cold War era megaton class weapon.
    The funding for B61-12 life extension program is proposed 
at $643.0 million. The committee understands the importance of 
the Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 
2020 first production unit in order to begin replacing the 
system deployed by NATO allies and needs to understand what 
backup plan, if any, the Departments of Defense and Energy have 
to provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons 
if the Mod 12 schedule slips as it most likely will.
    The committee understands that the NNSA has slipped the 
interoperable warhead out beyond the 5-year budget window and 
questions whether beginning this program at such a late stage 
is cost-effective compared to simply performing a life 
extension of the W88 (after it has had its fuse replaced under 
the ALT 370 program) and the W78, which will be in need of a 
full life extension program.
    The committee also understands that the NNSA has slipped 
the decision on the warhead for long-range stand-off weapon 
from 1 to 3 years, which is to replace the air launched cruise 
missile which will end service life in the late 2020s.
    The committee continues to be concerned about overall 
workflow coordination between the design laboratories and the 
production facilities: Pantex, Y-12, and the Kansas City plant. 
While unlikely due to the program delays this year, there could 
be up to five life extension programs underway, the B61-12, the 
long range stand-off weapon, the W88 fuse program, an 
interoperable warhead to replace the W-88 and W78 systems, and 
the ongoing W-76 program. Concurrency, funding delays, or 
program slips in any one of these programs can impact the 
others given they all use the three production facilities.
    Finally, the committee has concern about the fragile nature 
of maintaining a workload balance and key personnel at the two 
physics laboratories given that the majority of the work with 
the W76-1 is now at Pantex, the warhead replacement for the 
long-range stand-off weapon has been delayed, and that work for 
the interoperable warhead or life extensions of the W88 and W78 
separately will be pushed out at least 5 years. This concern 
was evident in testimony of Drs. McMillan and Goldstein who are 
the directors of Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, 
respectively, when they testified before the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee on April 9, 2014. The essence of the stockpile 
certification program is the ability of each laboratory to 
independently assess the warheads in the current stockpile 
using separate computer codes and key personnel.

Campaigns

    The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns, 
including a $7.5 million reduction to the inertial confinement 
fusion and high-yield campaign. The campaigns focus on science 
and engineering efforts involving the three nuclear weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, and the 
weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a 
specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile 
without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form 
the scientific underpinning of the DOE's annual certification 
that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without 
nuclear weapons testing.
    The committee notes that as life extension programs take on 
more importance in the future years, the campaigns, 
particularly those associated with the science base, will need 
to sustain ongoing work and budget. The stockpile stewardship 
program by all accounts has exceeded all expectations compared 
to what it was envisioned in the 1990s. More importantly, it is 
the seed corn to bring in the best and brightest young post-
doctorate scientists to work with senior scientists. Testimony 
this year before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee by the three 
weapons laboratory directors has supported the success of this 
program.
    The committee continues to be concerned regarding funding 
for the enhanced surveillance program, which produces the 
future tools to inspect the stockpile. The committee directs 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review this 
program against best program practices as to whether the 
program has a long-term plan and understands the full amount of 
funding needed to maintain that plan. The GAO shall give an 
interim briefing to the congressional defense committees no 
later than October 31, 2014, with a final briefing no later 
than February 28, 2015.

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations

    The committee recommends $2.0 billion for Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities Operations.
    The committee understands that the projected costs for the 
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project for replacing the 
combined Y-12 plant buildings consisting of 9212, 9215, and 
9204-2E has risen to $11,000 to $14,000 per square foot for a 
650,000-square-foot facility. It took almost 10 years and 
almost $1 billion in design to reach these projections with the 
encouragement and the help of the DOD Office of Cost Analysis 
and Program Evaluation. The committee understands that similar 
to the replacement of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
(CMR) facility at Los Alamos, the replacement for the UPF will 
occur in a smaller series of buildings to distribute cost over 
time, given that some operations in buildings such as 9215 and 
9204-2E are not in dire need of a new facility like the uranium 
operations in building 9212, where the structure literally 
dates to the Manhattan Project. The committee looks forward to 
a conservative cost estimate for the first module in replacing 
building 9212 but will approach it with trepidation and caution 
given the past record of this project. The committee directs 
the GAO to continue monitoring this project with periodic 
updates to the congressional defense committees on the 
direction the program is taking and recommendations for sound 
program management.
    Elsewhere in this bill there is a provision directing the 
NNSA to establish a budget line for uranium sustainment so that 
uranium capabilities, so essential to the stockpile, are not 
developed using Plant Directed Research and Development funds, 
which are not intended to be long-term sustainable sources of 
funding for capabilities replacement at the Y-12 plant.
    The committee believes that the proposal to replace lithium 
production capabilities at the Y-12 plant starting in fiscal 
year 2017 (project 17-D-XXX) should begin in fiscal year 2016. 
Portions of the concrete ceiling above equipment that supplies 
components to the stockpile are spalling as the rebar inside 
the 60-plus-year-old concrete has corroded due to a desiccant 
used in the air handling system. Such working conditions are 
unacceptable if not dangerous. The committee directs the GAO to 
review the status of the existing facility to meet stockpile 
needs, whether the NNSA has a long-term and coherent program 
plan for lithium sustainment, and how well-developed the plans 
are to replace this unacceptable facility. The GAO shall brief 
the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 
2015, on the results of this review with an interim briefing no 
later than October 31, 2014.
    With the deferral of the CMR Replacement project, the 
committee continues to be concerned about implementing a long-
term strategy for plutonium sustainment. Testimony by Dr. 
McMillan before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 9, 
2014, indicates that a modular approach to a smaller series of 
buildings holds promise for lower costs and greater 
flexibility. However, the ability to accomplish the first two 
stages of moving out of the 60-year-old CMR facility into other 
facilities within Technical Area 55 are in danger of not being 
met by the required date of 2019. Like Dr. McMillan, the 
committee remains concerned about meeting the 2019 deadline for 
vacating the CMR facility. Direction is given elsewhere in the 
bill to assist the NNSA in accomplishing the move out of the 
CMR facility in a timely fashion.

Secure transportation asset

    The committee recommends $233.8 million for the secure 
transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The 
secure transportation asset is responsible for the 
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, 
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure 
transport.

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer

    The committee recommends $618.1 million for safeguards and 
security and the Chief Information Officer; the same as the 
budget request. The committee is aware of the recent formation 
of the Departmental Security Committee for execution of 
departmental security policy across the nuclear enterprise. It 
is the committee's understanding that the Office of Defense 
Nuclear Security is developing an enterprise-wide life-cycle 
management plan for the physical security infrastructure by 
June 2014. The committee directs the GAO to review this plan 
against GAO's program management and best practices with a 
briefing to congressional defense committees no later than 
January 30, 2015.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

    The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $285.0 million 
to the budget request. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight 
responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the 
Department of Energy (DOE).
    The committee directs the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
program to report no later than December 1, 2015, on a 5-year 
budget profile, if feasible, for a program to equip and train 
other countries on nuclear incident response. This effort 
should be joint with the NNSA nuclear counterterrorism incident 
response program and the counterterrorism and 
counterproliferation program.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

    The committee recommends $390.8 million for 
nonproliferation and verification research, an increase of 
$30.0 million for research associated with detection of 
enrichment and reprocessing activities.

Nonproliferation and international security

    The committee recommends $141.4 million for 
nonproliferation and international security, the same as the 
budget request.

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

    The committee recommends $375.5 million for international 
nuclear materials production and cooperation, an increase of 
$70.0 million to assist countries in detecting nuclear 
materials and implementing measures to install security 
upgrades.

Fissile Materials Disposition program

    The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess 
weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in 
commercial power reactors. The United States and Russia have 
signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement where 
each country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of 
excess weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility 
that this plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into 
the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so 
that they will not produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium 
in fast reactors. After the United States considered more than 
40 different options on how to dispose of surplus plutonium, a 
2010 amendment to the agreement eliminated immobilization as an 
option and selected MOX as the disposition path for the U.S. 
share of the plutonium. The NNSA has now estimated that the 
life cycle cost of the project is on the order of $26.0 billion 
with construction of the MOX facility ranging from $9.6 to 
$12.0 billion (depending on level of annual appropriation). The 
original cost estimate of the facility was $4.8 billion. The 
facility is currently 60 percent complete.
    The committee recommends $456.1 million for fissile 
materials disposition, an increase of $145.0 million which is 
for the MOX fabrication facility construction.
    For fiscal year 2015, the NNSA has proposed to place the 
construction of the MOX project in cold stand-by. Until such 
time as the committee receives and evaluates a final report 
listing alternatives to reducing the 34 metric tons of weapons 
grade plutonium to MOX, the NNSA is directed to continue 
construction of the facilities.

Global threat reduction initiative

    The committee recommends $373.5 million for the global 
threat reduction initiative, an increase of $40.0 million to 
accelerate the return of U.S. and non-U.S. origin nuclear 
material as well as radiological material protection.

Naval Reactors

    The committee recommends $1.4 billion for naval reactors. 
The committee understands that in fiscal year 2014, naval 
reactors did not receive funding for a super computer to model 
the Ohio Replacement fuel core, as well as funds needed for the 
Modifications and Additions to a Reactor Facility at Knolls 
Atomic Power Laboratories. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of Energy to approve necessary reprogramming funds to 
meet these important program objectives. The committee supports 
the replacement for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility to be 
constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

    The committee recommends $173.4 million for nuclear 
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget 
request.

Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs

    The committee recommends $76.9 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Office of the Administrator

    The committee recommends $403.3 million for the Office of 
the Administrator, the amount of the budget request, a decrease 
of $87.5 million.

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at 
the DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support 
the cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and 
surface water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive 
and other waste generated through the production of nuclear 
weapons and weapons materials. The Environmental Management 
program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold 
War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials, 
including plutonium and highly enriched uranium. The committee 
notes that the budget request of $463.0 million for the uranium 
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund assumes 
that Congress will reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 2297g) for industry 
contributions. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, this legislation 
was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be 
reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee 
redistributes the $463.0 million associated with this 
assumption to other higher priority needs.

Savannah River Site

    The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah 
River Site cleanup to help accelerate and meet tank 
stabilization milestones under the consent order with the State 
of South Carolina. The committee is aware of the critical 
milestones with the State of South Carolina for tank close-out 
by 2028. In that regard, the start-up of the Salt Waste 
Processing Facility is a critical element to separate high-
level waste from low-level waste. The committee expects to be 
informed of the final baseline cost estimate for the Salt Waste 
Processing Facility due to the delays of the large vessels that 
are part of the facility.

Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Activities

    The committee recommends $690.0 million, the amount of the 
budget request for the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The 
committee recommends $545.0 million for tank farm activities. 
The committee continues to follow the progress at the WTP at 
the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. Unlike the 
Savannah River Site, the composition of the waste in the tanks 
is non-uniform, adding complexity to the separation and 
treatment of high- and low-level waste. The Department is 
encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low-level waste 
streams and fully inform the committee of the costs associated 
with the pre-treatment of the low-level waste. The overall 
completion cost of the project has risen from $5.8 billion to 
$12.3 billion. The committee directs the Department to ensure 
that the committee is informed of decisions on directly 
treating the low-level waste and whether another pre-treatment 
plant is needed for the high-level waste.

Hanford Site

    The committee recommends $848.1 million for the Hanford 
River Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization 
plant), the amount of the budget request.

Idaho National Laboratory

    The committee recommends $367.2 million, the amount of the 
budget request, for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to 
remove the transuranic waste and other buried waste, as 
applicable, for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and 
to continue sodium bearing waste treatment operations.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

    The committee recommends $224.6 million for Los Alamos 
National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for 
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to monitor 
groundwater contamination as well as to design a system to 
treat the hexavalent chromium contamination in the ground 
water.

Oak Ridge Reservation

    The committee recommends $206.9 million for the Oak Ridge 
Reservation, the amount of the budget request.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    The committee recommends $216.0 million. The committee 
directs the GAO to review program operations at the plant with 
respect to safety and contractor assurance systems and compare 
the operation of the plant with respect to best practices 
developed by the GAO for program management and safety 
standards by the DOE and other applicable agencies. The review 
shall consist of an interim briefing no later than November 30, 
2014, with the final product consisting of a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2015.

Safeguards and Security

    The committee recommends $233.9 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Technology Development

    The committee recommends $13.0 million for technology 
development, the amount of the budget request.

Program Direction and Support

    The committee recommends $295.8 million for program 
direction and support, the amount of the budget request.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$751.0 million for other defense activities, a $2 million 
reduction from the budget request. Of this amount, the 
committee recommends $179.9 million for health, safety, and 
security, a $1 million reduction from the budget request; 
$202.1 million for specialized security, the amount of the 
budget request; $170.9 million for Legacy Management, a $1 
million reduction from the budget request; $73.5 million for 
Independent Enterprise Assessment, the amount of the budget 
request; $118.8 million for other defense-related 
administrative support, the amount of the budget request; and 
$5.5 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount 
of the budget request.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


Life-cycle cost estimates of certain atomic energy defense capital 
        assets (sec. 3111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Atomic Energy Defense Act to require that, under order 413.3 at 
the end of phase CD-1 and before phase CD-4, the Secretary of 
Energy perform an independent life-cycle cost estimate of 
capital assets that have a single purpose mission. This is to 
reduce the likelihood of large increases in life-cycle 
estimates late in the program cycle of facilities as evidenced 
by the mixed oxide fuel facility and the waste treatment plant.

Expansion of requirement for independent cost estimates on life 
        extension programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would align the 
independent cost estimating practices for life extension 
programs and new nuclear facilities with those performed by the 
Department of Defense as required by the Weapons Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act (P.L. 111-23), which requires 
independent cost estimates early in the concept definition 
phase. For Department of Energy (DOE) programs, this is the 6.1 
concept assessment phase of a life extension program and 
critical decision 1 of DOE Order 413.3, Program Management for 
Acquisition of Capital Assets.

Implementation of Phase I of Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project 
        (sec. 3113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require in 
replacing building 9212 at the Y-12 plant, the technologies (or 
their substitutes) that are to go into the replacement building 
have a technology readiness level of at least seven. 
Technologies (or their substitutes) that were in building 9212 
that do not go into the replacement building are also to have a 
technology readiness level of at least seven. Critical 
decision-3 (construction) as defined by Department of Energy 
order 413.3 (Program and Project Management for the Acquisition 
of Capital Assets) for the replacement of building 9212 may not 
begin until this condition is met.
    This section applies only to process technologies that 
require protection levels consistent with Categories I and II 
found under Department of Energy Order 474.2 (Nuclear Material 
Control and Accountability), such as casting and material 
purification and enrichment.

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker 
        Health (sec. 3114)

    The committee recommends a provision would create an 
advisory board reporting to the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Program on toxic substances and worker health.

Comments of Administrator for Nuclear Security on reports of 
        Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear 
        Security Enterprise (sec. 3115)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
to respond within 90 days to the findings of the Congressional 
Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security 
Enterprise, created in section 3166 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239), which 
shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees.

Identification of amounts required for uranium technology sustainment 
        in budget materials for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 3116)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security to include in the fiscal 
year 2016 budget request a uranium sustainment budget line for 
technology development past technology readiness level five so 
that plant-directed research and development (R&D;) at 
facilities such as Y-12 can concentrate on projects involving 
technology readiness level four and below. Currently, 
facilities such as Y-12 must develop most if not all future 
uranium technologies on plant directed R&D.;

                              Budget Items


Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Program

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $9.4 million 
for the 6.1 study for extending the life of the cruise missile 
warhead. This effort is a high priority for the Air Force, 
which predicts that the current warhead and the missile will 
have to be life extended in the 2025 timeframe. The requested 
fiscal year 2015 funding will result in a 1 to 3 year delay in 
the overall effort. The committee recommends an increase of 
$7.5 million to this life extension program to mitigate the 
delay.

Environment Safety and Health

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the DOE Office of 
Environment Safety and Health is $188.7 million. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $1 million as excess to need.

Legacy Management

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of 
Energy Office of Legacy Management is $158.6 million. The 
committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million as excess to 
need.

Establishment of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker 
        Health

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained no funding 
for the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health. 
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to fund 
activities in section 3114.

Inertial confinement facility operations and target production

    The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security 
Administration budget request for the inertial confinement 
facility operations and target production is $335.9 million. 
The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million as excess 
to need.

Federal salaries and expenses

    The fiscal year 2015 National Nuclear Security 
Administration budget request for federal salaries and expenses 
is $410.8 million. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 
million as excess to need.

                       Items of Special Interest


Efforts to meet the 2019 move of plutonium capabilities from the 
        Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility

    The Strategic Forces Subcommittee is aware of the 
administration's plans to execute the first two phases of the 
plutonium (Pu) strategy (maximize use of the new radiological 
laboratory/utility/office building and repurpose existing space 
in Plutonium Facility (PF)-4) as new subprojects to the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Replacement project. 
The third phase (module construction) will be a separate line 
item to be submitted in fiscal year 2016. This approach will 
add additional visibility into the process as it will follow a 
more rigorous application of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 
413.3B, ``Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of 
Capital Assets.'' Recognizing that the Pu strategy includes a 
mixture of tasks that support the 2019 end of programmatic 
activities in the CMR facility and some tasks that do not 
support the 2019 milestone, the administration is encouraged to 
identify those tasks required to support the 2019 milestone and 
to pursue a streamlined DOE Order 413.3B process associated 
with those tasks. It is important that such streamlining should 
not in any way degrade reasonable program control and 
oversight. The third phase of the Pu strategy concerning module 
construction is not to be part of this streamlining 
consideration. The intent of streamlining is to avoid deferring 
tasks that will reduce the risk in either CMR or PF-4, while 
awaiting broader approvals on critical decisions. The 
administration will provide a report to the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee, no later than September 31, 2014, that provides 
details on activities that can be accelerated to achieve the 
2019 CMR milestone.

Laboratory Scientific Equipment Sustainment

    The committee understands the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has repurposed funding, including 
resources that previously supported scientific equipment and 
capabilities needed to support and sustain the nuclear weapons 
mission, to meet infrastructure maintenance, repair, and 
recapitalization requirements. While the committee believes 
basic infrastructure needs are important, the committee is 
concerned that a sustained lack of investment in scientific 
capabilities could increase risk to the laboratories' primary 
mission--science-based stockpile stewardship--and is not 
consistent with the stated national goal of achieving a modern 
and responsive nuclear infrastructure. The committee supports a 
solution that allows investment in both areas of pressing need 
and appreciates the considerable challenges confronting NNSA, 
as well as the difficulties stemming from not having a Senate-
confirmed Administrator. In this regard, the committee welcomes 
the recent confirmation of the Administrator and encourages him 
to review its investment in scientific capabilities.

National Nuclear Security Administration Governance

    The committee remains concerned about the current 
governance structure and management of the Nuclear Security 
Enterprise. Since the 2009 conclusion of the Congressional 
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which 
found that ``the governance structure of the [National Nuclear 
Security Administration] NNSA is not delivering the needed 
results,'' evidence has only mounted that serious, bold reforms 
are necessary. The interim report of the Congressional Advisory 
Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise 
provides the most recent confirmation of the dire need for 
governance reform.
    The committee appreciates the work of the Panel and the 
detailed description provided in its report of the abortive 
structure currently in place. The Panel's interim report makes 
clear that the current system chiefly prevents the efficient 
use of resources and the effective execution of its mission--
arguably the two most important requirements of the Nuclear 
Security Enterprise.
    The committee believes reform is imperative in order to 
maintain confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent and looks 
forward to the Panel's final report, but notes that legislation 
ultimately cannot make an organization meet the expectations 
laid upon it. Leadership is the primary driver of excellence 
and the committee has great expectations for the new 
Administrator of the NNSA.

Procurement of unencumbered special nuclear material for tritium 
        production

    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to determine 
if the Mutual Defense Agreement between the United Kingdom and 
Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of 
America on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Purpose, dated 
July 5, 1958, permits the United States to obtain low enriched 
uranium for the purposes of tritium production or purchase 
directly tritium from the United Kingdom. Such a determination 
shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later 
than September 30, 2014.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $30.2 million.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.

                       DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and 
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this 
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established 
procedures.
    Consistent with the previously expressed views of the 
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by 
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific 
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on 
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based 
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and 
other applicable provisions of law.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
    The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance 
with the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also 
display the line-item funding requested by the administration 
in the fiscal year 2015 budget request and show where the 
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
    SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                         SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
                                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2015                         Senate
                                                                      Request      Senate Change    Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
              DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
                                      National Defense (Budget Function 050)
 
                             Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 051)
 
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
 
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army......................................      5,102,685         334,000       5,436,685
Missile Procurement, Army.......................................      1,017,483               0       1,017,483
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..........      1,471,438          86,011       1,557,449
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................      1,031,477         -18,400       1,013,077
Other Procurement, Army.........................................      4,893,634        -356,400       4,537,234
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund...................        115,058        -115,058               0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy......................................     13,074,317          10,000      13,084,317
Weapons Procurement, Navy.......................................      3,217,945          93,000       3,310,945
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps..................        771,945               0         771,945
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy.................................     14,400,625          91,000      14,491,625
Other Procurement, Navy.........................................      5,975,828         -15,000       5,960,828
Procurement, Marine Corps.......................................        983,352           2,900         986,252
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................     11,542,571         -15,900      11,526,671
Missile Procurement, Air Force..................................      4,690,506        -139,531       4,550,975
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................        677,400           8,800         686,200
Other Procurement, Air Force....................................     16,566,018          20,600      16,586,618
Procurement, Defense-Wide.......................................      4,221,437        -210,772       4,010,665
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................         20,000               0          20,000
Prior Year Rescissions..........................................       -265,685         265,685               0
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement..................................     89,508,034          40,935      89,548,969
 
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army................      6,593,898           5,702       6,599,600
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy................     16,266,335        -243,639      16,022,696
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force...........     23,739,892        -227,434      23,512,458
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide........     16,766,084         415,822      17,181,906
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense..........................        167,738               0         167,738
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation..     63,533,947         -49,549      63,484,398
 
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army...................................     33,240,148         -21,400      33,218,748
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve...........................      2,490,569          20,000       2,510,569
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard....................      6,030,773          14,200       6,044,973
Operation & Maintenance, Navy...................................     39,025,857          79,500      39,105,357
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps...........................      5,909,487          25,857       5,935,344
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve...........................      1,007,100           5,000       1,012,100
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve...................        268,582           5,000         273,582
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force..............................     35,331,193         206,590      35,537,783
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve......................      3,015,842           5,000       3,020,842
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard.....................      6,392,859           5,000       6,397,859
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide...........................     31,198,232          12,700      31,210,932
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.............         13,723                          13,723
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid...................        100,000                         100,000
Cooperative Threat Reduction....................................        365,108                         365,108
DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund......................        212,875                         212,875
Environmental Restoration, Army.................................        201,560                         201,560
Environmental Restoration, Navy.................................        277,294                         277,294
Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................        408,716                         408,716
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide.........................          8,547                           8,547
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites..........        208,353                         208,353
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund...................          5,000                           5,000
Support of International Sporting Competitions, Defense.........         10,000          -4,300           5,700
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance..................    165,721,818         353,147     166,074,965
 
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations...............................    128,957,593         -46,910     128,910,683
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............      6,236,092                       6,236,092
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel..........................    135,193,685         -46,910     135,146,775
 
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army......................................         13,727                          13,727
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................         61,717                          61,717
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide..............................         44,293          -5,000          39,293
Working Capital Fund, Defense Commissary Agency.................      1,114,731         200,000       1,314,731
National Sea-based Deterrence Fund..............................                        100,000         100,000
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense................        828,868                         828,868
Office of the Inspector General.................................        311,830                         311,830
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............        820,687          20,000         840,687
Defense Health Program..........................................     31,833,061         -78,000      31,755,061
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations.......................     35,028,914         237,000      35,265,914
 
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations.........    488,986,398         534,623     489,521,021
 
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
 
Military Construction
Army............................................................        539,427           5,400         544,827
Navy............................................................      1,018,772         -25,573         993,199
Air Force.......................................................        811,774          34,400         846,174
Defense-Wide....................................................      2,061,890        -200,000       1,861,890
Army National Guard.............................................        126,920           5,000         131,920
Air National Guard..............................................         94,663          13,200         107,863
Army Reserve....................................................        103,946          25,000         128,946
Navy Reserve....................................................         51,528          47,869          99,397
Air Force Reserve...............................................         49,492          14,500          63,992
Chemical Demilitarization Construction..........................         38,715                          38,715
NATO Security Investment Program................................        199,700         -25,000         174,700
Subtotal, Military Construction.................................      5,096,827        -105,204       4,991,623
 
Family Housing
Construction, Army..............................................         78,609                          78,609
Operation and Maintenance, Army.................................        350,976                         350,976
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.............................         16,412                          16,412
Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................        354,029                         354,029
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................        327,747                         327,747
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide.........................         61,100                          61,100
Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................          1,662                           1,662
Subtotal, Family Housing........................................      1,190,535                       1,190,535
 
Base Realignment and Closure
Army............................................................         84,417                          84,417
Navy............................................................         94,692                          94,692
Air Force.......................................................         90,976                          90,976
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure..........................        270,085                         270,085
 
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations.........      6,557,447        -105,204       6,452,243
 
Department of Defense-Military (Budget Sub-Function 051)........    495,543,845         429,419     495,973,264
 
                            Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 053)
 
Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent Federal Agency Authorizations
 
                                       Department of Energy Authorizations
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy..................................................        104,000                         104,000
Subtotal, Energy Programs.......................................        104,000                         104,000
 
Advisory Board
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health............                          2,000           2,000
Subtotal, Advisory Board........................................                          2,000           2,000
 
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities..............................................      8,314,902                       8,314,902
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................      1,555,156         285,000       1,840,156
Naval Reactors..................................................      1,377,100                       1,377,100
Federal Salaries and Expenses...................................        410,842          -7,500         403,342
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration..............     11,658,000         277,500      11,935,500
 
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup...................................      5,327,538        -463,000       4,864,538
Other Defense Activities........................................        753,000          -2,000         751,000
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............      6,080,538        -465,000       5,615,538
Subtotal, Department of Energy Authorizations...................     17,842,538        -185,500      17,657,038
 
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.........................         30,150                          30,150
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization..............         30,150                          30,150
 
Total, Division C: Department of Energy National Security and        17,872,688        -185,500      17,687,188
 Independent Federal Agency Authorizations......................
 
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Budget Sub-Function 053)......     17,872,688        -185,500      17,687,188
 
Total, National Defense (Budget Function 050)...................    513,416,533         243,919     513,660,452
 
MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS
Department of Defense-Military (051)............................    495,543,845         429,419     495,973,264
Atomic energy defense activities (053)..........................     17,872,688         185,500      17,687,188
Total, National Defense (050)...................................    513,416,533         243,919     513,660,452
 
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)..........         63,400                          63,400
 
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer Authority.............................     [5,000,000]                     [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority............................                                     [4,000,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

              NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY 2015       Senate       Senate
                                    Request       Change     Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Summary Defense Discretionary Authorizations
       Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
 
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense-Military,   495,543,845      429,419   495,973,264
 Base Budget (051).............
Atomic energy defense              17,872,688     -185,500    17,687,188
 activities (053)..............
Total, National Defense (050)..   513,416,533      243,919   513,660,452
 
                Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations
   Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or
                           Already Authorized
 
Department of Defense-Military (051)
Defense Production Act                 22,000                     22,000
 Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of         8,000                      8,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of           31,000                     31,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Department of Defense-       61,000                     61,000
 Military (051)................
 
Atomic energy defense activities (053)
Formerly Utilized Sites               100,000                    100,000
 Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense       100,000                    100,000
 activities (053)..............
 
Defense-related activities (054)
Other Discretionary Programs...     7,681,000                  7,681,000
Subtotal, Defense-related           7,681,000                  7,681,000
 activities (054)..............
Total, Other Defense                7,842,000                  7,842,000
 Discretionary Authorizations
 (050).........................
 
             Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050)
 
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense--Military   495,604,845      429,419   496,034,264
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              17,972,688     -185,500    17,787,188
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          7,681,000                  7,681,000
 (054).........................
Total, Discretionary Budget       521,258,533      243,919   521,502,452
 Authority Implication, 050....
 
     National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
 
Department of Defense-Military (051)
Concurrent receipt accrual          7,071,000                  7,071,000
 payments to the Military
 Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD      1,169,000                  1,169,000
 Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............    -1,591,000                 -1,591,000
Subtotal, Department of Defense-    6,649,000                  6,649,000
 Military (051)................
 
Atomic energy defense activities (053)
Energy employees occupational       1,197,000                  1,197,000
 illness compensation programs
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense     1,197,000                  1,197,000
 activities (053)..............
 
Defense-related activities (054)
Radiation exposure compensation        59,000                     59,000
 trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund        514,000                    514,000
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Defense-related             573,000                    573,000
 activities (054)..............
Total, National Defense             8,419,000                  8,419,000
 Mandatory Programs (050)......
 
      Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
 
Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Department of Defense--Military   502,253,845      429,419   502,683,264
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              19,169,688     -185,500    18,984,188
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          8,254,000                  8,254,000
 (054).........................
Total, Budget Authority           529,677,533      243,919   529,921,452
 Implication (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
 


SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2015 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
 Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        FIXED WING
    2   UTILITY F/W                   1          13,617                                        1          13,617
         AIRCRAFT..........
    3   AERIAL COMMON                16         185,090                                       16         185,090
         SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
    4   MQ-1 UAV...........          19         190,581                                       19         190,581
    5   RQ-11 (RAVEN)......           0           3,964                                                    3,964
        ROTARY
    6   HELICOPTER, LIGHT            55         416,617          35         196,000           90         612,617
         UTILITY (LUH).....
           Risk reduction                                      [35]        [196,000]
           for buy of LUH
           to meet Army
           training fleet
           plans...........
    7   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK           25         494,009                                       25         494,009
         IIIA REMAN........
    8   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK            0         157,338                                                  157,338
         IIIA REMAN........
   12   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M            79       1,237,001           8         145,000           87       1,382,001
         MODEL (MYP).......
           Army unfunded                                        [8]        [145,000]
           priority only
           for Army
           National Guard..
   13   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M             0         132,138                                                  132,138
         MODEL (MYP).......
   14   CH-47 HELICOPTER...          32         892,504                                       32         892,504
   15   CH-47 HELICOPTER...           0         102,361                                                  102,361
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   16   MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP).           2          26,913                                        2          26,913
   18   GUARDRAIL MODS                0          14,182                                                   14,182
         (MIP).............
   19   MULTI SENSOR ABN              0         131,892                                                  131,892
         RECON (MIP).......
   20   AH-64 MODS.........           0         181,869                                                  181,869
   21   CH-47 CARGO                   0          32,092                                                   32,092
         HELICOPTER MODS
         (MYP).............
   22   UTILITY/CARGO                 0          15,029                                                   15,029
         AIRPLANE MODS.....
   23   UTILITY HELICOPTER            0          76,515                                                   76,515
         MODS..............
   25   NETWORK AND MISSION           0         114,182                                                  114,182
         PLAN..............
   26   COMMS, NAV                    0         115,795                                                  115,795
         SURVEILLANCE......
   27   GATM ROLLUP........           0          54,277                                                   54,277
   28   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0         125,380                                                  125,380
        GROUND SUPPORT
         AVIONICS
   29   AIRCRAFT                      0          66,450                       7,800                       74,250
         SURVIVABILITY
         EQUIPMENT.........
           At Army request                                                   [7,800]
           transfer from
           APA 31..........
   30   SURVIVABILITY CM...           0               0                      32,400                       32,400
           At Army request                                                  [32,400]
           transfer from
           APA 31..........
   31   CMWS...............           0         107,364                     -47,200                       60,164
           At Army request                                                 [-47,200]
           transfer to APA
           29 and APA 30...
        OTHER SUPPORT
   32   AVIONICS SUPPORT              0           6,847                                                    6,847
         EQUIPMENT.........
   33   COMMON GROUND                 0          29,231                                                   29,231
         EQUIPMENT.........
   34   AIRCREW INTEGRATED            0          48,081                                                   48,081
         SYSTEMS...........
   35   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0         127,232                                                  127,232
   36   INDUSTRIAL                    0           1,203                                                    1,203
         FACILITIES........
   37   LAUNCHER, 2.75              387           2,931                                      387           2,931
         ROCKET............
        AIRCRAFT                              5,102,685                     334,000                    5,436,685
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
         TOTAL.............
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        SURFACE-TO-AIR
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    2   LOWER TIER AIR AND            0         110,300                                                  110,300
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         (AMD).............
    3   MSE MISSILE........          70         384,605                                       70         384,605
        AIR-TO-SURFACE
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    4   HELLFIRE SYS                  0           4,452                                                    4,452
         SUMMARY...........
        ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
         MISSILE SYS
    5   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)            338          77,668                                      338          77,668
         SYSTEM SUMMARY....
    6   TOW 2 SYSTEM               1008          50,368                                     1008          50,368
         SUMMARY...........
    7   TOW 2 SYSTEM                  0          19,984                                                   19,984
         SUMMARY...........
    8   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET          534         127,145                                      534         127,145
         (GMLRS)...........
    9   MLRS REDUCED RANGE         2994          21,274                                     2994          21,274
         PRACTICE ROCKETS
         (RRPR)............
        MODIFICATIONS
   12   PATRIOT MODS.......           0         131,838                                                  131,838
   13   STINGER MODS.......           0           1,355                                                    1,355
   14   AVENGER MODS.......           0           5,611                                                    5,611
   15   ITAS/TOW MODS......           0          19,676                                                   19,676
   16   MLRS MODS..........           0          10,380                                                   10,380
   17   HIMARS                        0           6,008                                                    6,008
         MODIFICATIONS.....
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   18   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          36,930                                                   36,930
         PARTS.............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   19   AIR DEFENSE TARGETS           0           3,657                                                    3,657
   20   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           1,522                                                    1,522
         $5.0M (MISSILES)..
   21   PRODUCTION BASE               0           4,710                                                    4,710
         SUPPORT...........
        MISSILE                               1,017,483                           0                    1,017,483
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
         TOTAL.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         W&TCV;, ARMY
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   STRYKER VEHICLE....           0         385,110                                                  385,110
        MODIFICATION OF
         TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    2   STRYKER (MOD)......           0          39,683                                                   39,683
    3   FIST VEHICLE (MOD).           0          26,759                                                   26,759
    4   BRADLEY PROGRAM               0         107,506                      37,000                      144,506
         (MOD).............
           Army unfunded                                                    [37,000]
           priority and
           industrial base
           risk mitigation.
    5   HOWITZER, MED SP FT           0          45,411                                                   45,411
         155MM M109A6 (MOD)
    6   PALADIN INTEGRATED           18         247,400                                       18         247,400
         MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
    7   IMPROVED RECOVERY            15          50,451                      75,913           15         126,364
         VEHICLE (M88A2
         HERCULES).........
           Army unfunded                                                    [75,913]
           priority and
           industrial base
           risk mitigation.
    8   ASSAULT BRIDGE                0           2,473                                                    2,473
         (MOD).............
    9   ASSAULT BREACHER              7          36,583                                        7          36,583
         VEHICLE...........
   10   M88 FOV MODS.......           0           1,975                                                    1,975
   11   JOINT ASSAULT                 8          49,462                     -41,200            8           8,262
         BRIDGE............
           Early to need...                                                [-41,200]
   12   M1 ABRAMS TANK                0         237,023                      24,000                      261,023
         (MOD).............
           Army unfunded                                                    [24,000]
           priority and
           industrial base
           risk mitigation.
   14   PRODUCTION BASE               0           6,478                                                    6,478
         SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
        WEAPONS & OTHER
         COMBAT VEHICLES
   16   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0           5,012                                                    5,012
   17   XM320 GRENADE              8959          28,390                                     8959          28,390
         LAUNCHER MODULE
         (GLM).............
   18   COMPACT SEMI-                 0             148                                                      148
         AUTOMATIC SNIPER
         SYSTEM............
   19   CARBINE............       38234          29,366                      -8,750        38234          20,616
           At Army request                                                  [-8,750]
           transfer to WTCV
           31 and RDTEA 70
           and 86..........
   21   COMMON REMOTELY               0           8,409                                                    8,409
         OPERATED WEAPONS
         STATION...........
   22   HANDGUN............        4811           3,957                                     4811           3,957
        MOD OF WEAPONS AND
         OTHER COMBAT VEH
   24   M777 MODS..........           0          18,166                                                   18,166
   25   M4 CARBINE MODS....           0           3,446                       3,000                        6,446
           At Army request                                                   [3,000]
           transfer from
           WTCV 19, 28, and
           31..............
   26   M2 50 CAL MACHINE             0          25,296                                                   25,296
         GUN MODS..........
   27   M249 SAW MACHINE              0           5,546                                                    5,546
         GUN MODS..........
   28   M240 MEDIUM MACHINE           0           4,635                      -2,000                        2,635
         GUN MODS..........
           At Army request                                                  [-2,000]
           transfer to WTCV
           31 and RDTEA 70
           and 86..........
   29   SNIPER RIFLES                 0           4,079                                                    4,079
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   30   M119 MODIFICATIONS.           0          72,718                                                   72,718
   31   M16 RIFLE MODS.....           0           1,952                      -1,952                            0
           At Army request                                                  [-1,952]
           transfer to WTCV
           31 and RDTEA 70
           and 86..........
   32   MORTAR MODIFICATION           0           8,903                                                    8,903
   33   MODIFICATIONS LESS            0           2,089                                                    2,089
         THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   34   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           2,005                                                    2,005
         $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
   35   PRODUCTION BASE               0           8,911                                                    8,911
         SUPPORT (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
   36   INDUSTRIAL                    0             414                                                      414
         PREPAREDNESS......
   37   SMALL ARMS                    0           1,682                                                    1,682
         EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
         ENH PROG).........
        PROCUREMENT OF                        1,471,438                      86,011                    1,557,449
         W&TCV;, ARMY TOTAL.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
        SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    1   CTG, 5.56MM, ALL              0          34,943                                                   34,943
         TYPES.............
    2   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL              0          12,418                                                   12,418
         TYPES.............
    3   CTG, HANDGUN, ALL             0           9,655                      -1,500                        8,155
         TYPES.............
           Program                                                          [-1,500]
           decrease--ahead
           of need.........
    4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0          29,304                                                   29,304
         TYPES.............
    6   CTG, 25MM, ALL                0           8,181                                                    8,181
         TYPES.............
    7   CTG, 30MM, ALL                0          52,667                                                   52,667
         TYPES.............
    8   CTG, 40MM, ALL                0          40,904                      -1,900                       39,004
         TYPES.............
           Program                                                          [-1,900]
           decrease--ahead
           of need.........
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
    9   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          41,742                                                   41,742
         TYPES.............
   10   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0          42,433                                                   42,433
         TYPES.............
   11   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0          39,365                                                   39,365
         TYPES.............
        TANK AMMUNITION
   12   CARTRIDGES, TANK,             0         101,900                                                  101,900
         105MM AND 120MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   13   ARTILLERY                     0          37,455                                                   37,455
         CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
         105MM, ALL TYPES..
   14   ARTILLERY                     0          47,023                                                   47,023
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   15   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED         416          35,672                                      416          35,672
         RANGE M982........
   16   ARTILLERY                     0          94,010                     -15,000                       79,010
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
           Program                                                         [-15,000]
           decrease--PGK...
        ROCKETS
   19   SHOULDER LAUNCHED             0             945                                                      945
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   20   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0          27,286                                                   27,286
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   21   DEMOLITION                    0          22,899                                                   22,899
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   22   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0          22,751                                                   22,751
   23   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           7,082                                                    7,082
   24   SIMULATORS, ALL               0          11,638                                                   11,638
         TYPES.............
        MISCELLANEOUS
   25   AMMO COMPONENTS,              0           3,594                                                    3,594
         ALL TYPES.........
   27   CAD/PAD ALL TYPES..           0           5,430                                                    5,430
   28   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           8,337                                                    8,337
         MILLION (AMMO)....
   29   AMMUNITION PECULIAR           0          14,906                                                   14,906
         EQUIPMENT.........
   30   FIRST DESTINATION             0          14,349                                                   14,349
         TRANSPORTATION
         (AMMO)............
   31   CLOSEOUT                      0             111                                                      111
         LIABILITIES.......
        PRODUCTION BASE
         SUPPORT
   32   PROVISION OF                  0         148,092                                                  148,092
         INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES........
   33   CONVENTIONAL                  0         113,881                                                  113,881
         MUNITIONS
         DEMILITARIZATION..
   34   ARMS INITIATIVE....           0           2,504                                                    2,504
        PROCUREMENT OF                        1,031,477                     -18,400                    1,013,077
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
         TOTAL.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    1   TACTICAL TRAILERS/            0           7,987                                                    7,987
         DOLLY SETS........
    2   SEMITRAILERS,                 1             160                                        1             160
         FLATBED:..........
    4   JOINT LIGHT                 176         164,615                                      176         164,615
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
    6   FIRETRUCKS &                 19           8,415                                       19           8,415
         ASSOCIATED
         FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
    7   FAMILY OF HEAVY             444          28,425                                      444          28,425
         TACTICAL VEHICLES
         (FHTV)............
    8   PLS ESP............         198          89,263                                      198          89,263
   13   TACTICAL WHEELED            735          38,226                                      735          38,226
         VEHICLE PROTECTION
         KITS..............
   14   MODIFICATION OF IN          768          91,173                                      768          91,173
         SVC EQUIP.........
   15   MINE-RESISTANT                1          14,731                                        1          14,731
         AMBUSH-PROTECTED
         (MRAP) MODS.......
        NON-TACTICAL
         VEHICLES
   16   HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN           1             175                                        1             175
   17   PASSENGER CARRYING           25           1,338                                       25           1,338
         VEHICLES..........
   18   NONTACTICAL                   0          11,101                                                   11,101
         VEHICLES, OTHER...
        COMM--JOINT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   19   WIN-T--GROUND              1280         763,087                    -125,000         1280         638,087
         FORCES TACTICAL
         NETWORK...........
           Point of                                                       [-125,000]
           Presence (POP)
           and Soldier
           Network
           Extension (SNE)
           delay...........
   20   SIGNAL                       69          21,157                                       69          21,157
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   21   JOINT INCIDENT SITE           0           7,915                                                    7,915
         COMMUNICATIONS
         CAPABILITY........
   22   JCSE EQUIPMENT                0           5,440                                                    5,440
         (USREDCOM)........
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   23   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE           18         118,085                                       18         118,085
         WIDEBAND SATCOM
         SYSTEMS...........
   24   TRANSPORTABLE                21          13,999                                       21          13,999
         TACTICAL COMMAND
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   25   SHF TERM...........           0           6,494                                                    6,494
   26   NAVSTAR GLOBAL                0           1,635                                                    1,635
         POSITIONING SYSTEM
         (SPACE)...........
   27   SMART-T (SPACE)....           0          13,554                                                   13,554
   28   GLOBAL BRDCST SVC--           0          18,899                                                   18,899
         GBS...............
   29   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           2,849                                                    2,849
         (TAC SAT).........
   30   ENROUTE MISSION               0         100,000                                                  100,000
         COMMAND (EMC).....
        COMM--COMBAT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   33   JOINT TACTICAL             2674         175,711                     -88,000         2674          87,711
         RADIO SYSTEM......
           Under execution                                                 [-88,000]
           of prior years
           funds...........
   34   MID-TIER NETWORKING           0           9,692                      -8,000                        1,692
         VEHICULAR RADIO
         (MNVR)............
           Under execution                                                  [-8,000]
           of prior years
           funds...........
   35   RADIO TERMINAL SET,         620          17,136                                      620          17,136
         MIDS LVT(2).......
   37   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS--       3081          22,099                                     3081          22,099
         OPA2..............
   38   TRACTOR DESK.......           0           3,724                                                    3,724
   39   SPIDER APLA REMOTE            0             969                                                      969
         CONTROL UNIT......
   40   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT           0             294                                                      294
         PROGRAM COMM/
         ELECTRONICS.......
   41   TACTICAL                   8344          24,354                                     8344          24,354
         COMMUNICATIONS AND
         PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
   42   UNIFIED COMMAND               0          17,445                                                   17,445
         SUITE.............
   43   RADIO, IMPROVED HF            0           1,028                                                    1,028
         (COTS) FAMILY.....
   44   FAMILY OF MED COMM          974          22,614                                      974          22,614
         FOR COMBAT
         CASUALTY CARE.....
        COMM--INTELLIGENCE
         COMM
   46   CI AUTOMATION                 0           1,519                                                    1,519
         ARCHITECTURE......
   47   ARMY CA/MISO GPF            305          12,478                                      305          12,478
         EQUIPMENT.........
        INFORMATION
         SECURITY
   50   INFORMATION SYSTEM            0           2,113                                                    2,113
         SECURITY PROGRAM-
         ISSP..............
   51   COMMUNICATIONS             2750          69,646                                     2750          69,646
         SECURITY (COMSEC).
        COMM--LONG HAUL
         COMMUNICATIONS
   52   BASE SUPPORT                  0          28,913                                                   28,913
         COMMUNICATIONS....
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   53   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          97,091                                                   97,091
   54   DEFENSE MESSAGE               0             246                                                      246
         SYSTEM (DMS)......
   55   EMERGENCY                     0           5,362                                                    5,362
         MANAGEMENT
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   56   INSTALLATION INFO             0          79,965                                                   79,965
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   60   JTT/CIBS-M.........           0             870                                                      870
   61   PROPHET GROUND.....          11          55,896                                       11          55,896
   63   DCGS-A (MIP).......        2423         128,207                                     2423         128,207
   64   JOINT TACTICAL                2           5,286                                        2           5,286
         GROUND STATION
         (JTAGS)...........
   65   TROJAN (MIP).......           0          12,614                                                   12,614
   66   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           3,901                                                    3,901
         (INTEL SPT) (MIP).
   67   CI HUMINT AUTO              358           7,392                                      358           7,392
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   68   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER           3          24,828                                        3          24,828
         MORTAR RADAR......
   70   AIR VIGILANCE (AV).           0           7,000                                                    7,000
   72   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0           1,285                                                    1,285
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   75   SENTINEL MODS......          81          44,305                                       81          44,305
   76   NIGHT VISION               9700         160,901                                     9700         160,901
         DEVICES...........
   78   SMALL TACTICAL             1935          18,520                                     1935          18,520
         OPTICAL RIFLE
         MOUNTED MLRF......
   80   INDIRECT FIRE               173          68,296                                      173          68,296
         PROTECTION FAMILY
         OF SYSTEMS........
   81   FAMILY OF WEAPON           1716          49,205                     -12,000         1716          37,205
         SIGHTS (FWS)......
           Early to need...                                                [-12,000]
   82   ARTILLERY ACCURACY          137           4,896                                      137           4,896
         EQUIP.............
   83   PROFILER...........           0           3,115                                                    3,115
   84   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           4,186                                                    4,186
         (FIREFINDER
         RADARS)...........
   85   JOINT BATTLE               2622          97,892                     -10,000         2622          87,892
         COMMAND--PLATFORM
         (JBC-P)...........
           Under execution                                                 [-10,000]
           of prior years
           funds...........
   86   JOINT EFFECTS                41          27,450                                       41          27,450
         TARGETING SYSTEM
         (JETS)............
   87   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP          34          14,085                                       34          14,085
         (LLDR)............
   88   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL         255          29,040                                      255          29,040
         SYSTEM............
   89   COUNTERFIRE RADARS.          13         209,050                     -80,400           13         128,650
           Excessive LRIP                                                  [-80,400]
           and concurrency.
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
   92   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0          13,823                                                   13,823
         FAMILY............
   95   AIR & MSL DEFENSE             5          27,374                                        5          27,374
         PLANNING & CONTROL
         SYS...............
   97   LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE           0           2,508                                                    2,508
         SUPPORT (LCSS)....
   99   NETWORK MANAGEMENT            0          21,524                                                   21,524
         INITIALIZATION AND
         SERVICE...........
  100   MANEUVER CONTROL           3748          95,455                                     3748          95,455
         SYSTEM (MCS)......
  101   GLOBAL COMBAT                 0         118,600                                                  118,600
         SUPPORT SYSTEM-
         ARMY (GCSS-A).....
  102   INTEGRATED                    0          32,970                                                   32,970
         PERSONNEL AND PAY
         SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
  104   RECONNAISSANCE AND           56          10,113                                       56          10,113
         SURVEYING
         INSTRUMENT SET....
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  105   ARMY TRAINING                 0           9,015                                                    9,015
         MODERNIZATION.....
  106   AUTOMATED DATA                0         155,223                     -15,000                      140,223
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
           Reduce IT                                                       [-15,000]
           procurement.....
  107   GENERAL FUND                  0          16,581                                                   16,581
         ENTERPRISE
         BUSINESS SYSTEMS
         FAM...............
  108   HIGH PERF COMPUTING           0          65,252                                                   65,252
         MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
  110   RESERVE COMPONENT             0          17,631                                                   17,631
         AUTOMATION SYS
         (RCAS)............
        ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
         VISUAL SYS (A/V)
  112   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M          51           5,437                                       51           5,437
         (SURVEYING
         EQUIPMENT)........
        ELECT EQUIP--
         SUPPORT
  113   PRODUCTION BASE               0             426                                                      426
         SUPPORT (C-E).....
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  113A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           3,707                                                    3,707
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  115   FAMILY OF NON-                0             937                                                      937
         LETHAL EQUIPMENT
         (FNLE)............
  116   BASE DEFENSE                  0           1,930                                                    1,930
         SYSTEMS (BDS).....
  117   CBRN DEFENSE.......       14506          17,468                                    14506          17,468
        BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
  119   TACTICAL BRIDGE,              6           5,442                                        6           5,442
         FLOAT-RIBBON......
  120   COMMON BRIDGE                 0          11,013                                                   11,013
         TRANSPORTER (CBT)
         RECAP.............
        ENGINEER (NON-
         CONSTRUCTION)
         EQUIPMENT
  121   GRND STANDOFF MINE            0          37,649                                                   37,649
         DETECTN SYSM
         (GSTAMIDS)........
  122   HUSKY MOUNTED                84          18,545                                       84          18,545
         DETECTION SYSTEM
         (HMDS)............
  123   ROBOTIC COMBAT                1           4,701                                        1           4,701
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (RCSS)............
  124   EOD ROBOTICS                  0           6,346                                                    6,346
         SYSTEMS
         RECAPITALIZATION..
  125   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE          133          15,856                                      133          15,856
         DISPOSAL EQPMT
         (EOD EQPMT).......
  126   REMOTE DEMOLITION             0           4,485                                                    4,485
         SYSTEMS...........
  127   < $5M, COUNTERMINE           92           4,938                                       92           4,938
         EQUIPMENT.........
        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        12273          16,728                                    12273          16,728
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (PRSS)............
  132   GROUND SOLDIER             3581          84,761                                     3581          84,761
         SYSTEM............
  134   FIELD FEEDING               141          15,179                                      141          15,179
         EQUIPMENT.........
  135   CARGO AERIAL DEL &         1386          28,194                                     1386          28,194
         PERSONNEL
         PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
  137   FAMILY OF ENGR              336          41,967                                      336          41,967
         COMBAT AND
         CONSTRUCTION SETS.
  138   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M         859          20,090                                      859          20,090
         (ENG SPT).........
        PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
  139   QUALITY                       0           1,435                                                    1,435
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT.........
  140   DISTRIBUTION                599          40,692                                      599          40,692
         SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
         & WATER...........
        MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
  141   COMBAT SUPPORT             2388          46,957                                     2388          46,957
         MEDICAL...........
        MAINTENANCE
         EQUIPMENT
  142   MOBILE MAINTENANCE           60          23,758                                       60          23,758
         EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
  143   ITEMS LESS THAN             585           2,789                                      585           2,789
         $5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
        CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT
  144   GRADER, ROAD MTZD,           22           5,827                                       22           5,827
         HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
  145   SCRAPERS,                    22          14,926                                       22          14,926
         EARTHMOVING.......
  147   COMPACTOR..........         617           4,348                                      617           4,348
  148   HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR          14           4,938                                       14           4,938
  149   TRACTOR, FULL                95          34,071                                       95          34,071
         TRACKED...........
  150   ALL TERRAIN CRANES.           4           4,938                                        4           4,938
  151   PLANT, ASPHALT                0             667                                                      667
         MIXING............
  153   ENHANCED RAPID                0          14,924                                                   14,924
         AIRFIELD
         CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
  154   CONST EQUIP ESP....          79          15,933                                       79          15,933
  155   ITEMS LESS THAN              53           6,749                                       53           6,749
         $5.0M (CONST
         EQUIP)............
        RAIL FLOAT
         CONTAINERIZATION
         EQUIPMENT
  156   ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP           0          10,509                                                   10,509
  157   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           2,166                                                    2,166
         $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
        GENERATORS
  158   GENERATORS AND             3882         115,190                                     3882         115,190
         ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  160   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS         146          14,327                                      146          14,327
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
  161   COMBAT TRAINING               1          65,062                                        1          65,062
         CENTERS SUPPORT...
  162   TRAINING DEVICES,            43         101,295                                       43         101,295
         NONSYSTEM.........
  163   CLOSE COMBAT                  0          13,406                                                   13,406
         TACTICAL TRAINER..
  164   AVIATION COMBINED             0          14,440                                                   14,440
         ARMS TACTICAL
         TRAINER...........
  165   GAMING TECHNOLOGY             0          10,165                                                   10,165
         IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
         TRAINING..........
        TEST MEASURE AND
         DIG EQUIPMENT
         (TMD)
  166   CALIBRATION SETS              0           5,726                                                    5,726
         EQUIPMENT.........
  167   INTEGRATED FAMILY          1657          37,482                                     1657          37,482
         OF TEST EQUIPMENT
         (IFTE)............
  168   TEST EQUIPMENT              415          16,061                                      415          16,061
         MODERNIZATION
         (TEMOD)...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  170   RAPID EQUIPPING               0           2,380                                                    2,380
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
  171   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          30,686                                                   30,686
         SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
  172   BASE LEVEL COMMON             0           1,008                                                    1,008
         EQUIPMENT.........
  173   MODIFICATION OF IN-        3209          98,559                     -18,000         3209          80,559
         SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
         3)................
           Watercraft C4ISR                                                [-18,000]
           early to need...
  174   PRODUCTION BASE               0           1,697                                                    1,697
         SUPPORT (OTH).....
  175   SPECIAL EQUIPMENT             0          25,394                                                   25,394
         FOR USER TESTING..
  176   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS          963          12,975                                      963          12,975
         OPA3..............
        OPA2
  180   INITIAL SPARES--C&E;          11          50,032                                       11          50,032
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,                    4,893,634                    -356,400                    4,537,234
         ARMY TOTAL........
 
        JOINT IMPR
         EXPLOSIVE DEV
         DEFEAT FUND
        STAFF AND
         INFRASTRUCTURE
    4   OPERATIONS.........           0         115,058                    -115,058                            0
           Program decrease                                               [-115,058]
        JOINT IMPR                              115,058                    -115,058                            0
         EXPLOSIVE DEV
         DEFEAT FUND TOTAL.
 
        SUBTOTAL,                            13,631,775                     -69,847                   13,561,928
         DEPARTMENT OF THE
         ARMY..............
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        COMBAT AIRCRAFT
    1   EA-18G.............           0          43,547                      25,000                       68,547
           Preserve option                                                  [25,000]
           of buying more
           EA-18G aircraft.
    5   JOINT STRIKE                  2         610,652                                        2         610,652
         FIGHTER CV........
    6   JOINT STRIKE                  0          29,400                                                   29,400
         FIGHTER CV........
    7   JSF STOVL..........           6       1,200,410                                        6       1,200,410
    8   JSF STOVL..........           0         143,885                                                  143,885
    9   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).          19       1,487,000                                       19       1,487,000
   10   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).           0          45,920                                                   45,920
   11   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/         26         778,757                                       26         778,757
         AH-1Z)............
   12   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/          0          80,926                                                   80,926
         AH-1Z)............
   13   MH-60S (MYP).......           8         210,209                                        8         210,209
   15   MH-60R (MYP).......          29         933,882                                       29         933,882
   16   MH-60R (MYP).......           0         106,686                                                  106,686
   17   P-8A POSEIDON......           8       2,003,327                                        8       2,003,327
   18   P-8A POSEIDON......           0          48,457                                                   48,457
   19   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           4         819,870                                        4         819,870
   20   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           0         225,765                                                  225,765
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   23   KC-130J............           1          92,290                                        1          92,290
   26   MQ-4 TRITON........           0          37,445                                                   37,445
   27   MQ-8 UAV...........           0          40,663                                                   40,663
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   29   EA-6 SERIES........           0          10,993                                                   10,993
   30   AEA SYSTEMS........           0          34,768                                                   34,768
   31   AV-8 SERIES........           0          65,472                                                   65,472
   32   ADVERSARY..........           0           8,418                                                    8,418
   33   F-18 SERIES........           0         679,177                                                  679,177
   34   H-46 SERIES........           0             480                                                      480
   36   H-53 SERIES........           0          38,159                                                   38,159
   37   SH-60 SERIES.......           0         108,850                                                  108,850
   38   H-1 SERIES.........           0          45,033                                                   45,033
   39   EP-3 SERIES........           0          32,890                      20,000                       52,890
           SPIRAL 3 & ELINT                                                 [20,000]
           KITS............
   40   P-3 SERIES.........           0           2,823                                                    2,823
   41   E-2 SERIES.........           0          21,208                                                   21,208
   42   TRAINER A/C SERIES.           0          12,608                                                   12,608
   44   C-130 SERIES.......           0          40,378                                                   40,378
   45   FEWSG..............           0             640                                                      640
   46   CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C           0           4,635                                                    4,635
         SERIES............
   47   E-6 SERIES.........           0         212,876                                                  212,876
   48   EXECUTIVE                     0          71,328                                                   71,328
         HELICOPTERS SERIES
   49   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          21,317                                                   21,317
         AIRCRAFT..........
   50   T-45 SERIES........           0          90,052                                                   90,052
   51   POWER PLANT CHANGES           0          19,094                                                   19,094
   52   JPATS SERIES.......           0           1,085                                                    1,085
   54   COMMON ECM                    0         155,644                                                  155,644
         EQUIPMENT.........
   55   COMMON AVIONICS               0         157,531                                                  157,531
         CHANGES...........
   56   COMMON DEFENSIVE              0           1,958                                                    1,958
         WEAPON SYSTEM.....
   57   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          38,880                                                   38,880
   58   P-8 SERIES.........           0          29,797                                                   29,797
   59   MAGTF EW FOR                  0          14,770                                                   14,770
         AVIATION..........
   60   MQ-8 SERIES........           0           8,741                                                    8,741
   61   RQ-7 SERIES........           0           2,542                                                    2,542
   62   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0         135,584                                                  135,584
         ACFT) OSPREY......
   63   F-35 STOVL SERIES..           0         285,968                                                  285,968
   64   F-35 CV SERIES.....           0          20,502                                                   20,502
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   65   SPARES AND REPAIR             0       1,229,651                     -35,000                    1,194,651
         PARTS.............
           Reduce rate of                                                  [-35,000]
           growth in
           replenishment
           spares..........
   66   COMMON GROUND                 0         418,355                                                  418,355
         EQUIPMENT.........
   67   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0          23,843                                                   23,843
         FACILITIES........
   68   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0          15,939                                                   15,939
   69   OTHER PRODUCTION              0           5,630                                                    5,630
         CHARGES...........
   70   SPECIAL SUPPORT               0          65,839                                                   65,839
         EQUIPMENT.........
   71   FIRST DESTINATION             0           1,768                                                    1,768
         TRANSPORTATION....
        AIRCRAFT                             13,074,317                      10,000                   13,084,317
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
         TOTAL.............
 
        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
    1   TRIDENT II MODS....           0       1,190,455                      11,000                    1,201,455
           Additional FCET.                                                 [11,000]
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
    2   MISSILE INDUSTRIAL            0           5,671                                                    5,671
         FACILITIES........
        STRATEGIC MISSILES
    3   TOMAHAWK...........         100         194,258         100          82,000          200         276,258
           Maintain minimum                                   [100]         [82,000]
           sustaining rate
           of production...
        TACTICAL MISSILES
    4   AMRAAM.............           0          32,165                                                   32,165
    5   SIDEWINDER.........         167          73,928                                      167          73,928
    6   JSOW...............         200         130,759                                      200         130,759
    7   STANDARD MISSILE...         110         445,836                                      110         445,836
    8   RAM................          90          80,792                                       90          80,792
   11   STAND OFF PRECISION          14           1,810                                       14           1,810
         GUIDED MUNITIONS
         (SOPGM)...........
   12   AERIAL TARGETS.....           0          48,046                                                   48,046
   13   OTHER MISSILE                 0           3,295                                                    3,295
         SUPPORT...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
   14   ESSM...............         104         119,434                                      104         119,434
   15   HARM MODS..........           0         111,739                                                  111,739
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   16   WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL            0           2,531                                                    2,531
         FACILITIES........
   17   FLEET SATELLITE               0         208,700                                                  208,700
         COMM FOLLOW-ON....
        ORDNANCE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   18   ORDNANCE SUPPORT              0          73,211                                                   73,211
         EQUIPMENT.........
        TORPEDOES AND
         RELATED EQUIP
   19   SSTD...............           0           6,562                                                    6,562
   20   MK-48 TORPEDO......           0          14,153                                                   14,153
   21   ASW TARGETS........           0           2,515                                                    2,515
        MOD OF TORPEDOES
         AND RELATED EQUIP
   22   MK-54 TORPEDO MODS.           0          98,928                                                   98,928
   23   MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP           0          46,893                                                   46,893
         MODS..............
   24   QUICKSTRIKE MINE...           0           6,966                                                    6,966
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
   25   TORPEDO SUPPORT               0          52,670                                                   52,670
         EQUIPMENT.........
   26   ASW RANGE SUPPORT..           0           3,795                                                    3,795
        DESTINATION
         TRANSPORTATION
   27   FIRST DESTINATION             0           3,692                                                    3,692
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
   28   SMALL ARMS AND                0          13,240                                                   13,240
         WEAPONS...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         GUNS AND GUN
         MOUNTS
   29   CIWS MODS..........           0          75,108                                                   75,108
   30   COAST GUARD WEAPONS           0          18,948                                                   18,948
   31   GUN MOUNT MODS.....           0          62,651                                                   62,651
   33   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          15,006                                                   15,006
         NEUTRALIZATION
         SYSTEMS...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   35   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          74,188                                                   74,188
         PARTS.............
        WEAPONS                               3,217,945                      93,000                    3,310,945
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
         TOTAL.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         107,069                                                  107,069
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          70,396                                                   70,396
         ALL TYPES.........
    3   MACHINE GUN                   0          20,284                                                   20,284
         AMMUNITION........
    4   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          26,701                                                   26,701
    5   CARTRIDGES & CART             0          53,866                                                   53,866
         ACTUATED DEVICES..
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          59,294                                                   59,294
         COUNTERMEASURES...
    7   JATOS..............           0           2,766                                                    2,766
    8   LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE           0         113,092                                                  113,092
         ATTACK PROJECTILE.
    9   5 INCH/54 GUN                 0          35,702                                                   35,702
         AMMUNITION........
   10   INTERMEDIATE                  0          36,475                                                   36,475
         CALIBER GUN
         AMMUNITION........
   11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0          43,906                                                   43,906
         AMMUNITION........
   12   SMALL ARMS &                  0          51,535                                                   51,535
         LANDING PARTY AMMO
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0          11,652                                                   11,652
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           4,473                                                    4,473
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   15   SMALL ARMS                    0          31,708                                                   31,708
         AMMUNITION........
   16   LINEAR CHARGES, ALL           0             692                                                      692
         TYPES.............
   17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...           0          13,630                                                   13,630
   18   60MM, ALL TYPES....           0           2,261                                                    2,261
   19   81MM, ALL TYPES....           0           1,496                                                    1,496
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          14,855                                                   14,855
   22   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0           4,000                                                    4,000
   23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0          16,853                                                   16,853
   24   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          14,772                                                   14,772
         TYPES.............
   26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0           9,972                                                    9,972
   27   NON LETHALS........           0             998                                                      998
   28   AMMO MODERNIZATION.           0          12,319                                                   12,319
   29   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,178                                                   11,178
         MILLION...........
        PROCUREMENT OF                          771,945                           0                      771,945
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
         TOTAL.............
 
        SHIPBUILDING AND
         CONVERSION, NAVY
        OTHER WARSHIPS
    1   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0       1,300,000                                                1,300,000
         PROGRAM...........
    2   VIRGINIA CLASS                2       3,553,254                                        2       3,553,254
         SUBMARINE.........
    3   VIRGINIA CLASS                0       2,330,325                                                2,330,325
         SUBMARINE.........
   04   CVN REFUELING                                 0                      46,000                       46,000
         OVERHAULS.........
           Transfer from                                                    [46,000]
           OMN, line 360...
    6   DDG 1000...........           0         419,532                                                  419,532
    7   DDG-51.............           2       2,671,415                                        2       2,671,415
    8   DDG-51.............           0         134,039                                                  134,039
    9   LITTORAL COMBAT               3       1,427,049                                        3       1,427,049
         SHIP..............
        AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
   10   LPD-17.............           0          12,565                                                   12,565
   14   LHA REPLACEMENT....           0          29,093                                                   29,093
   15   JOINT HIGH SPEED              0           4,590                                                    4,590
         VESSEL............
        AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
         AND PRIOR YR
         PROGRAM COST
   16   MOORED TRAINING               1         737,268                                        1         737,268
         SHIP..............
   17   MOORED TRAINING               0          64,388                                                   64,388
         SHIP..............
   18   OUTFITTING.........           0         546,104                                                  546,104
   19   SHIP TO SHORE                 2         123,233                                        2         123,233
         CONNECTOR.........
   20   LCAC SLEP..........           2          40,485           2          45,000            4          85,485
           At USMC request                                      [2]         [45,000]
           transfer from
           RDTEN 53........
   21   COMPLETION OF PY              0       1,007,285                                                1,007,285
         SHIPBUILDING
         PROGRAMS..........
        SHIPBUILDING AND                     14,400,625                      91,000                   14,491,625
         CONVERSION, NAVY
         TOTAL.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        SHIP PROPULSION
         EQUIPMENT
    1   LM-2500 GAS TURBINE           0           7,822                                                    7,822
    2   ALLISON 501K GAS              0           2,155                                                    2,155
         TURBINE...........
    3   HYBRID ELECTRIC               0          22,704                                                   22,704
         DRIVE (HED).......
        GENERATORS
    4   SURFACE COMBATANT             0          29,120                                                   29,120
         HM&E..............;
        NAVIGATION
         EQUIPMENT
    5   OTHER NAVIGATION              0          45,431                                                   45,431
         EQUIPMENT.........
        PERISCOPES
    6   SUB PERISCOPES &              0          60,970                                                   60,970
         IMAGING EQUIP.....
        OTHER SHIPBOARD
         EQUIPMENT
    7   DDG MOD............           0         338,569                                                  338,569
    8   FIREFIGHTING                  0          15,486                                                   15,486
         EQUIPMENT.........
    9   COMMAND AND CONTROL           0           2,219                                                    2,219
         SWITCHBOARD.......
   10   LHA/LHD MIDLIFE....           0          17,928                                                   17,928
   11   LCC 19/20 EXTENDED            0          22,025                                                   22,025
         SERVICE LIFE
         PROGRAM...........
   12   POLLUTION CONTROL             0          12,607                                                   12,607
         EQUIPMENT.........
   13   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          16,492                                                   16,492
         EQUIPMENT.........
   14   VIRGINIA CLASS                0          74,129                                                   74,129
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   15   LCS CLASS SUPPORT             0          36,206                                                   36,206
         EQUIPMENT.........
   16   SUBMARINE BATTERIES           0          37,352                                                   37,352
   17   LPD CLASS SUPPORT             0          49,095                                                   49,095
         EQUIPMENT.........
   18   ELECTRONIC DRY AIR.           0           2,996                                                    2,996
   19   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          11,558                                                   11,558
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
   20   DSSP EQUIPMENT.....           0           5,518                                                    5,518
   22   LCAC...............           0           7,158                                                    7,158
   23   UNDERWATER EOD                0          58,783                                                   58,783
         PROGRAMS..........
   24   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          68,748                                                   68,748
         MILLION...........
   25   CHEMICAL WARFARE              0           2,937                                                    2,937
         DETECTORS.........
   26   SUBMARINE LIFE                0           8,385                                                    8,385
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
        REACTOR PLANT
         EQUIPMENT
   28   REACTOR COMPONENTS.           0         288,822                                                  288,822
        OCEAN ENGINEERING
   29   DIVING AND SALVAGE            0          10,572                                                   10,572
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SMALL BOATS
   30   STANDARD BOATS.....           0         129,784                                                  129,784
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   31   OTHER SHIPS                   0          17,152                                                   17,152
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
        PRODUCTION
         FACILITIES
         EQUIPMENT
   32   OPERATING FORCES              0          39,409                                                   39,409
         IPE...............
        OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
   33   NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS           0         118,129                                                  118,129
   34   LCS COMMON MISSION            0          37,413                                                   37,413
         MODULES EQUIPMENT.
   35   LCS MCM MISSION               0          15,270                                                   15,270
         MODULES...........
   36   LCS ASW MISSION               0           2,729                                                    2,729
         MODULES...........
   37   LCS SUW MISSION               0          44,208                                                   44,208
         MODULES...........
   38   REMOTE MINEHUNTING            0          42,276                                                   42,276
         SYSTEM (RMS)......
        SHIP SONARS
   40   SPQ-9B RADAR.......           0          28,007                                                   28,007
   41   AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW            0          79,802                                                   79,802
         COMBAT SYSTEM.....
   42   SSN ACOUSTICS......           0         165,655                                                  165,655
   43   UNDERSEA WARFARE              0           9,487                                                    9,487
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   44   SONAR SWITCHES AND            0          11,621                                                   11,621
         TRANSDUCERS.......
        ASW ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   46   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC            0          24,221                                                   24,221
         WARFARE SYSTEM....
   47   SSTD...............           0          12,051                                                   12,051
   48   FIXED SURVEILLANCE            0         170,831                                                  170,831
         SYSTEM............
   49   SURTASS............           0           9,619                                                    9,619
   50   MARITIME PATROL AND           0          14,390                                                   14,390
         RECONNSAISANCE
         FORCE.............
        ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         EQUIPMENT
   51   AN/SLQ-32..........           0         214,582                                                  214,582
        RECONNAISSANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   52   SHIPBOARD IW                  0         124,862                                                  124,862
         EXPLOIT...........
   53   AUTOMATED                     0             164                                                      164
         IDENTIFICATION
         SYSTEM (AIS)......
        SUBMARINE
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   54   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          45,362                                                   45,362
         EQUIPMENT PROG....
        OTHER SHIP
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   55   COOPERATIVE                   0          33,939                                                   33,939
         ENGAGEMENT
         CAPABILITY........
   56   TRUSTED INFORMATION           0             324                                                      324
         SYSTEM (TIS)......
   57   NAVAL TACTICAL                0          18,192                                                   18,192
         COMMAND SUPPORT
         SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
   58   ATDLS..............           0          16,768                                                   16,768
   59   NAVY COMMAND AND              0           5,219                                                    5,219
         CONTROL SYSTEM
         (NCCS)............
   60   MINESWEEPING SYSTEM           0          42,108                                                   42,108
         REPLACEMENT.......
   62   NAVSTAR GPS                   0          15,232                                                   15,232
         RECEIVERS (SPACE).
   63   AMERICAN FORCES               0           4,524                                                    4,524
         RADIO AND TV
         SERVICE...........
   64   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0           6,382                                                    6,382
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   65   OTHER TRAINING                0          46,122                                                   46,122
         EQUIPMENT.........
        AVIATION ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   66   MATCALS............           0          16,999                                                   16,999
   67   SHIPBOARD AIR                 0           9,366                                                    9,366
         TRAFFIC CONTROL...
   68   AUTOMATIC CARRIER             0          21,357                                                   21,357
         LANDING SYSTEM....
   69   NATIONAL AIR SPACE            0          26,639                                                   26,639
         SYSTEM............
   70   FLEET AIR TRAFFIC             0           9,214                                                    9,214
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   71   LANDING SYSTEMS....           0          13,902                                                   13,902
   72   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          34,901                                                   34,901
   73   NAVAL MISSION                 0          13,950                                                   13,950
         PLANNING SYSTEMS..
        OTHER SHORE
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   74   DEPLOYABLE JOINT              0           1,205                                                    1,205
         COMMAND & CONTROL.
   75   MARITIME INTEGRATED           0           3,447                                                    3,447
         BROADCAST SYSTEM..
   76   TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I           0          16,766                                                   16,766
         SYSTEMS...........
   77   DCGS-N.............           0          23,649                                                   23,649
   78   CANES..............           0         357,589                                                  357,589
   79   RADIAC.............           0           8,343                                                    8,343
   80   CANES-INTELL.......           0          65,015                                                   65,015
   81   GPETE..............           0           6,284                                                    6,284
   82   INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM           0           4,016                                                    4,016
         TEST FACILITY.....
   83   EMI CONTROL                   0           4,113                                                    4,113
         INSTRUMENTATION...
   84   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          45,053                                                   45,053
         MILLION...........
        SHIPBOARD
         COMMUNICATIONS
   85   SHIPBOARD TACTICAL            0          14,410                                                   14,410
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   86   SHIP COMMUNICATIONS           0          20,830                                                   20,830
         AUTOMATION........
   88   COMMUNICATIONS                0          14,145                                                   14,145
         ITEMS UNDER $5M...
   89   SUBMARINE BROADCAST           0          11,057                                                   11,057
         SUPPORT...........
   90   SUBMARINE                     0          67,852                                                   67,852
         COMMUNICATION
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   91   SATELLITE                     0          13,218                                                   13,218
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SYSTEMS...........
   92   NAVY MULTIBAND                0         272,076                                                  272,076
         TERMINAL (NMT)....
        SHORE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   93   JCS COMMUNICATIONS            0           4,369                                                    4,369
         EQUIPMENT.........
   94   ELECTRICAL POWER              0           1,402                                                    1,402
         SYSTEMS...........
        CRYPTOGRAPHIC
         EQUIPMENT
   95   INFO SYSTEMS                  0         110,766                                                  110,766
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
   96   MIO INTEL                     0             979                                                      979
         EXPLOITATION TEAM.
   97   CRYPTOLOGIC                   0          11,502                                                   11,502
         COMMUNICATIONS
         EQUIP.............
        OTHER ELECTRONIC
         SUPPORT
   98   COAST GUARD                   0           2,967                                                    2,967
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SONOBUOYS
  100   SONOBUOYS--ALL                0         182,946                                                  182,946
         TYPES.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  101   WEAPONS RANGE                 0          47,944                                                   47,944
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  103   AIRCRAFT SUPPORT              0          76,683                                                   76,683
         EQUIPMENT.........
  106   METEOROLOGICAL                0          12,575                                                   12,575
         EQUIPMENT.........
  107   DCRS/DPL...........           0           1,415                                                    1,415
  109   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          23,152                                                   23,152
         COUNTERMEASURES...
  114   AVIATION SUPPORT              0          52,555                                                   52,555
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP GUN SYSTEM
         EQUIPMENT
  115   SHIP GUN SYSTEMS              0           5,572                                                    5,572
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP MISSILE
         SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
  118   SHIP MISSILE                  0         165,769                                                  165,769
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  123   TOMAHAWK SUPPORT              0          61,462                                                   61,462
         EQUIPMENT.........
        FBM SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  126   STRATEGIC MISSILE             0         229,832                                                  229,832
         SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
        ASW SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  127   SSN COMBAT CONTROL            0          66,020                                                   66,020
         SYSTEMS...........
  128   ASW SUPPORT                   0           7,559                                                    7,559
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER ORDNANCE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  132   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          20,619                                                   20,619
         DISPOSAL EQUIP....
  133   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,251                                                   11,251
         MILLION...........
  137   TRAINING DEVICE               0          84,080                                                   84,080
         MODS..............
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  138   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           2,282                                                    2,282
         VEHICLES..........
  139   GENERAL PURPOSE               0             547                                                      547
         TRUCKS............
  140   CONSTRUCTION &                0           8,949                                                    8,949
         MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
  141   FIRE FIGHTING                 0          14,621                                                   14,621
         EQUIPMENT.........
  142   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0             957                                                      957
  143   AMPHIBIOUS                    0           8,187                                                    8,187
         EQUIPMENT.........
  144   POLLUTION CONTROL             0           2,942                                                    2,942
         EQUIPMENT.........
  145   ITEMS UNDER $5                0          17,592                                                   17,592
         MILLION...........
  146   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           1,177                                                    1,177
         VEHICLES..........
        SUPPLY SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  147   MATERIALS HANDLING            0          10,937                                                   10,937
         EQUIPMENT.........
  148   OTHER SUPPLY                  0          10,374                                                   10,374
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  149   FIRST DESTINATION             0           5,668                                                    5,668
         TRANSPORTATION....
  150   SPECIAL PURPOSE               0          90,921                                                   90,921
         SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
        TRAINING DEVICES
  151   TRAINING SUPPORT              0          22,046                                                   22,046
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMMAND SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  152   COMMAND SUPPORT               0          24,208                                                   24,208
         EQUIPMENT.........
  153   EDUCATION SUPPORT             0             874                                                      874
         EQUIPMENT.........
  154   MEDICAL SUPPORT               0           2,634                                                    2,634
         EQUIPMENT.........
  156   NAVAL MIP SUPPORT             0           3,573                                                    3,573
         EQUIPMENT.........
  157   OPERATING FORCES              0           3,997                                                    3,997
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  158   C4ISR EQUIPMENT....           0           9,638                                                    9,638
  159   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0          21,001                                                   21,001
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  160   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          94,957                                                   94,957
         EQUIPMENT.........
  161   ENTERPRISE                    0          87,214                     -15,000                       72,214
         INFORMATION
         TECHNOLOGY........
           Program                                                         [-15,000]
           reduction.......
        OTHER
  164   NEXT GENERATION               0         116,165                                                  116,165
         ENTERPRISE SERVICE
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  164A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          10,847                                                   10,847
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
  165   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         325,084                                                  325,084
         PARTS.............
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,                    5,975,828                     -15,000                    5,960,828
         NAVY TOTAL........
 
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   AAV7A1 PIP.........           0          16,756                                                   16,756
    2   LAV PIP............           0          77,736                                                   77,736
        ARTILLERY AND OTHER
         WEAPONS
    3   EXPEDITIONARY FIRE            0           5,742                                                    5,742
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
    4   155MM LIGHTWEIGHT             0           4,532                                                    4,532
         TOWED HOWITZER....
    5   HIGH MOBILITY                 0          19,474                                                   19,474
         ARTILLERY ROCKET
         SYSTEM............
    6   WEAPONS AND COMBAT            0           7,250                                                    7,250
         VEHICLES UNDER $5
         MILLION...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
    7   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          21,909                                                   21,909
    8   WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT           0           3,208                                                    3,208
         PROGRAM...........
        GUIDED MISSILES
    9   GROUND BASED AIR              0          31,439                                                   31,439
         DEFENSE...........
   10   JAVELIN............           0             343                                                      343
   11   FOLLOW ON TO SMAW..           0           4,995                                                    4,995
   12   ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS            0           1,589                                                    1,589
         SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
         H)................
        OTHER SUPPORT
   13   MODIFICATION KITS..           0           5,134                                                    5,134
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEMS
   14   UNIT OPERATIONS               0           9,178                                                    9,178
         CENTER............
   15   COMMON AVIATION               0          12,272                                                   12,272
         COMMAND AND
         CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
        REPAIR AND TEST
         EQUIPMENT
   16   REPAIR AND TEST               0          30,591                                                   30,591
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
   17   COMBAT SUPPORT                0           2,385                                                    2,385
         SYSTEM............
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           4,205                                                    4,205
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
   20   AIR OPERATIONS C2             0           8,002                                                    8,002
         SYSTEMS...........
        RADAR + EQUIPMENT
         (NON-TEL)
   21   RADAR SYSTEMS......           0          19,595                                                   19,595
   22   Ground/Air Task               2          89,230                                        2          89,230
         Oriented Radar....
   23   RQ-21 UAS..........           3          70,565                                        3          70,565
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   24   FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM           0          11,860                                                   11,860
   25   INTELLIGENCE                  0          44,340                                                   44,340
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   28   RQ-11 UAV..........           0           2,737                                                    2,737
   30   DCGS-MC............           0          20,620                                                   20,620
        OTHER COMM/ELEC
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   31   NIGHT VISION                  0           9,798                                                    9,798
         EQUIPMENT.........
   32   NEXT GENERATION               0           2,073                                                    2,073
         ENTERPRISE NETWORK
         (NGEN)............
   33   COMMON COMPUTER               0          33,570                                                   33,570
         RESOURCES.........
   34   COMMAND POST                  0          38,186                                                   38,186
         SYSTEMS...........
   35   RADIO SYSTEMS......           0          64,494                                                   64,494
   36   COMM SWITCHING &              0          72,956                                                   72,956
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   37   COMM & ELEC                   0          43,317                                                   43,317
         INFRASTRUCTURE
         SUPPORT...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   37A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           2,498                                                    2,498
        ADMINISTRATIVE
         VEHICLES
   38   COMMERCIAL                    0             332                                                      332
         PASSENGER VEHICLES
   39   COMMERCIAL CARGO              0          11,035                                                   11,035
         VEHICLES..........
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
   40   5/4T TRUCK HMMWV              0          57,255                                                   57,255
         (MYP).............
   41   MOTOR TRANSPORT               0             938                                                      938
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   44   JOINT LIGHT                   7           7,500                                        7           7,500
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
   45   FAMILY OF TACTICAL            0          10,179                                                   10,179
         TRAILERS..........
        OTHER SUPPORT
   46   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,023                                                   11,023
         MILLION...........
        ENGINEER AND OTHER
         EQUIPMENT
   47   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0             994                                                      994
         CONTROL EQUIP
         ASSORT............
   48   BULK LIQUID                   0           1,256                                                    1,256
         EQUIPMENT.........
   49   TACTICAL FUEL                 0           3,750                                                    3,750
         SYSTEMS...........
   50   POWER EQUIPMENT               0           8,985                       2,900                       11,885
         ASSORTED..........
           USMC unfunded                                                     [2,900]
           priority........
   51   AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT            0           4,418                                                    4,418
         EQUIPMENT.........
   52   EOD SYSTEMS........           0           6,528                                                    6,528
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
   53   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          26,510                                                   26,510
         EQUIPMENT.........
   54   GARRISON MOBILE               0           1,910                                                    1,910
         ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
         (GMEE)............
   55   MATERIAL HANDLING             0           8,807                                                    8,807
         EQUIP.............
   56   FIRST DESTINATION             0             128                                                      128
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GENERAL PROPERTY
   58   TRAINING DEVICES...           0           3,412                                                    3,412
   59   CONTAINER FAMILY...           0           1,662                                                    1,662
   60   FAMILY OF                     0           3,669                                                    3,669
         CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT.........
   62   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,272                                                    4,272
         MILLION...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          16,210                                                   16,210
         PARTS.............
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE                     983,352                       2,900                      986,252
         CORPS TOTAL.......
 
        SUBTOTAL,                            38,424,012                     181,900                   38,605,912
         DEPARTMENT OF THE
         NAVY..............
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL FORCES
    1   F-35...............          26       3,553,046                                       26       3,553,046
    2   F-35...............           0         291,880                                                  291,880
    3   KC-46A TANKER......           7       1,582,685                                        7       1,582,685
        OTHER AIRLIFT
    4   C-130J.............           7         482,396                                        7         482,396
    5   C-130J.............           0         140,000                                                  140,000
    6   HC-130J............           4         332,024                                        4         332,024
    7   HC-130J............           0          50,000                                                   50,000
    8   MC-130J............           2         190,971                                        2         190,971
    9   MC-130J............           0          80,000                                                   80,000
        MISSION SUPPORT
         AIRCRAFT
   12   CIVIL AIR PATROL A/           6           2,562                                        6           2,562
         C.................
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   13   TARGET DRONES......          37          98,576                                       37          98,576
   16   RQ-4...............           0          54,475                     -10,000                       44,475
           Delayed trainer.                                                [-10,000]
   17   AC-130J............           0               1                                                        1
   18   MQ-9...............          12         240,218                     -37,800           12         202,418
           Use available                                                   [-37,800]
           prior year funds
           for FY 15
           requirements....
        STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
   20   B-2A...............           0          23,865                                                   23,865
   21   B-1B...............           0         140,252                                                  140,252
   22   B-52...............           0         180,148                                                  180,148
   23   LARGE AIRCRAFT                0          13,159                                                   13,159
         INFRARED
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
   25   F-15...............           0         387,314                                                  387,314
   26   F-16...............           0          12,336                                                   12,336
   27   F-22A..............           0         180,207                                                  180,207
   28   F-35 MODIFICATIONS.           0         187,646                                                  187,646
   29   INCREMENT 3.2B.....           0          28,500                                                   28,500
        AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
   30   C-5................           0          14,731                                                   14,731
   31   C-5M...............           0         331,466                     -50,000                      281,466
           Delayed                                                         [-50,000]
           installation of
           RERP kits.......
   33   C-17A..............           0         127,494                                                  127,494
   34   C-21...............           0             264                                                      264
   35   C-32A..............           0           8,767                                                    8,767
   36   C-37A..............           0          18,457                                                   18,457
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   38   GLIDER MODS........           0             132                                                      132
   39   T-6................           0          14,486                                                   14,486
   40   T-1................           0           7,650                                                    7,650
   41   T-38...............           0          34,845                                                   34,845
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   42   U-2 MODS...........                           0                      64,300                       64,300
           Keep U-2 rather                                                  [64,300]
           than enhance
           Global Hawk
           Block 30........
   44   KC-10A (ATCA)......           0          34,313                                                   34,313
   45   C-12...............           0           1,960                                                    1,960
   48   VC-25A MOD.........           0           1,072                                                    1,072
   49   C-40...............           0           7,292                                                    7,292
   50   C-130..............           0          35,869                      47,600                       83,469
           C-130 enigine                                                    [22,600]
           upgrades........
           C-130 avionics                                                   [25,000]
           modernization
           program.........
   51   C-130J MODS........           0           7,919                                                    7,919
   52   C-135..............           0          63,568                                                   63,568
   53   COMPASS CALL MODS..           0          57,828                                                   57,828
   54   RC-135.............           0         152,746                                                  152,746
   55   E-3................           0          16,491                                                   16,491
   56   E-4................           0          22,341                                                   22,341
   58   AIRBORNE WARNING              0         160,284                                                  160,284
         AND CONTROL SYSTEM
   59   FAMILY OF BEYOND              0          32,026                                                   32,026
         LINE-OF-SIGHT
         TERMINALS.........
   60   H-1................           0           8,237                                                    8,237
   61   H-60...............           0          60,110                                                   60,110
   62   RQ-4 MODS..........           0          21,354                                                   21,354
   63   HC/MC-130                     0           1,902                                                    1,902
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   64   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0          32,106                                                   32,106
   65   MQ-1 MODS..........           0           4,755                                                    4,755
   66   MQ-9 MODS..........           0         155,445                     -30,000                      125,445
           Lynx radar......                                                [-30,000]
   69   CV-22 MODS.........           0          74,874                                                   74,874
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   70   INITIAL SPARES/               0         466,562                                                  466,562
         REPAIR PARTS......
        COMMON SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   71   AIRCRAFT                      0          22,470                                                   22,470
         REPLACEMENT
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        POST PRODUCTION
         SUPPORT
   74   B-2A...............           0          44,793                                                   44,793
   75   B-52...............           0           5,249                                                    5,249
   77   C-17A..............           0          20,110                                                   20,110
   78   CV-22 POST                    0          16,931                                                   16,931
         PRODUCTION SUPPORT
   80   C-135..............           0           4,414                                                    4,414
   81   F-15...............           0           1,122                                                    1,122
   82   F-16...............           0          10,994                                                   10,994
   83   F-22A..............           0           5,929                                                    5,929
   84   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0              27                                                       27
        INDUSTRIAL
         PREPAREDNESS
   85   INDUSTRIAL                    0          21,363                                                   21,363
         RESPONSIVENESS....
        WAR CONSUMABLES
   86   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0          82,906                                                   82,906
        OTHER PRODUCTION
         CHARGES
   87   OTHER PRODUCTION              0       1,007,276                                                1,007,276
         CHARGES...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   87A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          69,380                                                   69,380
        AIRCRAFT                             11,542,571                     -15,900                   11,526,671
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE TOTAL.......
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        MISSILE REPLACEMENT
         EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
         IC
    1   MISSILE REPLACEMENT           0          80,187                                                   80,187
         EQ-BALLISTIC......
        TACTICAL
    3   JOINT AIR-SURFACE           224         337,438                                      224         337,438
         STANDOFF MISSILE..
    4   SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)         303         132,995                                      303         132,995
    5   AMRAAM.............         200         329,600                                      200         329,600
    6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE           283          33,878                                      283          33,878
         MISSILE...........
    7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB         246          70,578                     -52,531          246          18,047
           Delay in                                                        [-52,531]
           Milestone C and
           contract award..
        INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES
    8   INDUSTR'L                     0             749                                                      749
         PREPAREDNS/POL
         PREVENTION........
        CLASS IV
    9   MM III                        0          28,477                                                   28,477
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0             276                                                      276
   11   AGM-88A HARM.......           0             297                                                      297
   12   AIR LAUNCH CRUISE             0          16,083                                                   16,083
         MISSILE (ALCM)....
   13   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB           0           6,924                                                    6,924
        MISSILE SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   14   INITIAL SPARES/               0          87,366                                                   87,366
         REPAIR PARTS......
        SPACE PROGRAMS
   15   ADVANCED EHF.......           0         298,890                                                  298,890
   16   WIDEBAND GAPFILLER            0          38,971                                                   38,971
         SATELLITES(SPACE).
   17   GPS III SPACE                 1         235,397                                        1         235,397
         SEGMENT...........
   18   GPS III SPACE                 0          57,000                                                   57,000
         SEGMENT...........
   19   SPACEBORNE EQUIP              0          16,201                                                   16,201
         (COMSEC)..........
   20   GLOBAL POSITIONING            0          52,090                                                   52,090
         (SPACE)...........
   21   DEF METEOROLOGICAL            0          87,000                     -87,000                            0
         SAT PROG(SPACE)...
           Program decrease                                                [-87,000]
   22   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            0         750,143                                                  750,143
         LAUNCH VEH
         (INFRAST.)........
   23   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            3         630,903                                        3         630,903
         LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
   24   SBIR HIGH (SPACE)..           0         450,884                                                  450,884
        SPECIAL PROGRAMS
   28   SPECIAL UPDATE                0          60,179