S. Rept. 113-44 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


Senate Report 113-44 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

[Senate Report 113-44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


   113th Congress    }                               {     Report
     1st  Session    }           SENATE              {     113-44
_______________________________________________________________________
                                                        Calendar No. 91
 
                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

                              R E P O R T

                         [TO ACCOMPANY S. 1197]

                                   on

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 

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

                             OTHER PURPOSES

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE






                 June 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014









                 June 20, 2013.--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
KRISTEN 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

                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the bill..............................................     1
        Committee overview.......................................     2
        Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget 
          authority implication..................................     6
        Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)...................     7
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................     8
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................     8
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     8
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)...............     8
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................     8
        Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft (sec. 
          121)...................................................     8
        CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122).........     8
        Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future 
          surface combatants (sec. 123)..........................    11
        Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne 
          intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
          capabilities (sec. 124)................................    11
        Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125)..........................    12
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    12
        Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131).......    12
        Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber 
          aircraft (sec. 132)....................................    12
        Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired 
          KC-135E aircraft (sec. 133)............................    13
        Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft 
          by the Air Force (sec. 134)............................    14
    Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters...................    14
        Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft (sec. 
          151)...................................................    14
        Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter 
          industrial base (sec. 152).............................    14
    Budget Items.................................................    14
        Army.....................................................    14
            Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and 
              Surveillance System................................    14
            UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter.........................    15
            Paladin Integrated Management........................    15
            XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system    15
            Carbine..............................................    15
            5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions.....    16
            25mm reduction.......................................    16
        Navy.....................................................    16
            Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects 
              Aircraft...........................................    16
            Close-in weapon system modifications.................    17
            Afloat forward staging base..........................    17
            DDG-51...............................................    18
        Air Force................................................    18
            MQ-9.................................................    18
            Reaper synthetic aperture radar......................    18
            C-130 aircraft modifications.........................    18
        Defense-wide.............................................    19
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    19
    Items of Special Interest....................................    20
            Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs.......    20
            Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored 
              vehicle fuel efficiency............................    20
            Close air support requirements.......................    21
            Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft 
              carrier program....................................    21
            Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat 
              Ship program.......................................    22
            Defense ground radar programs........................    23
            Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories....    24
            Ejection seats.......................................    24
            Enhanced performance round versus special operations 
              science and technology round.......................    25
            F-35 production rate.................................    25
            F-35 technical issues................................    26
            Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.......    26
            Joint high speed vessel..............................    27
            Joint surveillance/target attack radar system 
              modernization......................................    27
            Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and 
              small form fit competition and contracting.........    28
            Long Range Strike Bomber.............................    28
            Modernization of B-1 bomber..........................    29
            Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System.....    29
            Paladin integrated management program................    29
            Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight 
              demonstration......................................    29
            Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund..    30
            Small diameter bomb..................................    31
            UH-1N replacement strategy...........................    31
            UH-72 light utility helicopter.......................    32
            Uninterruptable power supply.........................    32
            Use of commercially available systems to support 
              certain Navy requirements..........................    32
            War readiness engine shortfall.......................    33
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............    35
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    35
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)...............    35
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    35
        Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211).....    35
        Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan 
          for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 
          212)...................................................    36
        Extension of authority for program to award prizes for 
          advanced technology achievements (sec. 213)............    36
        Five-year extension of pilot program to include 
          technology protection features during research and 
          development of certain defense systems (sec. 214)......    36
        Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense 
          laboratories for research and development of 
          technologies for military missions (sec. 215)..........    36
        Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, 
          Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216).....    36
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................    38
        Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)............    38
        Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)............    40
        Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233).......    40
        Additional missile defense radar for the protection of 
          the United States homeland (sec. 234)..................    41
        Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile 
          defense sensor architectures (sec. 235)................    41
        Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program 
          (sec. 236).............................................    42
    Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................    42
        Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential 
          Helicopter (sec. 251)..................................    42
    Budget Items.................................................    42
        Army.....................................................    42
            Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project............    42
            Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle............    43
            General Fund Enterprise Business Systems.............    43
            Internet mapping.....................................    43
        Navy.....................................................    43
            Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development....    43
            LHA-8 design effort..................................    44
            Marine personnel carrier.............................    45
        Air Force................................................    45
            Operationally Responsive Space.......................    45
            Tactical data networks enterprise....................    45
            Tactical exploitation of national capabilities.......    45
            Joint surveillance/target attack radar system........    46
        Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of 
          Excellence.............................................    46
        Defense-wide.............................................    47
            National Defense Education Program...................    47
            Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 
              Laboratory.........................................    48
            Applied research for the advancement of science and 
              technology priorities..............................    48
            Automated software code analysis tool development....    48
            Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the 
              exploitation of human terrain in conflict..........    49
            Combating Terrorism Technology Support...............    50
            Ballistic missile defense technology programs........    50
            Rapid Fielding.......................................    52
            Networked Communications Capability Program..........    52
            Defense industrial capacity innovation and 
              sustainment........................................    52
            CWMD Systems.........................................    53
            Advanced sensor applications program.................    53
            U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs....    54
            Advanced Innovative Technologies.....................    54
            Defense research and development Rapid Innovation 
              Program focus areas................................    55
            Developmental test and evaluation....................    56
            Defense Technical Information Center.................    56
            Conflict Records Research Center.....................    56
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    57
            Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar.......    57
            Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs...    57
    Items of Special Interest....................................    58
        Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program..............    58
        Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures 
          strategy...............................................    58
        Combat casualty care research............................    59
        Common kill vehicle technology program...................    60
        High energy laser weapons................................    61
        Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition..............    62
        Hybrid Airships..........................................    63
        Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather 
          Modernization Plan Recommendations.....................    64
        Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical 
          information technology services........................    64
        Improved turbine engine program..........................    64
        Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground 
          System analyst tool integration........................    65
        Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor 
          (JLENS) system.........................................    66
        Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for 
          Classified.............................................    66
        Military Scientists and Engineers........................    67
        Scientific and technical conferences.....................    68
        Tactical power grids.....................................    69
        Trusted microelectronics.................................    69
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................    71
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    71
        Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301).............    71
    Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment........................    71
        Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within 
          Army arsenals (sec. 311)...............................    71
        Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment 
          (sec. 312).............................................    71
        Extension and modification of authority for airlift 
          transportation at Department of Defense rates for non-
          Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313).......    72
    Subtitle C--Readiness........................................    73
        Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds 
          for equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 
          321)...................................................    73
        Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and 
          replacement of operating forces used to support 
          overseas contingency operations (sec. 322).............    73
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    73
        Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit 
          visibility (sec. 331)..................................    73
        Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit 
          readiness (sec. 332)...................................    73
        Revision to requirement for annual submission of 
          information regarding information technology capital 
          assets (sec. 333)......................................    74
        Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention 
          reporting requirements (sec. 334)......................    74
    Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority...........    74
        Limitation on funding for United States Special 
          Operations Command National Capital Region (sec. 341)..    74
        Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations 
          Coordination Centers (sec. 342)........................    75
        Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional 
          Web Initiative (TRWI) (sec. 343).......................    76
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................    76
        Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility 
          uniforms (sec. 351)....................................    76
        Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail 
          redirection system to improve the delivery of absentee 
          ballots to military personnel serving outside the 
          United States (sec. 352)...............................    77
    Budget Items.................................................    77
        Army readiness funding increases.........................    77
        U.S. European Command funding decrease...................    78
        Navy readiness funding increases.........................    78
        Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support..............    79
        Marine Corps readiness funding increases.................    79
        Air Force readiness funding increases....................    79
        Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support..............    79
        Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers.........    80
        U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region.    80
        Department of Defense STARBASE program...................    81
        Defense Security Cooperation Agency......................    81
        Funding for impact aid...................................    82
        Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request..    82
        Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) funding decrease.....    83
        Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass.......    83
    Items of Special Interest....................................    83
        Additive manufacturing...................................    83
        Advanced situational awareness training..................    84
        Air show support by the Department of Defense............    84
        Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments..............    84
        Combatant command support agent accounting...............    85
        Comptroller General of the United States review of United 
          States Central Command.................................    85
        Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde............    86
        Contingency basing.......................................    86
        Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management......    87
        Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum 
          of understanding to enhance energy security............    87
        Energy metering..........................................    88
        Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense 
          Review.................................................    88
        Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training 
          Corps cadets and critical military language training...    89
        Full spectrum operations.................................    89
        Government Accountability Office readiness analysis......    89
        Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local 
          governments............................................    90
        Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense 
          Production Act, Title III authority....................    90
        Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy...............    91
        Meals ready to eat war reserve...........................    91
        Mission compatibility reviews............................    91
        Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan.................    92
        Organizational clothing and equipment....................    92
        Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material 
          shipments..............................................    93
        Readiness concerns under sequestration...................    93
        Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll........    94
        Report on the identification of a hollow force...........    95
        Review of defense headquarters and combatant command 
          resources..............................................    95
        Small modular reaction study.............................    96
        Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense 
          requirements...........................................    97
        Unfunded requirements from the Service Chiefs............    97
        United States Africa Command.............................    97
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................    99
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............    99
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................    99
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............    99
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the reserves (sec. 412)................................   100
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   100
        Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   100
        Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   101
    Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations.................   101
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   101
    Budget Item..................................................   101
        Military personnel funding changes.......................   101
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally...............   103
        Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced 
          education upon original appointment as a commissioned 
          officer (sec. 501).....................................   103
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   103
        Information to be provided to boards considering officers 
          for selective early removal from the reserve active-
          status list (sec. 506).................................   103
        Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers 
          between the active and inactive National Guard (sec. 
          507)...................................................   103
        Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of 
          reserve component units within 180 days of scheduled 
          date of deployment (sec. 508)..........................   104
        National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509)........   104
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   105
        Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to 
          protected communications of members of the Armed Forces 
          and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511)..........   105
        Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of 
          members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such 
          members (sec. 512).....................................   105
        Department of Defense Inspector General reports on 
          compliance with requirements for the protection of 
          rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and 
          their chaplains (sec. 513).............................   105
    Subtitle D--Member Education and Training....................   105
        Authority for joint professional military education Phase 
          II instruction and credit to be offered and awarded 
          through senior-level course of School of Advanced 
          Military Studies of the United States Army Command and 
          General Staff College (sec. 521).......................   105
        Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health 
          Sciences to support undergraduate and other medical 
          education and training programs for military medical 
          personnel (sec. 522)...................................   105
        Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs 
          under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523)   106
        Additional requirements for approval of educational 
          programs for purposes of certain educational assistance 
          under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense 
          (sec. 524).............................................   106
        Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and 
          training for military occupational specialties with 
          skills and training required for civilian 
          certifications and licenses (sec. 525).................   106
        Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to 
          military information technology under pilot program on 
          receipt of civilian credentials for skills required for 
          military occupational specialties (sec. 526)...........   106
        Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 
          527)...................................................   107
        Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North 
          Georgia College and State University as University of 
          North Georgia (sec. 528)...............................   107
    Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and 
      Military Justice Matters...................................   107
        PART I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response...........   107
            Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by 
              individuals who have been convicted of certain 
              sexual offenses (sec. 531).........................   107
            Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a 
              member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is 
              accused of committing a sexual assault or related 
              offense (sec. 532).................................   107
            Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard 
              regarding consideration of request for permanent 
              change of station or unit transfer by victim of 
              sexual assault (sec. 533)..........................   107
            Inclusion and command review of information on 
              sexual-related offenses in personnel service 
              records of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 534)..   108
            Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault 
              Prevention and Response Office for Department of 
              Defense sexual assault prevention and response 
              program (sec. 535).................................   108
            Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for 
              members of the Armed Forces on sexual assault 
              prevention and response (sec. 536).................   109
            Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators 
              for members of the National Guard and the Reserves 
              (sec. 537).........................................   109
            Retention of certain forms in connection with 
              Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports on 
              sexual assault involving members of the armed 
              forces (sec. 538)..................................   109
            Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual 
              assault committed by members of the armed forces 
              (sec. 539).........................................   110
            Sense of Congress on commanding officer 
              responsibility for command climate free of 
              retaliation (sec. 540).............................   110
            Commanding officer action on reports on sexual 
              offenses involving members of the Armed Forces 
              (sec. 541).........................................   110
            Department of Defense Inspector General investigation 
              of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions 
              taken in response to making protected 
              communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542).   110
            Advancement of submittal deadline for report of 
              independent panel on assessment of military 
              response systems to sexual assault (sec. 543)......   110
            Assessment of clemency in the military justice system 
              and of database of alleged offenders of sexual 
              assault as additional duties of independent panel 
              on review and assessment of systems to respond to 
              sexual assault cases (sec. 544)....................   111
            Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of 
              law on sexual assault prevention and response as 
              additional duties of independent panels for review 
              and assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice 
              and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases 
              (sec. 545).........................................   111
            Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims 
              of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
              Justice as additional duty of independent panel on 
              review and assessment of judicial proceedings of 
              sexual assault cases (sec. 546)....................   112
        PART II--Related Military Justice Matters................
            Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on 
              trial by court-martial for additional offenses 
              involving sex-related crimes (sec. 551)............   112
            Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain 
              sexual offenses to trial by court-martial (sec. 
              552)...............................................   112
            Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in 
              presence of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec. 
              553)...............................................   112
            Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-
              related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
              Justice and trial of such offenses by general 
              courts-martial (sec. 554)..........................   113
            Limitation on authority of convening authority to 
              modify findings of a court-martial (sec. 555)......   113
            Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency 
              phase of courts-martial process (sec. 556).........   113
            Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the 
              Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit sexual 
              acts and contacts between military instructors and 
              trainees (sec. 557)................................   114
            Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving 
              certain sexual misconduct offenses under the 
              Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-
              martial (sec. 558).................................   114
            Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-
              martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit 
              sexual-related offenses (sec. 559).................   114
        PART III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters.......
            Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge 
              on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
              Forces (sec. 561)..................................   114
            Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the 
              Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 562)........   115
            Prohibition of retaliation against members of the 
              Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense (sec. 
              563)...............................................   115
            Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of 
              offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
              (sec. 564).........................................   115
            Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to 
              eliminate factor relating to character and military 
              service of the accused in rule on initial 
              disposition of offenses (sec. 565).................   115
    Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family 
      Readiness Matters..........................................   115
        Continuation of authority to assist local educational 
          agencies that benefit dependents of members of the 
          Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees (sec. 571)...................................   115
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          572)...................................................   116
    Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards...........................   116
        Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of 
          high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 
          581)...................................................   116
        Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
          Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582).............   116
        Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to 
          Robert F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 
          583)...................................................   116
        Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to 
          Sergeant First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts 
          of valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 584).............   116
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   117
        Additional requirements for accounting for members of the 
          Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees listed as missing (sec. 591).................   117
        Expansion of privileged information authorities to 
          debriefing reports of certain recovered persons who 
          were never placed in a missing status (sec. 592).......   117
    Items of Special Interest....................................   117
        Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment 
          program................................................   117
        Combat injured military technician (dual status) 
          retention under Wounded Warrior Act authority..........   117
        Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service 
          members for sexual assault.............................   118
        Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense 
          coordination and incorporation of civilian law 
          enforcement best practices in sexual assault prevention 
          and response...........................................   119
        Department of Defense child development center personnel.   119
        Department of Defense reports on sexual assault..........   119
        General and flag officer billets.........................   120
        Medical management of sexual assault cases...............   120
        Military dependent suicides..............................   121
        Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material........   121
        Report to Congress on the implementation of the 
          recommendations made by the Military Leadership 
          Diversity Commission...................................   121
        Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.....   122
        Retention, career progression, and promotion 
          opportunities for female members of the Armed Forces...   122
        Sexual assault first responder training..................   123
        Suicide prevention screening.............................   123
        U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force 
          and Families Initiatives...............................   124
        Veteran unemployment.....................................   125
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................
        Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   127
        Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay 
          for members of the National Guard called into Federal 
          service for less than 30 days (sec. 602)...............   127
        Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 
          rates of basic allowance for housing under certain 
          circumstances (sec. 603)...............................   127
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   127
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)..............   127
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)...   127
        One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities 
          for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................   128
        One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 
          consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus 
          authorities (sec. 614).................................   128
        One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 
          other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615).....   128
        Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement 
          authority for travel expenses for inactive-duty 
          training outside of normal commuting distance and 
          additional one-year extension (sec. 616)...............   128
        Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for 
          registered nurses in critical specialties under health 
          professions stipend program (sec. 617).................   129
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............
        Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of 
          Defense travel and transportation authorities in 
          connection with reform of such authorities (sec. 631)..   129
    Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits...   129
        Clarification of prevention of retired pay in version in 
          the case of members whose retired pay is computed using 
          high-three (sec. 641)..................................   129
        Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive 
          combat-related special compensation after previous 
          election to receive concurrent retirement and 
          disability compensation (sec. 642).....................   129
        Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts 
          established for the benefit of dependent children 
          incapable of self-support (sec. 643)...................   129
        Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early 
          retirement credit earned for significant periods of 
          active Federal status or active duty (sec. 644)........   130
        Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain 
          dependents upon death or permanent incapacitation of 
          the retired member on whom dependent status is based 
          (sec. 645).............................................   130
    Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters.........................   130
        Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the 
          Military Lending Act (sec. 661)........................   130
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   130
        Authority to provide certain expenses for care and 
          disposition of human remains that were retained by the 
          Department of Defense for forensic pathology 
          investigation (sec. 671)...............................   130
        Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army 
          incentive to provide additional recruitment incentives 
          (sec. 672).............................................   130
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   131
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   131
        Pilot program on increased collection of third-party 
          reimbursements for health care services provided in 
          military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711).......   131
        Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated 
          electronic health records for the Department of Defense 
          and the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 712)......   131
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   131
        Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics 
          to members of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721).   131
    Items of Special Interest....................................   132
        Autism spectrum disorder services........................   132
        Education and training of the acquisition workforce of 
          the TRICARE Management Activity........................   132
        Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury   132
        Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, 
          and their families.....................................   133
        Ribonucleic acid research................................   133
        TRICARE appeals process..................................   133
        TRICARE emergency department utilization.................   134
        Use of simulation technology in medical training.........   135
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
  RELATED MATTERS................................................   137
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   137
        Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to 
          multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically 
          authorized by law (sec. 801)...........................   137
        Extension of authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in countries along a major route of supply to 
          Afghanistan (sec. 802).................................   137
        Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 
          803)...................................................   138
    Subtitle B-Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   138
        Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major 
          defense acquisition programs (sec. 821)................   138
        Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B 
          approval of major defense acquisition programs 
          constituting a space program (sec. 822)................   138
        Additional responsibility for product support managers 
          for major weapon systems (sec. 823)....................   138
        Comptroller General of the United States review of 
          Department of Defense processes for the acquisition of 
          weapons systems (sec. 824).............................   139
    Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   139
        Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of 
          contractor employees (sec. 841)........................   139
        Implementation by Department of Defense of certain 
          recommendations of the Comptroller General of the 
          United States on oversight of pensions offered by 
          Department contractors (sec. 842)......................   140
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   140
        Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in 
          the United States Central Command theater of operations 
          (sec. 861).............................................   140
        Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862).....   140
        Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863)   141
    Items of Special Interest....................................   141
        Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of 
          athletic footwear in the Department of Defense.........   141
        Clarification pertaining to small business contracting 
          requiring a written justification and approval.........   141
        Competition in the development and procurement of 
          training systems.......................................   142
        Comptroller General of the United States report on best 
          value competitive source selection techniques..........   142
        Comptroller General of the United States report on in-
          line management process for the acquisition process....   143
        Comptroller General report on process and procedures for 
          identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major 
          development and procurement programs...................   143
        Report on the configuration steering boards..............   143
        Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit 
          Readiness reports......................................   144
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   147
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   147
        Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901).....   147
        Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the 
          United States Special Operations Command by the Under 
          Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
          Logistics (sec. 902)...................................   148
        Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, 
          Control, and Communications System (sec. 903)..........   149
        Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory 
          Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic 
          and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 904)..............   149
        Streamlining of Department of Defense management 
          headquarters (sec. 905)................................   149
        Update of statutory statement of functions of the 
          Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to 
          doctrine, training, and education (sec. 906)...........   150
        Modification of reference to major Department of Defense 
          headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907).........   150
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   150
        Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program 
          (sec. 921).............................................   150
    Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   150
        Personnel security (sec. 931)............................   150
        Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection 
          (sec. 932).............................................   152
        Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933)   152
        Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, 
          Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934)...   153
    Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters.......................   154
        Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States 
          Cyber Command (sec. 941)...............................   154
        Joint software assurance center for the Department of 
          Defense (sec. 942).....................................   155
        Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing 
          capabilities for intelligence analysis (sec. 943)......   156
        Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons 
          systems and tactical communications systems (sec. 944).   157
        Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed 
          Forces to support Department of Defense cyber missions 
          (sec. 945).............................................   158
        Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946).   159
        Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace 
          (sec. 947).............................................   160
        Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance 
          matters (sec. 948).....................................   160
    Items of Special Interest....................................   162
        Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III 
          satellites.............................................   162
        Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage 
          on produced satellites.................................   162
        Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office.........   162
        Estimated cost to relocate spectrum......................   163
        Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle........................   163
        Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program.....   164
        Mainframe computer security..............................   164
        Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground 
          System.................................................   165
        Payload processing services..............................   165
        Report on disaggregation and payload hosting.............   165
        Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command 
          Terminals for airborne platforms.......................   165
        Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional 
          nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile.............   166
        Report on space situational awareness....................   167
        Satellite communications strategy........................   167
        Satellite control system modernization plan..............   168
        Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6..............   168
        Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base.............   168
        Trusted agent for spectrum...............................   168
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   171
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   171
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   171
        Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 
          1002)..................................................   171
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   171
        Extension of authority to support the unified counter-
          drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 
          1011)..................................................   171
        Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide 
          support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
          terrorism activities (sec. 1012).......................   172
        Extension and expansion of authority to provide 
          additional support for counter-drug activities of 
          certain foreign governments (sec. 1013)................   172
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   172
        Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan 
          for the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021)......   172
        Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure 
          Assessment (sec. 1022).................................   172
        Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any 
          new class of major combatant vessels of the strike 
          forces of the United States Navy (sec. 1023)...........   174
        Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship 
          donations at no cost to the Navy (sec. 1024)...........   175
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   175
        Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at 
          United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 
          1031)..................................................   175
        Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at 
          United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 
          the United States for emergency or critical medical 
          treatment (sec. 1032)..................................   176
        Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals 
          detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
          Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033)..................................   176
        Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members 
          on military commissions (sec. 1034)....................   177
    Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces...................................   177
        Modification of responsibilities and reporting 
          requirements of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041)....   177
        Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear 
          weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 
          1042)..................................................   177
        Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable 
          warhead (sec. 1043)....................................   178
        Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United 
          States nuclear forces (sec. 1044)......................   178
        Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic 
          missile force (sec. 1045)..............................   178
    Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   178
        National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051)..........   178
        Department of Defense representation in dispute 
          resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense 
          bands of electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 1052).......   178
        Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the 
          Armed Forces in child custody determinations (sec. 
          1053)..................................................   179
    Subtitle G--Studies and Reports..............................   179
        Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 
          1061)..................................................   179
        Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant 
          Ambush Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062).............   179
        Report on foreign language support contracts for the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1063)......................   179
        Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064).............................   180
        Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065)..........................   181
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   181
        Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program 
          (sec. 1081)............................................   181
    Items of Special Interest....................................   182
        Airborne Nuclear Command Post............................   182
        Air Force weapons storage areas..........................   182
        Army force structure and installation alignment..........   182
        Counter threat finance efforts...........................   183
        Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic 
          facilities overseas....................................   184
        Fiscal priorities........................................   185
        Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.........................   186
        Impact of B-61 program delay.............................   186
        Reforming the security classification system.............   187
        Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense 
          budget to meet the savings requirement established by 
          the Budget Control Act.................................   187
        Strategic Automated Command Control System Modernization 
          Plan...................................................   188
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   189
        Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for 
          civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 
          1101)..................................................   189
        Extension of authority to make lump sum severance 
          payments to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102)   189
        Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated 
          fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103)......   189
        Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation 
          authority for civilian personnel for care and treatment 
          of wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 1104)............................................   189
        Amount of educational assistance under Science, 
          Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense 
          Education Program (sec. 1105)..........................   190
        Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian 
          faculty at certain additional Department of Defense 
          schools (sec. 1106)....................................   190
        Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain 
          positions at Department of Defense research and 
          engineering facilities (sec. 1107).....................   190
        Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund 
          instrumentalities for purposes of certain civil service 
          laws (sec. 1108).......................................   190
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   191
        Department of Defense civilian leadership programs.......   191
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   193
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   193
        Modification and extension of authorities relating to 
          program to build the capacity of foreign military 
          forces (sec. 1201).....................................   193
        Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority 
          (sec. 1202)............................................   193
        Training of general purpose forces of the United States 
          Armed Forces with military and other security forces of 
          friendly foreign countries (sec. 1203).................   194
        United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation 
          in North Africa (sec. 1204)............................   194
        Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border 
          security operations (sec. 1205)........................   195
        Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability 
          of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving 
          weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206)................   195
        Support of foreign forces participating in operations to 
          disarm the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207)..........   196
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 
      Iraq.......................................................   196
        Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 
          (sec. 1211)............................................   196
        Extension and modification of authority to support 
          operations and activities of the Office of Security 
          Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212)........................   197
        One-year extension and modification of authority to use 
          funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 
          1213)..................................................   197
        One-year extension and modification of authority for 
          program to develop and carry out infrastructure 
          projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1214)....................   198
        Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain 
          coalition nations for support provided to United States 
          military operations (sec. 1215)........................   198
        Extension of logistical support for coalition forces 
          supporting certain United States military operations 
          (sec. 1216)............................................   199
        Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant 
          visa program (sec. 1217)...............................   199
        Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant 
          visa program (sec. 1218)...............................   199
        Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation 
          building or large-scale infrastructure development 
          projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219)....................   199
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   199
        Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional 
          assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231).............   199
        Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual 
          report on military and security developments involving 
          the People's Republic of China (sec. 1232).............   200
        Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or 
          agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233)............   200
        Modification of statutory references to former North 
          Atlantic Treaty Organization support organizations and 
          related agreements (sec. 1234).........................   200
        Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special 
          Operations Headquarters (sec. 1235)....................   201
        Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass 
          destruction and related materials in the Middle East 
          and North Africa region (sec. 1236)....................   201
    Items of Special Interest....................................   201
        Inter-American Defense College...........................   201
        Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia............   202
        Status of United States military engagements with Burma..   203
        Taiwan air power assessment..............................   204
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   205
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 
          and funds (sec. 1301)..................................   205
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   205
        Extension of authority for utilization of contributions 
          to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303)   205
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   207
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   207
        Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................   207
        National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................   207
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 
          1403)..................................................   207
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-
          wide (sec. 1404).......................................   207
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)....................   207
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1406).......................   207
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   207
        Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 
          Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................   207
        Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of 
          Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 
          Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1422)......................   208
    Budget Items.................................................   208
        Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan......   208
        Defense Health Program funding...........................   209
        Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities............   209
    Items of Special Interest....................................   209
        Army industrial operations activity group................   209
        Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel 
          rate pricing...........................................   210
        Joint Interagency Task Force--South......................   211
        National Guard Counterdrug Program.......................   211
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
  CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.........................................   213
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   213
        Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   213
        Procurement (sec. 1502)..................................   213
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503)..   213
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504)....................   213
        Military personnel (sec. 1505)...........................   213
        Working capital funds (sec. 1506)........................   213
        National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507)................   213
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 
          1508)..................................................   213
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          wide (sec. 1509).......................................   214
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510)....................   214
        Defense Health program (sec. 1511).......................   214
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   214
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521).......   214
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)...................   214
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   214
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)   214
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532).............   215
        Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and 
          Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533)........   215
    Budget Items.................................................   216
        NATO Special Operations Headquarters.....................   216
        BuckEye..................................................   216
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization....   216
        Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund..........................   217
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   218
        Counter improvised explosive device training.............   218
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   219
        Summary and explanation of funding tables................   219
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   219
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   219
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   221
        Summary..................................................   221
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   221
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   221
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........   221
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2011 project (sec. 2104)..........................   221
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2010 project (sec. 2105)..........................   222
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2004 project (sec. 2106)..........................   222
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
          projects (sec. 2107)...................................   222
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 
          projects (sec. 2108)...................................   222
        Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United 
          States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109)..........   222
    Items of Special Interest....................................   223
        Access Control Point Equipment Program...................   223
        Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred 
          by the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.......   223
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   225
        Summary..................................................   225
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   225
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   225
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   225
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   225
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2012 project (sec. 2205)..........................   226
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2011 project (sec. 2206)..........................   226
        One-year extension of authorization of certain fiscal 
          year 2011 project (sec. 2207)..........................   226
        Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal 
          year 2011 project (sec. 2208)..........................   226
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   226
        Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition..................   226
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   227
        Summary..................................................   227
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   227
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   228
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   228
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   228
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2305)....................................   228
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   229
        Summary..................................................   229
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   230
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   230
        Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)......   230
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   230
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   230
        Authorization of appropriations, chemical 
          demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411)   230
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
  PROGRAM........................................................   231
        Summary..................................................   231
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   231
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   231
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   233
        Summary..................................................   233
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of 
      Appropriations.............................................   233
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   233
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   233
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   233
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   233
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   233
        Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and 
          Reserve (sec. 2606)....................................   234
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   234
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2013 project (sec. 2611)..........................   234
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2612)....................................   234
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 
          project (sec. 2613)....................................   234
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   235
        Summary and explanation of tables........................   235
        Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 
          closure activities funded through Department of Defense 
          Base Closure Account (sec. 2701).......................   235
        Precondition for any future base realignment and closure 
          round (sec. 2702)......................................   235
        Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing 
          initiative (sec. 2703).................................   235
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   237
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   237
        Modification of authorities to fund military construction 
          through payments-in-kind and to use residual value 
          payments-in-kind (sec. 2801)...........................   237
        Extension and modification of temporary, limited 
          authority to use operation and maintenance funds for 
          construction projects in certain areas outside the 
          United States (sec. 2802)..............................   238
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   238
        Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative 
          expenses associated with real property leases and 
          easements (sec. 2811)..................................   238
        Application of cash payments received for utilities and 
          services (sec. 2812)...................................   238
        Modification of authority to enter into long-term 
          contracts for receipt of utility services as 
          consideration for utility systems conveyances (sec. 
          2813)..................................................   238
        Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura 
          County, California (sec. 2814).........................   238
    Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military 
      Realignment................................................   239
        Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region 
          (sec. 2821)............................................   239
        Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam 
          realignment (sec. 2822)................................   239
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   239
        Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii 
          (sec. 2831)............................................   239
        Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832).......   239
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   239
        Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 
          Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
          Security Studies (sec. 2841)...........................   239
    Items of Special Interest....................................   239
        Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings...   239
        Homeowners Assistance Program............................   240
        Military Construction Project Data Sheets................   241
        Scope of work variations for military construction 
          projects...............................................   242
        Traffic safety...........................................   242
        U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific.   243
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   245
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   245
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations 
      Overview...................................................   245
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   246
            Weapons activities...................................   246
            Directed stockpile work..............................   246
            Campaigns............................................   247
            Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations..............   248
            Secure transportation asset..........................   248
            Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information 
              Officer............................................   248
            Naval Reactors.......................................   249
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............   249
            Nonproliferation and verification research and 
              development........................................   249
            Nonproliferation and international security..........   250
            International nuclear materials protection and 
              cooperation........................................   250
            Fissile Materials Disposition program................   250
            Global threat reduction initiative...................   251
            Nuclear counterterrorism incident response...........   251
            Office of the Administrator..........................   251
        Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................   251
            Savannah River Site..................................   251
            Waste Treatment Plant................................   252
            Hanford Site.........................................   252
            Idaho National Laboratory............................   252
            Los Alamos National Laboratory.......................   252
            Oak Ridge Reservation................................   252
            Office of River Protection...........................   253
            Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..........................   253
            Security.............................................   253
            Technology Development...............................   253
            Program Direction....................................   253
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   253
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   254
        Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program 
          Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration 
          (sec. 3111)............................................   254
        Plan for improvement and integration of financial 
          management of nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112)..   254
        Certification of security measures at atomic energy 
          defense facilities (sec. 3113).........................   255
        Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the 
          stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114)..............   255
        Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115)................   256
        Authorization of modular building strategy as an 
          alternative to the replacement project for the 
          Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building, Los Alamos 
          National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116)............   256
        Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117)....   256
        Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on 
          life extension programs and new nuclear facilities 
          (sec. 3118)............................................   256
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................   256
        Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the 
          National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121)...   256
        Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis 
          of management and operating contracts of the National 
          Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3122)............   256
        Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to 
          program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation 
          (sec. 3123)............................................   257
        Modification of certain reports on cost containment for 
          uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124)...   257
        Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory 
          Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security 
          Enterprise (sec. 3125).................................   257
    Subtitle D--Technical Corrections............................   257
        Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security 
          Administration Act (sec. 3131).........................   257
        Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act 
          (sec. 3132)............................................   257
    Budget Item..................................................   257
            Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
              Decommissioning Fund...............................   257
    Items of Special Interest....................................   258
            B-61 Mod 12 life extension program...................   258
            Review of National Nuclear Security Administration 
              Capital Projects...................................   258
            Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project.....   259
        Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear 
          facilities that will be transferred to the Department 
          of Energy Office of Environmental Management...........   260
        Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to 
          conferences and other venues of benefit to the NNSA 
          mission................................................   260
        Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the 
          Atomic Energy Defense Act..............................   260
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   261
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   261
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   263
        Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)......................   263
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   265
        Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)...   265
        Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal 
          Year 2014 Table........................................   267
        National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table......   273
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   277
        Procurement (sec. 4101)..................................   278
        Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 
          4102)..................................................   317
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   327
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)..   328
        Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 
          contingency operations (sec. 4202).....................   359
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   361
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)....................   362
        Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency 
          operations (sec. 4302).................................   377
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   387
        Military personnel (sec. 4401)...........................   388
        Military personnel for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4402)............................................   388
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   391
        Other authorizations (sec. 4501).........................   391
        Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4502)............................................   395
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   397
        Military construction (sec. 4601)........................   398
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   415
        Department of Energy national security authorizations 
          (sec. 4701)............................................   416
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS.........................................   427
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   427
        Committee Action.........................................   427
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   429
        Regulatory Impact........................................   429
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   430
ADDITIONAL VIEWS.................................................   431
        Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe...........................   431
        Additional Views of Mr. McCain...........................   438
        Additional Views of Mr. Ayotte...........................   442
        Additional Views of Mr. Vitter...........................   448
        Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 
          Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Messrs. Vitter, 
          Blunt, and Cruz........................................   450
        Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe and Sessions, Ms. 
          Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Vitter...................   453
                                                        Calendar No. 91
113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     113-44

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


AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 
         STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                 June 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1197]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities 
of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2014;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2014;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2014;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2014; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2014.

Committee overview

    The United States armed forces have been involved in armed 
conflict since September 11, 2001. Now, after almost twelve 
years of continuous conflict, U.S. forces are drawing down in 
Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. By the end of 
2014, the United States plans to have completed the transition 
of security responsibility in Afghanistan to the Afghanistan 
National Security Forces (ANSF). Already, there are clear signs 
that Afghan security forces are capable of taking the fight to 
the Taliban, and are doing so effectively.
    Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious 
security challenges around the globe.
    In the Middle East, the situation in Syria continues to 
grow worse, with the death toll rising, the refugee population 
rapidly growing, the extremist al Nusrah Front expanding, the 
security of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in doubt, and 
the risk of regional instability increasing, while Iran 
continues to flout the international community with its 
unacceptable pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.
    In the Asia-Pacific region, the dictatorial North Korean 
regime has made a series of belligerent declarations, while 
announcing its intention to restart plutonium production, 
testing a nuclear device, putting a satellite in orbit using 
technologies associated with long range ballistic missiles, and 
displaying a road-mobile missile launcher.
    Al Qaeda continues to demonstrate an ability to mutate and 
exploit safe havens in areas such as North Africa, the Horn of 
Africa, and Yemen. While weakened, al Qaeda and its associated 
forces remain focused on carrying out terrorist activities 
against the United States and U.S. interests around the world.
    Here at home, the United States remains uniquely vulnerable 
to attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the 
provision of public services, and to national security.
    The men and women of our armed forces have worked honorably 
and courageously to take on these challenges on our behalf, 
often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to 
themselves and their families. The committee, the Congress, and 
the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this 
service.
    To date in this First Session of the 113th Congress, the 
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings and 
formal briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2014, threats to our national security, and related 
matters. In order to provide a framework for the consideration 
of these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines for 
its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows:
    1. Sustain the quality of life of the men and women of the 
all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) 
and their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian 
personnel, through fair pay, policies and benefits, and address 
the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and 
their families.
    2. Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking action 
aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the 
military services to conduct the full range of their assigned 
missions.
    3. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, 
training, technology, equipment, and authorities they will need 
to succeed in future combat, counterinsurgency, and stability 
operations.
    4. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces to 
support the ANSF and Afghan Local Police as the lead 
responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan transitions 
to the ANSF.
    5. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces and the 
security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al 
Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremist 
organizations.
    6. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter 
emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, 
cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and their means of delivery.
    7. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials 
by strengthening nonproliferation programs, maintaining a 
credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety, security and 
reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the 
nuclear infrastructure.
    8. Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and 
activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense 
expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit problems. 
Ensure the future capability, viability, and fiscal 
sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
    9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels 
and seek greater energy security and independence and pursue 
technological advances in traditional and alternative energy 
storage, power systems, operational energy tactical advantages, 
renewable energy production, and more energy efficient ground, 
air, and naval systems.
    10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the 
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant 
laws and regulations.
    11. At the same time, the committee remains deeply 
concerned about the continuing impact of sequestration on the 
United States armed forces, and on U.S. national security. 
While the committee has endeavored to address some of the 
adverse impacts of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 on the 
Department of Defense, the bill recommended by the committee 
uses the budget level commonly recommended by the President, 
the Senate, and the House of Representatives as a guidepost. 
None of these budgets accounts for the possibility of continued 
sequestration in fiscal year 2014.
    12. Our senior military leaders have uniformly cautioned 
Congress and the American people that the continuation of 
sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will damage our security and 
harm the troops they lead.
    The Secretary of Defense testified that continued 
sequestration will ``require dramatic reductions in core 
military capabilities'' and ``the scope and activities of our 
[armed forces around the] world.'' The Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff warned the committee that it will ``severely 
limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will 
put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break 
faith with men and women in uniform.''
    The Secretary of the Army told the committee: ``Simply put, 
to continue sequestration into fiscal year '14 and beyond would 
not only be irresponsible [and] devastating to the force, but 
it would also directly hamper our ability to . . . provide 
sufficiently trained and ready forces to protect our national 
interests.'' The Chief of Staff of the Army testified:

          ``The fiscal year '13 fiscal situation will have 
        grave and immediate readiness impacts on all forces not 
        serving in Afghanistan or forward in Korea--impacts 
        which will have a significant impact well into fiscal 
        year '14 and beyond. Just a few of the actions we will 
        be forced to take are, for example, we'll curtail 
        training for 80 percent of ground forces. This will 
        impact our units' basic warfighting skills and induce 
        shortfalls across critical specialties, including 
        aviation, intelligence, engineering, and even our 
        ability to recruit soldiers into our Army. . . . For 
        fiscal year '14 and beyond, sequestration will result 
        in the loss of at least an additional 100,000 
        personnel, soldiers from the active Army, the Army 
        National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. . . . 
        Sequestration will result in delays to every one of our 
        10 major modernization programs, the inability to re-
        set our equipment after 12 years of war, and 
        unacceptable reductions in unit and individual 
        training. . . . It will place an unreasonable burden on 
        the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians. . . . If 
        we do not have the resources to train and equip the 
        force, our soldiers, our young men and women, are the 
        ones who will pay the price, potentially with their 
        lives.''

    The Chief of Naval Operations testified that sequestration 
``would fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized, 
trained and equipped.'' If sequestration is allowed to remain 
in place in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, he told the committee:

          ``[O]ur Navy may be a fleet of around 230 ships. That 
        would be a loss of more than 50 ships, including the 
        loss of at least two carrier strike groups. We would be 
        compelled to retire ships early and reduce procurement 
        of new ships and aircraft. This would result in a 
        requisite reduction in our end strength. Every program 
        will be affected and . . . programs such as the F-35 
        Lightning II, next generation ballistic missile 
        submarine and Littoral Combat Ship might be reduced or 
        terminated. Inevitably, these changes will severely 
        damage our industrial base. Some shipyards will not be 
        able to sustain steady construction or maintenance 
        operations and may close or be inactivated. Aviation 
        depots will reduce their operations or become idle. 
        Aircraft and weapons manufacturers will slow or stop 
        their work entirely. In particular, the small firms 
        that are often the sole source for particular ship and 
        aircraft components will quickly be forced to shut 
        down. Once these companies and their engineers and 
        craftspeople move on to other work, they are hard to 
        reconstitute, sometimes impossible, at a later date 
        when our national security demands it.''

    Even before the imposition of further sequestration cuts in 
fiscal year 2014, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the 
committee, the Navy will have to ``reduce intermediate-level 
ship maintenance, defer an additional 84 aircraft and 184 
engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight of 33 planned 
depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities. At our 
shore bases, we have deferred about 16% of our planned FY13 
shore facility sustainment and upgrades, about $1 billion worth 
of work. . . . By the end of FY13, a majority of our non-
deployed ships and aviation squadrons--nearly two thirds of the 
fleet--will be less than fully mission capable and not 
certified for Major Combat Operations.''
    The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated: ``Sequestration 
will leave ships in ports, aircraft grounded for want of 
necessary maintenance and flying hours, units only partially 
trained and reset after 12 years of continuous combat, and 
modernization programs canceled.'' The result, he added, would 
be ``a lapse in American leadership'' that ``will have a 
deleterious effect on the stability of global order, the 
perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence of our allies.'' 
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that as 
a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 alone: ``The 
Marine Corps will have 44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions 
across all type/model/series that will not occur as a result of 
sequestration reduction to the FY13 budget. Of the 44 aircraft, 
23 are F/A-18A-D aircraft. This will result in less aircraft 
available for assignment to Marine F/A-18 squadrons and reduce 
the assets available for training and operational support. . . 
. The long term effect on non-deployed F/A-18 squadrons is the 
inability of the unit to achieve and maintain minimum combat 
readiness required for follow-on deployments.''
    The Secretary of the Air Force told the committee that 
sequestration will ``severely degrade Air Force readiness.'' He 
explained:

          ``Lost flight hours will cause unit stand downs which 
        will result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat 
        readiness degradation. We have already ceased 
        operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber 
        force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected 
        units will be unable to meet emergent or operations 
        plans requirements. Lost currency training requires six 
        months to a year to return to current suboptimal 
        levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers 
        requiring even longer. . . . Depot delays will also 
        result in the grounding of some affected aircraft. The 
        deferments mean idled production shops, a degradation 
        of workforce proficiency and productivity, and 
        corresponding future volatility and operational costs. 
        It can take two-to-three years to recover full 
        restoration of depot workforce productivity and 
        proficiency. . . . All of these sequestration impacts 
        negatively affect Air Force full-spectrum readiness at 
        a time when we have been striving to reverse a 
        declining trend in this critical area. . . . 
        Sequestration cuts to Air Force modernization will 
        impact every one of our investment programs. These 
        program disruptions will, over time, cost more taxpayer 
        dollars to rectify contract restructures and program 
        inefficiencies, raise unit costs, and delay delivery of 
        validated capabilities to warfighters in the field. The 
        drastic reduction to modernization programs reduces our 
        Air Force's competitive advantage and decreases the 
        probability of mission success. . . .''

    The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force warned: ``Lost 
flight hours will cause unit stand-downs which will result in 
severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. 
We have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter 
and bomber force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected 
units will be unable to meet emergent or operations plans 
requirements. Lost currency training requires six months to a 
year to return to current sub-optimal levels, with desired 
flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer.''
    Our country relies on the men and women of our military and 
the civilians who support them to keep us safe, and to help us 
meet U.S. national security objectives around the world. We 
expect them to put their lives on the line every day, and in 
return we tell them that we will stand by them and their 
families, that we will provide them the best training, the best 
equipment, and the best support available to any military 
anywhere in the world. Sequestration in fiscal year 2013 is 
already undermining that commitment. The testimony of our 
military leaders is clear: if sequestration continues, our 
commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--and 
our national security itself--will be severely damaged.

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority 
        implication

    The Administration's budget request for national defense 
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2014 was $625.2 
billion. Of this amount, $526.6 billion was requested for base 
Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for 
overseas contingency operations, and $17.9 billion was 
requested for national security programs in the Department of 
Energy.
    The bill authorizes $625.1 billion for national defense 
discretionary programs for fiscal year 2014. This total 
includes $526.6 billion for base Department of Defense 
programs, $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations, 
and $17.8 billion for national security programs in the 
Department of Energy.
    The Administration's fiscal year 2014 budget for national 
defense also included discretionary programs outside the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 
discretionary programs that do not require further 
authorization and mandatory programs that are in current law. 
When these programs are added to the Administration's budget 
the request for national defense totaled $641.1 billion.
    The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments 
in division D of this report summarize the direct 
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for 
fiscal year 2014 defense programs. The first table summarizes 
committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction 
of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending 
from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which 
is outside the national defense budget function. The second 
table summarizes the total budget authority implication for 
national defense by adding funding for items that are not 
within the jurisdiction of this committee or are already 
authorized.

Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)

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

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to buy E-2D aircraft under a 
multiyear procurement contract. The Navy estimates that it 
stands to achieve a roughly 10 percent savings under the 
multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement 
contracts.

CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by: (1) in 
subsection (a)(1), striking ``$10,500,000,000'' and inserting 
``$12,887,000,000;'' (2) in subsection (b), adding a new factor 
for adjustment allowing increases or decreases in the cost of 
the ship that are attributable to the shipboard test program; 
and (3) changing the heading of the subsection to reflect that 
the name of the program has changed from CVN-21 to CVN-78.
    The provision would require a quarterly report providing 
the CVN-79 program manager's cost estimate for CVN-79. The 
provision would require the Navy to halt payment of fee on any 
cost-type or incentive fee contract associated with CVN-79 
until such time that the variance between the total program 
cost estimate and the mandated cost cap has been corrected.
    The changes in the CVN-78 cost cap are related to three 
major areas:
          (1) reflecting allowable changes in the original cost 
        cap due to economic inflation, changes in federal, 
        state, or local laws, changes in nonrecurring design 
        and engineering costs attributable to achieving 
        compliance with the cost limitation, and changes to 
        correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the 
        ship and personnel;
          (2) cost increases from the shipyard, resulting from 
        increases in labor costs, material costs, and design 
        costs, offset by a reduction in shipyard's fee; and
          (3) cost increases in government-furnished equipment.
    The cost increases in the latter two categories are changes 
outside the original, allowable changes in the cost cap, and 
are troublesome. The Navy had envisioned the CVN-78 and CVN-79 
(then called ``CVNX-1'' and ``CVNX-2'') as evolutionary ships 
that would implement new technologies gradually as they 
matured. However, the Department of Defense determined that 
planned incremental improvements for CVNX-1 did not justify the 
significant investments nor match the pace of technology, given 
the length of time needed to build the carrier. Instead, the 
CVNX-1 and CVNX-2 designs were combined into a single, 
transformational ship design, called ``CVN-21,'' with the 
intent to skip a generation of technology, while meeting 
operational timelines for delivery.
    This has resulted in cost increases in the shipyard, and 
costs increases in the new technologies developed and designed 
to be installed as government-furnished equipment. The shipyard 
has not been as efficient as it could be, but combining these 
two ships and maintaining the original construction schedule 
for operational reasons has resulted in reduced productivity 
and inefficiencies in the shipyard's effort. All told, this has 
resulted in roughly 40 percent of the reason to raise the cost 
cap.
    There have also been cost increases in the equipment beyond 
the control of the shipyard. These include the 
``transformational'' technologies of the electromagnetic 
aircraft launch system (EMALS), the dual-band radar (DBR), and 
advanced arresting gear (AAG). While each of these technologies 
represents an improvement in capability and promise substantial 
reductions in life cycle costs, collectively, these 
technologies resulted in roughly one third of the increase to 
the total construction costs of CVN-78.
    As a result of the scrutiny of the CVN-78 program, the Navy 
believes that they and the shipyard can deliver the CVN-79 
within the cost cap for the program recently adjusted by the 
Secretary of the Navy. This derives from a number of factors, 
including:
          (1) CVN-79 construction will start with a complete 
        design and a complete bill of material;
          (2) CVN-79 construction will start with a firm set of 
        stable requirements;
          (3) CVN-79 construction will start with the 
        development complete on a host of new technologies 
        inserted on CVN 78 ranging from the EMALS and DBR, to 
        key valves in systems throughout the ship; and
          (4) CVN-79 construction will start with a revised 
        construction plan that emphasizes the completion of 
        work and ship outfitting as early as possible in the 
        construction process to optimize cost and ultimately 
        schedule performance.
    The Administration and Congress chose to ignore the lessons 
repeatedly and painfully learned in previous shipbuilding 
programs that resulted in delays and cost increases. A decision 
to skip a generation of technology must be accompanied by an 
operational assessment of the need date for the operational 
capability and a plan to ensure new generations of technologies 
are developed, tested, and ready for installation at the 
optimum time during the construction of the ship. 
Unfortunately, the decision on the construction cycle for CVN-
78 construction was driven more by the need to replace the USS 
Enterprise at the end of her service life and the need to 
maintain workload and the industrial base of suppliers for the 
sole U.S. builder of aircraft carriers. The committee is 
committed to working with the Department of the Navy to ensure 
these lessons are not learned again in future Navy vessel 
construction.

Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future surface 
        combatants (sec. 123)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Under section 125, the 
Navy was prohibited from obligating or expending funds for 
construction of, or advance procurement of materials for, naval 
surface combatants to be constructed after fiscal year 2011 
until the Secretary of the Navy had provided specific reports 
to Congress. The report submitted by the Secretary of the Navy 
to Congress of February 2010 provided the Department of the 
Navy's implementation plan to complete these reports.

Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence, 
        surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 124)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 112 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require the 
Secretary of the Navy to maintain sufficient numbers of EP-3 
Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (ARIES 
II) Spiral 3 aircraft and Special Projects Aircraft (SPA) 
version P909 to support the wartime operational plans of U.S. 
Pacific Command (PACOM), and to maintain the capacity to 
support five EP-3s for allocation to the combatant commands 
under the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP), 
until the Navy's multi-intelligence Broad-Area Maritime 
Surveillance System Triton aircraft with signals intelligence 
(SIGINT) capabilities reaches initial operational capability 
(IOC). The provision also would require the Secretary to 
upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 ARIES II aircraft to the Spiral 3 
configuration, and to correct electronic intelligence (ELINT) 
obsolescence problems on both the EP-3 and the SPA aircraft. 
Finally, the provision would require the Chairman of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council to coordinate with the 
Commanders of PACOM and the U.S. Special Operations Command to 
determine requirements for the special capabilities provided by 
the SPA aircraft, and would require the Secretary to sustain 
sufficient numbers of SPA aircraft to meet those requirements 
until the Navy achieves IOC of a system with capabilities 
greater than or equal to the SPA.
    Section 112 of Public Law 111-383 was intended to prevent a 
trough in capabilities as the Navy developed replacements for 
the EP-3 and the SPA intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) systems. The committee is persuaded that 
the terms of that provision have not been effective in 
preventing such a trough. The Navy is planning to remove a 
large number of personnel from the EP-3 and SPA programs and to 
use those billets to stand up an early version of the Triton 
program. However, this version of Triton is purely a complement 
to the P-8 Maritime Patrol aircraft, and does not have SIGINT 
capabilities. The personnel reductions in the EP-3 and SPA 
fleets will have the effect of substantially reducing the 
number of aircraft that can be supported for GFMAP allocation 
and wartime operations plans. The multi-intelligence version of 
Triton, with a capable SIGINT suite, is not planned to achieve 
IOC until very late in this decade. Clearly, there will be a 
trough in ISR support for the combatant commands for a number 
of years if these plans are implemented.
    In addition, the ELINT systems on both the SPA and EP-3 
aircraft are very old and pose serious obsolescence problems. 
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 
authorization of funding to address these obsolescence 
problems, as well as to upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 primary 
aircraft authorization to the Spiral 3 configuration.

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in coordination with 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees on the current 
concept of operations and expected survivability attributes of 
each of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) sea frames when they 
would be employed according to the concept of operations.
    When addressing survivability attributes, the committee 
expects the CNO's report to deal specifically with: (1) 
comparative assessments of the survivability of the LCS sea 
frames with the survivability of other Navy combatants and with 
the adversarial surface combatants; and (2) operational 
assessments of the core defensive capabilities of each of the 
LCS sea frames, especially when employed against air threats 
expected to face the LCS under the concept of operations.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to consider, as part of the 
recapitalization of the tactical airlift fleet of the Air 
Force: (1) upgrades to legacy C-130H aircraft designed to help 
such aircraft meet the fuel economy goals of the Air Force; and 
(2) retention of such upgraded aircraft in the tactical airlift 
fleet. It would also require that the Secretary ensure that 
upgrades to the C-130H fleet are made in a manner that is 
proportional to the number of C-130H aircraft in the force 
structure of the active Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and 
the Air National Guard.
    Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber 
aircraft (sec. 132)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 131(a)(1) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364) by 
striking the term ``in a common capability configuration.'' The 
lack of a definition raises concerns about whether it could 
also apply to the aircraft's nuclear capabilities or other 
modifications and upgrades on the fleet.
    The committee notes that the President has yet to provide 
Congress the force reduction strategy to comply with the limits 
imposed by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), 
despite a requirement to do so by section 1042(a) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112--81; 125 Stat. 1575). Without such strategic guidance, 
the committee is unable to fully perform its oversight role, as 
well as evaluate and prioritize resources designated to support 
U.S. strategic forces.
    During a hearing on April 17, 2013, concerning Department 
of Defense nuclear force and policies, Senator Mark Udall, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Chairman asked Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn 
Creedon whether the fiscal year 2014 budget request reflected 
the New START force structure changes. Secretary Creedon 
responded that ``the way that the fiscal year 2014 budget 
request is structured is it allows both the Air Force and the 
Navy to continue their preparatory work that will support a 
decision that will be made in the context of fiscal year 2015 
to implement either a reduction in the total number of deployed 
and total number of delivery systems. . . . The decision as to 
which of these options we choose has not been made yet, but the 
way that the '14 budget structure is designed is to preserve 
the option as we get closer in time, as we understand more 
about the pros and cons of each option, and frankly also as we 
get more into where the whole geopolitical situation is going, 
where we're going with further discussions with Russia, it 
allows us to maintain that flexibility for as long as possible 
before we make a decision.''
    With the approaching New START deadline, it is more likely 
that the committee will be asked to consider changes to U.S. 
strategic force structure when it meets next year to review the 
fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee believes it is 
of great importance that the President provide this report, as 
well as other relevant documentation--such as the report 
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)--so that it may 
fully assess any proposed changes to U.S. strategic forces.
    The committee supports the Air Force's request that it 
adjust the current requirements relative to maintaining certain 
nuclear-capable bombers. However, given that the relevant 
strategic planning remains incomplete, the committee notes that 
any reduction, conversion, or decommissioning of nuclear-
certified strategic bombers must comply with the requirements 
of section 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
the Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired KC--135E 
        aircraft (sec. 133)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 135(b) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
Section 135(b) requires that the Secretary of the Air Force 
maintain at least 74 of the KC-135E aircraft retired after 
September 30, 2006 in a condition that would allow recall of 
the aircraft to future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air 
National Guard, or active forces aerial refueling force 
structure.
    Under the Defense Department's revised strategic guidance, 
the existing force of KC-10 and KC-135R tankers, along with 
modernization under the KC-46A program, the Air Force has 
sufficient tanker assets now and throughout the future years 
defense program to meet requirements without the need to 
reactivate any of the KC-135E aircraft. Therefore, there is 
little need to incur the expense of maintaining these 74 KC-
135E aircraft in a higher readiness status.

Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft by the Air 
        Force (sec. 134)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 
Secretary of the Air Force from obligating or expending any 
funds for the procurement of C-27J aircraft not already on 
contract as of June 1, 2013.

               Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to buy C-130J aircraft under a 
multiyear procurement contract for the Department of the Air 
Force and the Department of the Navy. The Air Force estimates 
that the Department of Defense stands to achieve a roughly 9.5 
percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to 
annual procurement contracts.

Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial base (sec. 
        152)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should take 
into consideration the health of the U.S. helicopter industrial 
base when building the Department's annual budget.

                              Budget Items


                                  Army


Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System

    The budget request included $142.1 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army, to procure four Enhanced Medium Altitude 
Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. In 
section 934, the committee recommends a provision that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force C-12 
Liberty aircraft to the Army and terminates the EMARSS 
procurement program. However, the Army will require funds to 
convert the Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS 
configuration to meet Army requirements. The committee directs 
that the EMARSS funds be utilized to convert the transferred 
Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration to 
meet Army requirements. Any funds remaining after all EMARSS 
conversions are complete may be used to recapitalize current 
Army MARSS aircraft.

UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter

    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA), for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. 
At the Army's request, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$20.0 million in APA for the UH-60M Black Hawk and an increase 
of $20.0 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and 
product improvement programs.

Paladin Integrated Management

    The budget request included $260.2 million in Procurement 
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the 
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). At the Army's request, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $40.7 million in WTCV for 
PIM and an increase of $40.7 million in PE 64854A for artillery 
systems engineering manufacturing and demonstration.

XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system

    The budget request included $69.1 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM25 counter 
defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25 is a grenade 
launcher that fires a 25mm projectile selectively programmed to 
detonate in the air at a designated range. The XM25 is intended 
to provide infantry and other units with a more precise 
capability to engage targets fighting from behind terrain, 
walls, or other protections.
    The committee understands that prototypes of this weapon 
were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed to 
Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment. A malfunction 
during this assessment has raised very serious questions about 
the safety and effectiveness of the weapon. The committee 
further understands that the Army is in the process of opening 
consideration of other available or developmental grenade 
launchers that are capable of firing programmable munitions.
    Given the unreliable performance of the XM25 and the Army's 
review of alternative air burst weapon systems, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $69.1 million in WCTV for the XM25 
counter defilade target engagement weapon system.

Carbine

    The budget request included $70.8 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Army's small arms 
carbine program. The committee notes that $49.5 million of this 
would be for the procurement of a replacement carbine 
identified as the result of a competitive evaluation.
    The committee understands that the Army has reached a 
decision not to continue with the individual carbine 
competitive evaluation program. Therefore, the committee 
concludes that funds to procure a replacement carbine are no 
longer needed and recommends a decrease of $49.5 million in 
WTCV. The committee supports procurement of M4Al carbines as 
requested in the budget.
    Based on the Army's decision to terminate this effort, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to 
provide the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 
days after termination, a briefing on the justification for 
this decision and a revised small arms modernization strategy. 
The committee believes that a stable small arms modernization 
program is essential and should be a key element of the Army's 
overarching modernization strategy moving forward. A revised 
small arms strategy should include a description of M4A1 
procurements required annually to sustain the force until a 
next generation small arms program is established.

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

    The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $112.1 million was for 5.56mm, 
$58.5 million was for 7.62mm, $80.0 million was for .50 
caliber, and $69.5 million was for 30mm.
    The Department of Defense has identified specific amounts 
in these ammunition accounts, in the fiscal year 2014 base 
budget request, for reduction as a result of competition, 
reduced unit costs, and/or reduced requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $74.5 
million in PAA: $25.0 million in 5.56mm, $5.0 million in 
7.62mm, $25.0 million in .50 caliber, and $19.5 million in 
30mm.

25mm reduction

    The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $16.5 million was for 25mm.
    The committee notes that per fiscal year 2014 Army budget 
documentation, the XM1083 high explosive air burst (HEAB) and 
the XM1081 target practice (TP) ammunition for the Individual 
Counter Defilade Weapon System are not approved for service 
use.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 
million in PAA, 25mm: $8.8 million for XM1083 HEAB, and $1.5 
million for XM1081 TP.

                                  Navy


Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft

    The budget request included in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 
$55.9 million for the EP-3 series aircraft, and $3.7 million 
for the Special Projects Aircraft (SPA). Elsewhere in this 
report, the committee recommends a provision that would require 
the Secretary of the Navy to sustain these two aircraft fleets 
until the end of the decade, when replacement programs are 
scheduled to achieve initial operational capability.
    To sustain the ability of these systems to support the 
combatant commands with the capacity and capabilities required, 
several actions are necessary. One, the Navy needs to complete 
the Spiral 3 upgrade to all 12 of the EP-3 primary aircraft 
authorization, rather than stopping at 11, as proposed in this 
budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
additional $8.0 million for EP-3 series procurement.
    Two, due to the extreme ages of the electronics on certain 
sensors on these aircraft, the Navy faces serious obsolescence 
problems in the EP-3 and SPA fleets. The Navy's Multi-
Intelligence Sensor Development project is developing sensors 
for the future MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance 
system that could correct the obsolescence problems for the EP-
3 and SPA aircraft. The committee recommends authorization of 
$14.0 million for EP-3 series procurement, and $5.0 million for 
SPA procurement to procure and install these sensors, which 
will introduce new capabilities into the fleet before the 
Triton multi-intelligence version achieves operational status.
    Three, the committee recommends authorization of an 
additional $5.0 million for the SPA program office in the SPA 
procurement line to sustain engineering, integration, and 
technical services support.

Close-in weapon system modifications

    The budget request included $56.3 million to purchase and 
install various modifications for the close-in weapon system 
(CIWS), including $7.7 million for reliability, 
maintainability, and availability (RMA) kits. The CIWS is the 
primary, last ditch self defense system in the Navy fleet.
    The Navy has begun experiencing reliability problems with 
the latest CIWS version, the Block 1B. To deal with these 
issues, the Navy has developed the RMA kit that will fix known 
reliability problems and also deal with issues of parts 
obsolescence. The Navy can install the RMA kits dockside, 
without having to send the CIWS or its modules to the depot. In 
addition, installing these kits will allow the Navy to extend 
time between major CIWS overhauls, while still maintaining an 
acceptable level of operational availability.
    The committee believes that the Navy should move more 
expeditiously on fielding these kits to the fleet, and 
recommends an increase of $6.4 million to buy 24 additional RMA 
kits.

Afloat forward staging base

    The budget request included $134.9 million in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for the third mobile landing 
platform (MLP-3) for which the bulk of the funding was provided 
in fiscal year 2012. The request also included $524.0 million 
in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), to procure the 
fourth mobile landing platform (MLP-4).
    The Navy planned to use NDSF funds to complete MLP-3 as the 
first afloat forward staging base (AFSB-1) platform and use the 
SCN funds to buy MLP-4 as the second afloat forward staging 
base (AFSB-2). As a result of reviewing requirements for the 
AFSB program, the Navy has decided that some funding in the 
request needs to be shifted from the NDSF account to the SCN 
account, that some funds in the NDSF budget request are now not 
required to execute the AFSB program in either account.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase to SCN of 
$55.3 million and a decrease to the NDSF of $112.2 million.

DDG-51

    The budget request for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 
(SCN), included $1,615.6 million to purchase one DDG-51 
destroyer, and $388.6 million in advance procurement to buy 
DDG-51 destroyers in later years. This would be the second year 
of a multiyear contract for the DDG-51 program.
    Congress added $1.0 billion to the fiscal year 2013 budget 
request to purchase an additional DDG-51 beyond the two DDG-51s 
in the budget request. After the implementation of 
sequestration earlier this year, the Navy found that 
sequestration left the Navy several hundred million dollars 
short of having enough funds to award the contract for the 
third ship.
    The committee specifically recommended multiyear 
procurement authority last year that allowed for buying this 
extra ship and believes that the Navy should buy the extra ship 
to help meet force structure shortfalls.
    The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in 
SCN for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs to help 
buy this additional DDG-51.

                               Air Force


MQ-9

    The budget request included $272.2 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the MQ-9 program to buy 12 
aircraft and to pay for various production support activities. 
According to program officials, the program has $30.0 million 
in fiscal year 2012 APAF funds that are excess to program 
needs, since some planned aircraft procurements for fiscal year 
2012 were delayed until fiscal year 2013. These funds could be 
used to pay for other activities within the MQ-9 program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million in fiscal year 2014 for procurement of MQ-9, which the 
Air Force can offset with the available prior year funds.

Reaper synthetic aperture radar

    The budget request included $35.0 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of upgrades to the 
Lynx synthetic aperture radar system for the Reaper unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV). This request would be the first year of 
retrofits for what is planned to be a procurement costing 
$125.0 million over the future-years defense program.
    The committee recommends no funding for this program. There 
is insufficient justification for upgrading this system because 
field studies and Air Force subject matter experts acknowledge 
that the system is almost never used. Furthermore, the upgrade 
is intended to provide a rudimentary dismount moving target 
indication (MTI) capability, while the Air Force is separately 
funding a robust dismount MTI radar program for the Reaper UAV.

C-130 aircraft modifications

    The fiscal year 2014 budget request did not request funding 
for the C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but 
included $9.9 million for communication, navigation, 
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $4.3 
million for upgrading cockpit voice and digital data recorders 
(CVR/DVR) for legacy C-130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, 
Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the 
legacy C-130 aircraft until the fiscal year 2013 budget request 
was the C-130 AMP. When the Air Force announced a decision to 
cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial 
production and had delivered five aircraft, four additional 
kits, and training devices.
    Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) prevented the Secretary 
of the Air Force from canceling or modifying the avionics 
modernization program for C-130 aircraft until 90 days after he 
submits a cost-benefit analysis comparing the original C-130 
AMP with a program that would upgrade and modernize the legacy 
C-130 airlift fleet using a reduced scope program for avionics 
and mission planning systems. Earlier this year, the Air Force 
contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to 
conduct this study. The Air Force indicates that the study 
results should be available later in calendar year 2013.
    The committee strongly supports modernization of the 
Nation's legacy C-130 fleet, and fears that the delay in the 
awarding the study contract will cause the Air Force to lose 
another year in modernizing the legacy C-130 fleet. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $47.3 million in APAF 
to fund modifications of legacy C-130 with either: (1) the 
original AMP upgrade; or (2) an alternative program that would 
upgrade and modernize the legacy C-130 airlift fleet using a 
reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning 
systems. The use of these funds and the use of the funds for 
CNS/ATM and CVR/DVR upgrades included in the budget should be 
informed by the results of the IDA study. The committee directs 
that none of these funds be obligated or expended until 90 days 
after the Secretary submits the IDA report. The committee also 
reminds the Air Force that the restrictions in section 143 
continue to apply.

                              Defense-wide


MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $1.89 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide, for the acquisition and support of special 
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is 
responsible for the development and acquisition of special 
operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively 
carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding 
collateral damage.
    The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of 
funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to 
provide for the development, integration, and testing of 
additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps 
on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this 
reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $13.0 million 
in Procurement, Defense-wide, to field additional capabilities 
for the MQ-9 UAV.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts 
to find and take advantage of opportunities to develop joint 
programs that can reduce costs and meet service requirements. 
In this regard the committee notes that the Marine Corps has 
developed a weapon system that transforms the standard 2.75-
inch Hydra-type rocket into laser-guided precision munitions. 
The advantages of a smaller precision-guided rocket are 
apparent, not just in terms of reduced cost but also 
operational effectiveness as the lower weight of each rocket 
allows an aircraft to carry more of them increasing the number 
of engagements possible per sortie. The committee recognizes, 
however, that a new smaller, precision-guided rocket must be a 
capability integrated with each services' other air-to-ground 
rocket and missile portfolios. The Air Force, for example, is 
in the process of qualifying this precision rocket on a variety 
of its multi-role combat aircraft.
    Given efforts to date by the Marine Corps and the Air 
Force, and the potential for achieving a precision engagement 
capability at a significantly reduced cost, the committee is 
interested to know the Army's analysis of this capability as 
part of its portfolio of armed helicopter rocket and missile 
munitions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional defense 
committees, not later than December 1, 2013, on the Army's 
assessment of its current and future requirements and 
capabilities for air-to-ground precision-guided rocket and 
missile munitions.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the Government Accountability Office to provide the 
congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 
2013, with an assessment of each of the services' ground-attack 
rocket and missile programs. This assessment shall examine 
where there are potential redundancies in service air-to-ground 
rocket and missile programs; make recommendations where the 
services could benefit from a consolidation of these 
requirements and capabilities; and identify the savings, if 
any, associated with the consolidation of such programs.

Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle fuel 
        efficiency

    The committee notes the commitment of the Army and Marine 
Corps to reduce the operational fuel consumption of their 
current and future armored vehicles. The benefits of lower fuel 
consumption without sacrificing performance include not only 
reduced cost, but also reduced vulnerability of theater 
logistics storage and resupply activity, and increased 
operational flexibility. This is consistent with congressional 
intent found in section 2911 of title 10, United States Code, 
requiring consideration of fuel logistics support requirements 
in planning, requirements development, and acquisition 
processes.
    The committee is aware of efforts on the part of the Army 
and Marine Corps to implement consideration of the fully 
burdened cost of fuel into its plans for reset, upgrade, and 
modernization of their armored vehicle fleets as well as in the 
requirements determination and development of their next 
generation armored vehicles. In this regard the committee is 
interested to learn more about Army and Marine Corps efforts to 
reduce fuel consumption that could result in near-term savings.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and 
Acquisition, or their designees, to provide the congressional 
defense committees with briefings on their plans and efforts to 
achieve improved fuel efficiency in their current armored 
vehicle fleets. These briefings, by armored vehicle type, shall 
include, but not be limited to, the Army and Marine Corps 
priorities and objectives, plans and schedules for research and 
development, investments to date and planned over the future-
years defense program, government and commercial research and 
development efforts including testing results that illustrate 
technological challenges and potential, and an assessment of 
the competitive environment for development and production of 
capable and affordable technologies to achieve greater fuel 
efficiency. The Secretaries shall provide these briefings not 
later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Close air support requirements

    The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to replace the F-16 
and A-10 in the Air Force inventory. The A-10 has served as the 
Air Force's primary close air support asset, having been 
designed for that specific mission with characteristics that 
permit it to operate and maneuver at low altitude and slow 
speeds. The aircraft is also heavily armored to ensure the 
highest survivability for the pilot and vital aircraft systems.
    To ensure that the Department of Defense is not heading 
toward a situation where there may be gaps in capability to 
meet close air support requirements when the A-10 is retired, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a study 
to determine whether there will be any shortfalls in capability 
that will be incurred when the Air Force transitions from a 
fleet having A-10 aircraft to a fleet consisting entirely of F-
22 and F-35 aircraft. If there are any gaps between 
capabilities and requirements, the Secretary of the Air Force 
should present alternatives for meeting those requirements. The 
Secretary shall submit this study with the fiscal year 2015 
budget submission.

Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program

    The Navy is developing the Ford-class nuclear powered 
aircraft carrier (CVN-78) to serve as the future centerpiece of 
the carrier strike group. Ford-class carriers will introduce 
several advanced technologies that are intended to create 
operational efficiencies while enabling higher sortie rates 
with reduced manpower compared to current carriers. As 
discussed elsewhere in this report, however, these new 
technologies have led to cost and schedule problems in 
constructing the first ship of the class.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently 
reported on significant technology delays, construction 
inefficiencies, testing shortfalls, and cost and schedule 
pressures currently facing CVN-78. The committee remains 
concerned that these issues could delay and limit demonstration 
of eventual CVN-78 capabilities and potentially affect cost, 
schedule, and performance outcomes for the next ship, CVN-79.
    Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of 
the Navy to report what program management and cost control 
measures the Navy will employ in constructing the second Ford-
class aircraft carrier. The Secretary of the Navy's report in 
response to that requirement identified a number of changes in 
the way CVN-79 will be built that will help improve on the 
performance on CVN-78.
    In light of these concerns, the committee directs the GAO 
to undertake a follow-on review of Ford-class carrier 
acquisition program. Specifically, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General to review:
          (1) program management and cost control measures the 
        Navy plans to employ in constructing the CVN-79 ship, 
        as identified in its May 2013 report to Congress, in 
        order to determine the extent to which these may be 
        effective in controlling costs. As part of this 
        analysis, the Comptroller General should evaluate the 
        Navy's plans for executing the detail design and 
        construction contract for CVN-79, and should pay 
        particular attention to components of the Navy's plan 
        intended to accommodate remaining schedule risk in the 
        CVN-78 building program;
          (2) sufficiency of the Navy's post-delivery test 
        plans for CVN-78 in facilitating timely demonstration 
        of ship capabilities. As part of this analysis, the 
        Comptroller General should evaluate the extent to which 
        land-based testing delays for critical ship 
        technologies have complicated the Navy's planned post-
        delivery testing activities and schedule;
          (3) Department of Defense (DOD) analysis underpinning 
        the Navy's current capability estimates for CVN-78, 
        progress made in meeting the ship's capability 
        requirements, and gaps that may exist between the 
        likely performance of the ship and its major capability 
        requirements; and
          (4) maturity and implementation of plans by the 
        shipbuilder to manage the workforce during concurrent 
        construction of CVN-78 and CVN-79.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
submit a report on his review to the congressional defense 
committees by April 30, 2014.

Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship program

    The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is intended 
to be a relatively smaller, more affordable vessel than 
cruisers or destroyers that carries modular payloads supporting 
the anti-surface warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti-
submarine warfare mission area.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently 
reported to the committee on significant concerns about the LCS 
program.
    In light of these concerns, the committee directs GAO to 
undertake a follow-on review of LCS acquisition program. 
Specifically, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
review:
          (1) seaframe production and testing, including:
                  (a) seaframe developmental test activities 
                and changes made to correct deficiencies 
                identified during testing to date;
                  (b) weight management for both variants of 
                the seaframe;
                  (c) Navy plans for verifying survivability, 
                including the use of surrogate aluminum 
                structures; and
                  (d) plans for achieving greater commonality 
                between the variants, and progress made in 
                executing such plans;
          (2) mission module development and testing, including 
        developmental test activities and changes the Navy 
        plans to correct deficiencies identified during testing 
        to date;
          (3) lessons the Navy may be learning from the 
        deployment of LCS-1 to Singapore;
          (4) results of Navy studies on LCS requirements and 
        technical capabilities, and any recommendations for 
        changes to the design and/or capabilities of either the 
        current LCS configurations or potential future LCS 
        configurations;
          (5) role of the LCS Council in overseeing LCS 
        acquisition and fleet introduction.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
submit a report on his review to the congressional defense 
committees by April 30, 2014.

Defense ground radar programs

    The Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111-35) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) raised concerns regarding the requirements, 
capabilities, and affordability of the Marine Corps TPS-80 
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR). While the TPS-80 G/
ATOR program has made progress recently, the committee notes 
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of March 
2013 titled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected 
Weapon Programs'' (GAO-13-294SP) found that the G/ATOR program 
has more than doubled in unit cost, total program costs, and 
research and development costs since the program began in 2005.
    The Senate report also noted that the Marine Corps was at 
that time reviewing the G/ATOR mobile ground multi-mode radar 
program for possible joint development with the Army.
    Now, each of the military departments is pursuing separate 
ground radar programs, including the Army TPQ-53, the Marine 
Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force TPS-78 and TPS-703. The 
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has 
failed to find a material solution to meet common requirements 
for a mobile ground multi-mode radar capability and may be 
missing an opportunity to develop a joint program that meets 
the majority of service requirements while reducing unit costs 
and saving money. The committee believes that the fiscal 
realities demand that the services look for every opportunity 
to develop joint programs, reduce costs, and meet valid service 
requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Vice Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, or designee, to provide the 
congressional defense committees a classified or unclassified 
briefing, not later than December 1, 2013, on the analysis, 
evaluation, and decision-making process of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council with respect to the validation 
and approval of separate requirements and acquisition programs 
for the Army TPQ-53, the Marine Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force 
TPS-78 and TPS-703.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later 
than December 1, 2013, an assessment of each of the services' 
ground radar programs. This assessment shall include a review 
of requirements and capabilities identifying redundancies, if 
any, and the degree of redundancy among the programs. The 
Comptroller General shall also include an assessment of the 
feasibility and acceptability of establishing a joint ground 
radar program and an estimate of program cost increases or 
decreases should such a joint program be established.

Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories

    Throughout the past several years, the committee has 
expressed concern that the Navy is facing a sizeable gap in 
aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D retire before the 
aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter is 
available to replace them. In any case, the F/A-18E/F will be a 
critical part of the Navy's fleet for the next 25 years, 
complementing the Navy's F-35C. The F-35C is expected to reach 
initial operational capability in late 2018.
    Additionally, the Navy now intends to inspect legacy F/A-
18A-D aircraft periodically above 8,000 flight hours, in 
combination with executing a service life extension program 
(SLEP) on 150 of those aircraft, in an effort to extend a 
portion of the inventory to 10,000 hours. As yet, the Navy does 
not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for 
aircraft being inducted into the SLEP. The current SLEP 
engineering analysis has not been completed. In addition, the 
costs and schedules associated with the Navy's plans remain 
unknown. As a result, executing the Navy's plan could 
negatively impact the tactical aviation shortfall, as there are 
already reports of aircraft backed up at Navy depots awaiting 
parts and maintenance. The committee understands that more than 
42 percent of the legacy F/A-18A-D aircraft, approximately 260 
aircraft, are currently out of service awaiting some form of 
maintenance, inspection, or repair.
    The committee believes a strong carrier-based fleet is 
vital as part of the increased emphasis on the Pacific region. 
This emphasis requires the Navy to have a viable fleet of both 
F/A-18E/F and F-35C aircraft to avoid creating a risk for the 
Navy's future strike fighter force structure.

Ejection seats

    The committee understands that aging and heavy operating 
tempo have caused metal fatigue and corrosion in legacy 
ejection seats. Moreover, the incorporation of helmet-mounted 
displays and devices creates a situation for pilots that the 
legacy seats were never intended to accommodate during an 
ejection event. This leads to increased risks for pilot 
survival during high speed ejections.
    The committee understands that newer ejection seats can 
effectively address these issues, while at the same time 
providing simplified maintenance and increasing aircraft 
availability. Furthermore, recent seat safety enhancement 
features provide for greatly improved safety for aircrew using 
current operational helmet-mounted displays, thereby reducing 
the possibility of head, neck, and spinal cord injuries.
    For these reasons, the committee encourages the Air Force 
to evaluate a program or programs to replace the 1970s-designed 
ejection seats currently equipping most legacy fighter and 
bomber aircraft, paying particular attention to improving crew 
safety and reducing operation and support costs.

Enhanced performance round versus special operations science and 
        technology round

    The committee notes that the Army has developed and begun 
to field a 5.56mm enhanced performance round (EPR) which has 
the potential to demonstrate improved performance against hard 
and soft targets, in addition to other small caliber 
ammunition. The committee notes that the Marine Corps has begun 
testing on the use of the special operations science and 
technology (SOST) round which also has an opportunity to 
demonstrate similar effects. The committee understands the 
Marine Corps is conducting a review and comparison of the EPR 
versus the SOST round.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to 
prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the status 
and progress of the EPR versus SOST round review no later than 
September 1, 2013.

F-35 production rate

    The committee believes that the continued development and 
funding of all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
is critical to maintaining U.S. air dominance. The committee 
supported restructuring the program to keep production 
remaining flat for the past 4 years to reduce concurrency risk 
and allow the program to make additional progress in the 
testing program before ramping up production.
    The committee notes that the program has been executing 
close to the planned testing and development schedule. The 
Marine Corps will declare initial operational capability (IOC) 
in 2015 with the Block 2B software capability. The Air Force 
will declare IOC in 2016 with the Block 2B/3I software 
capability, rather than waiting for the Block 3F capability as 
previously planned. The Navy will declare IOC in late 2018 with 
the Block 3F software capability. Achieving these IOC dates 
depend in part on increasing production according to the 
current plan.
    With the program now achieving most testing milestones, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should 
seriously consider continuing with the current plan to increase 
production in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.

F-35 technical issues

    In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Airland of the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the F-35 Program Executive 
Officer (PEO) discussed the development issues which present 
the greatest technical risks to the program.
    Regarding the software, the committee notes that a critical 
design review (CDR) is planned which will shed more light on 
progress of the Block 3F software against the requirements and 
delivery timeline. Block 3F software provides the capability 
that will allow all three services to declare full operational 
capability. The committee directs the PEO to provide a briefing 
to the congressional defense committees on the results of the 
CDR within 30 days of its conclusion.
    In addition to software, the PEO also highlighted other 
known technical risks to the F-35 program, to include the 
helmet mounted display system, the tailhook, the fuel dumping 
system, and the autonomic logistics information system. The 
committee directs the F-35 PEO to provide a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees on the status of the risk and 
cost reduction efforts to these four systems within 30 days 
from the completion of any major test objective or risk 
reduction effort involving these four programs.

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

    In January 2012, the Air Force proposed the retirement of 
its RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft. The Secretary of the 
Air Force stated the reason for this decision was based on the 
operational capability and cost to operate and maintain the 
Global Hawk Block 30. Section 154 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
required the Air Force to maintain the operational capability 
of each RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system 
through December 31, 2014.
    This committee understands the strategic importance of 
high-altitude surveillance and increasing demands for 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) by the 
commanders of combatant commands (COCOM) around the world, both 
in permissive and non-permissive environments. The Senate 
report (S. Rept. 112-173) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3254) required the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to identify enduring 
requirements for persistent ISR, and the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a long-
term investment strategy for meeting that requirement to the 
congressional defense committees and the congressional 
intelligence committees no later than May 2, 2013. The 
committee understands that the Department has had some 
difficulty in defining the terms of reference for the 
analytical effort that has resulted in delaying the report, but 
believes the Department of Defense should move expeditiously to 
complete these tasks.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 
to provide an update on the congressionally directed report 
immediately to the congressional defense committees and the 
congressional intelligence committees, and the final report on 
COCOM peacetime and wartime requirements, and the long-term 
investment strategy for meeting those requirements, no later 
than February 1, 2014.

Joint high speed vessel

    The Navy is procuring the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to 
serve as an intra-theater lift asset. In a prepared statement 
to the committee earlier this year, the Chief of Naval 
Operations, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, United States Navy, 
talked about the new deployments of JHSVs and Littoral Combat 
Ships and said, ``[w]e will use these deployments to integrate 
these new, highly adaptable platforms into the fleet and 
evaluate the ways we can employ their combination of persistent 
forward presence and flexible payload capacity.''
    To better understand the Navy's plans for the JHSV fleet, 
the committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy should 
identify: (1) the Navy's intent for allocating JHSVs among the 
combatant commanders; and (2) any overseas basing plan to 
support that allocation.
    Further, the committee believes the Navy should consider 
additional functions or capabilities that the JHSV fleet might 
provide. Some of these could include support to counterdrug or 
counter piracy operations, command and control for joint task 
force operations, to intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance operations.
    The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report on 
these issues with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request.

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization

    The committee is concerned about the continued long-term 
sustainment of the capability provided by the Joint 
Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) E-8 
aircraft. The aircraft and sensors may need costly upgrades to 
keep the system relevant to the operational environment. The 
Air Force has completed an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to 
evaluate potential replacement platforms to perform the battle 
management command and control and ground moving target 
indicator (BMCC/GMTI) missions. These missions that support 
ground and naval forces are critical.
    The AoA recommends as the preferred option a combined 
solution of modern business jets, using a fourth generation 
sensor system already in development by the Navy and Global 
Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted vehicle. The analysis indicates 
that this option would offer the potential of significant 
lifecycle cost savings and improved sensor capabilities, if the 
Air Force could afford the up-front investment costs. Although 
the Air Force acknowledges the need for a JSTARS mission area 
replacement aircraft, the fiscal year 2014 budget request does 
not include a request for funding such an option.
    This committee is concerned that delays in commencing a 
program to replace and modernize the JSTARS capability could 
result in unfulfilled intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance requirements and higher risk to operational 
forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report that would provide a detailed 
description of the Department of Defense plan to modernize the 
capability to satisfy the BMCC/GMTI missions. The Secretary is 
directed to submit that report no later than 180 days after 
enactment of this Act.

Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small form fit 
        competition and contracting

    The committee has long supported and encouraged Army plans 
for a full and open competition at full rate production for the 
handheld and manpack radios of the Joint Tactical Radio System 
(JTRS) program. The advantages to the Army and the taxpayers of 
a communications system built upon non-proprietary, open-
architecture technologies acquired through competition are 
apparent. The potential savings and technological performance 
improvements associated with competition among several tactical 
radio manufacturers could be significant over time.
    The committee is concerned, however, that a potential plan 
to award a 5-year contract to a single vendor will result in an 
uncompetitive and smaller tactical radio industrial base. This, 
in turn, could lead to the Army becoming entrapped in 
subsequent sole-source procurements that forfeit greater 
savings and improved technical performance that come with 
frequent competition.
    Accordingly, the committees directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review 
the Army's handheld and manpack radio competition and 
contracting plans and provide to the congressional defense 
committees an assessment of how they will achieve the 
objectives of increased savings and performance through 
competition among several vendors over the life of the JTRS 
program. The Under Secretary shall submit this assessment not 
later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Long Range Strike Bomber

    The committee is aware that the President, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force 
Chief of Staff have called for the development of a new stealth 
bomber as our nation's military posture transitions and focuses 
on emerging threats in both the Middle East and the Asia-
Pacific region. A new stealth bomber is essential to deterrence 
and anti-access strategies in these regions. A new stealth 
bomber will continue to ensure that deterrence remains a viable 
tool of our foreign policy by providing the President and 
combatant commanders with the ability to hold targets at risk 
with a versatile platform that combines range, persistence, 
payload, and survivability. A new stealth bomber will be an 
indispensable foundation of future U.S. power projection. As 
the only new aircraft development program planned for the next 
decade, continued development of the new bomber is essential to 
maintain U.S. teleological superiority and a highly specialized 
workforce.

Modernization of B-1 bomber

    The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the 
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the B-
1 bomber over the life of the airframe. The report shall be due 
to the congressional defense committees no later than February 
28, 2014.

Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System

    The current B-52H Strategic Radar System (SRS) is 
approaching the end of its useful life. The Air Force conducted 
an Analysis of Alternatives to evaluate potential replacements 
for this system. The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives expressed concern in their 
reports accompanying the National Defense Authorization Acts 
for Fiscal Year 2013 regarding funding for the Strategic Radar 
Replacement (SR2) program. This committee remains concerned 
about lack of funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget, which 
would allow critical capability gaps, and directs the Secretary 
of the Air Force to provide a detailed plan with timeline on 
how it will replace the SRS on all B-52Hs.

Paladin integrated management program

    The budget request included $260.2 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles and $80.6 million in PE 64854A for the 
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzer 
program. The committee notes the PIM program will soon be 
entering low rate initial production (LRIP). Over the past 
several months, the committee notes that the Army has taken 
several fact-of-life reductions to the program. The Army 
explains that these reductions are due to the extraordinary 
fiscal constraints of sequestration and overseas contingency 
operations funding shortfalls. The committee further notes that 
the Army intends to hold to the program's current schedule 
including the procurement of the full complement of the initial 
LRIP vehicles while still able to reduce LRIP procurement in 
the out-years. The committee fully supports the PIM program and 
expects the Army to continue to review the development schedule 
for other ways to accelerate the program while retaining cost 
and schedule.

Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration

    The committee is aware that the Army is continuing its 
evaluation and consideration of the feasibility, affordability, 
and advisability of acquiring a new light armed scout 
helicopter to replace the current OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Since 
the cancellation in 2011 of the Armed Reconnaissance 
Helicopter, the Army has been methodically working through an 
assessment of its light armed scout helicopter requirements and 
an analysis of alternatives across a wide range of operating 
concepts including manned helicopters, unmanned aerial systems, 
and manned-unmanned teaming. As part of a broader consideration 
of alternatives for what has become the Armed Aerial Scout 
(AAS), the Army conducted a voluntary flight demonstration of 
commercially available aircraft to refine its requirements 
determination process and explore how closely aircraft flying 
today compare to the capability of the Kiowa Warrior and could 
approach meeting the capabilities the Army has in mind for a 
light armed scout replacement. The committee is interested to 
learn more about the results of the Army voluntary flight 
demonstration and its contribution to the ongoing analysis of 
the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of replacing 
the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army, or designee, to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by September 30, 2014 that details the 
performance metrics demonstrated by each participant. The 
report shall also provide an estimate of the costs associated 
with the development and testing of each participant's aircraft 
for modifications and upgrades necessary to convert such 
aircraft to a fully militarized AAS. Finally, the report shall 
include the estimated schedule for competition, development, 
testing, and qualification of each aircraft overlaid on current 
timelines for Kiowa Warrior service life extension, safety 
upgrades, and modernization programs.
    The committee is aware that information regarding the 
performance of participants' aircraft is competition sensitive 
and directs that the report shall not disclose their identities 
and shall, where appropriate, protect their intellectual 
property. The committee will work with the Army to ensure that 
such information is adequately protected.
    The committee further understands that Kiowa Warrior 
service-life, safety, and capability upgrades are necessary 
under any potential replacement scenario in order to address 
critical near-term operational performance and safety 
requirements. The committee supports these Kiowa Warrior 
modification efforts to ensure that the Army's current light 
armed scout helicopter, that has been proven in combat in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, is ready and available for the 10-20 years it 
may take to field a replacement should an alternative prove 
feasible and affordable.

Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund

    Section 8105 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013 (Public Law 113-6) established the Ship 
Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund, and 
appropriated more than $2.4 billion to the Fund. The Fund was 
intended to prevent the premature retirement of seven cruisers 
and two dock landing ships during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. 
This reflected a concern with the proposed retirement plan that 
the plan: (1) was disconnected from the defense strategy; (2) 
created future unaffordable shipbuilding requirements; and (3) 
would exacerbate force structure shortfalls that negatively 
impact the Department's ability to meet combatant commander 
(COCOM) requirements.
    The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for 
Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2014, date May 
10, 2013, proposes to retire these cruisers and amphibious 
ships during fiscal year 2015, resulting in a fleet of 270 
ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. The Navy is taking this 
action despite the fact that keeping these vessels operating 
until the end of 2014 will cost, according to the Navy, $931.1 
million. The committee believes that the Navy should use the 
remaining resources in the Fund to sustain all of these ships. 
Available funds would permit the Navy to operate the ships 
during most of the period future-years defense program and 
would permit the Navy and Congress to continue evaluating 
options for modernizing and retaining these vessels until the 
end of their expected service lives.

Small diameter bomb

    The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program fields a 250-pound 
bomb that provides low-cost, precision strike capability and is 
designed to increase weapon's loads of fighters, bombers, and 
unmanned aerial systems.
    The first version of SDB, SDB-I, is an all-weather munition 
for which the requirements are defeating stationary targets. 
SDB-1 uses global positioning system (GPS) and inertial 
navigation system (INS) data to achieve the required precision. 
This munition achieved initial operating capability in late 
2006.
    The second version of SDB, SDB-II, would add a tri-mode 
seeker (radar, infrared, and semi-active laser) to the INS and 
GPS guidance of the original SDB-I. These sensors are intended 
to provide automatic target recognition features for striking 
mobile targets, such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command 
posts.
    The Air Force plans to start low rate initial production of 
SDB-II in 2014. Earlier this year, SDB-II flight test program 
was temporarily suspended due to a flight test failure, but has 
since resumed. Any further delays could affect the timing of 
Milestone C, currently scheduled for August 2013, and could 
cause a delay in having required assets available to outfit an 
F-15E squadron in late 2016.
    The committee is aware that there is a possible 
modification to the SDB-I that would add a semi-active laser 
(SAL) sensor. This might provide some, but not all, of the 
potential SDB-II capability against mobile targets. The Air 
Force may want to consider this or other options if there were 
additional flight testing difficulties that would cast doubt on 
the success of the SDB-II program.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to brief the congressional defense committees on the 
status of the entire SDB program no later than 90 days after 
enactment of this Act. The briefing should include current 
status of SDB-II test program, potential gaps in capabilities 
if SDB-II testing were to be delayed, examination of the mix of 
SDB-1 and SDB-II weapon capabilities and costs, and recommended 
way ahead for SDB procurement.

UH-1N replacement strategy

    The committee is aware that the Air Force has a long-
standing need to replace its aging UH-1N helicopter fleet. The 
current UH-1N fleet provides the Air Force with a capability to 
provide security for Global Strike Command operations and to 
ensure continuity of government and continuity of operations in 
the National Capital Region. The committee acknowledges that 
the Air Force has had to make difficult decisions on a 
replacement utility helicopter, but believes that the Air Force 
should articulate a strategy for modernizing the capability 
provided by these helicopters.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
provide the congressional defense committees a report, not 
later than February 1, 2014, that assesses and categorizes the 
Air Force's utility helicopter capabilities to meet the full 
range of nuclear security and continuity of government 
requirements and describes the Air Force's strategy towards 
meeting such requirements.

UH-72 light utility helicopter

    The budget request included $96.2 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA), for the procurement of 10 UH-72 light 
utility helicopters. According to the Army this is the final 
year of UH-72 purchases, truncating the total program buy at 
315 aircraft instead of the originally planned 346. The 
committee notes that even though this ends production short of 
the original plan, the final buy fully meets the documented UH-
72 requirements of the Army National Guard.
    The committee is concerned that the Army's decision may 
have an impact on the UH-72 industrial base that increases 
risks over time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315 
aircraft. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
Technology to provide the congressional defense committees with 
an assessment of the impact of production termination on the 
UH-72 industrial base and support for the fielded fleet. The 
Secretary's assessment should address, but not be limited to, 
the potential impacts on the parts supply chain including 
mission modules, the availability of maintenance services, and 
how the replacement of aircraft will be managed in the event of 
any future losses. The Secretary shall submit this assessment 
not later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Uninterruptable power supply

    The committee is aware of a funding shortfall associated 
with procurement of the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) 
required for the new United States Strategic Command 
Replacement Facility. The committee also notes the UPS must be 
delivered no later than July 2014 to avoid significant 
construction delays and/or contract penalties.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than September 30, 2013, identifying specific actions the 
Air Force is taking to ensure the UPS is delivered by the 
construction need date.

Use of commercially available systems to support certain Navy 
        requirements

    The Navy faces growing anti-access and area denial threats 
around the world, specifically including Iranian small boat 
swarm threats in the Arabian Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz. 
In addition to this reality of increasing threats, the Navy 
faces tightening resources from implementation of the Budget 
Control Act (Public Law 112-25). The committee believes that 
the Navy, whenever possible, should seek to make maximum use of 
commercially available systems to fill capability gaps in the 
most affordable manner. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 
budget request, including a classified annex as necessary, that 
would identify: (1) any gaps in Department of the Navy's 
capability to deal with anti-access and area denial threats; 
(2) if there are gaps, whether those gaps are covered by other 
Department of Defense forces or systems; (3) if there are gaps, 
to what extent there may be commercially available systems to 
fill the capability gaps; (4) whether fielding commercially 
available systems could potentially avoid lengthy and costly 
research and development programs; and (5) whether commercially 
available systems are free from cyber threats.

War readiness engine shortfall

    The committee understands that the Air Force faces a 
shortfall of useable engines for the F-15 and F-16 fleets as 
compared to the war readiness engine objective. Given that the 
Air Force will continue to rely on the F-15 and F-16 well into 
the foreseeable future, maintaining the readiness of these 
fleets is imperative. The committee urges the Secretary of the 
Air Force to include sufficient resources in future budgets for 
engines to avoid degrading readiness.
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211)
    The committee is supportive of the Conventional Prompt 
Global Strike (CPGS) program and realizes that efforts in 
developing intermediate- and long-range hypersonic boost-glide 
systems have the potential to provide significant military 
capability. However, the committee is concerned that the 
strategic policy issues regarding submarine-launched systems 
have not been considered adequately. The committee recommends a 
provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) 
from executing any funds in PE 64165D8Z related to the 
development of a submarine-launched CPGS capability until 60 
days after the Department delivers to the congressional defense 
committees a report that addresses the policy considerations 
concerning the ambiguity problems regarding the launch of CPGS 
missiles from submarine platforms.
    The CPGS program is currently an event-driven technology 
development and demonstration program, and the committee 
recognizes that in the current budget environment, DOD needs to 
take a system-of-systems approach to develop an integrated 
strategic plan that addresses the cost-benefit analyses of 
various launch approaches. The Director of Cost Assessment and 
Program Evaluation (CAPE) shall conduct a study, to include the 
costs and benefits of maritime and ground surface versus sub-
surface launched CPGS systems. While the committee recognizes 
that significant technical development remains, it is not too 
early to begin considering the fiscal implications of the 
various launch mechanisms, including integration costs. The 
committee notes that Section 1071 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
required a report on the ability of national test and 
evaluation capabilities to support the maturation of hypersonic 
technologies for future defense systems development. This 
earlier report effort is synergistic with the CAPE report. The 
CAPE report shall be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to report to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act on whether the CPGS activity should be 
managed under the Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics under 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering. The committee feels that the synergies and 
efficiencies under this office could benefit the broader boost-
glide and air-breathing hypersonics community.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would make some 
modifications to the biennial strategic plan requirement for 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The 
modifications seek to make the plan more useful and assign 
responsibility to the Director of DARPA versus the Secretary of 
Defense.

Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced 
        technology achievements (sec. 213)

    The committee recommends a provision, based upon a 
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend 
through September 30, 2017, the authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to carry out programs to award cash prizes in 
recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific and 
technical research and development.

Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology protection 
        features during research and development of certain defense 
        systems (sec. 214)

    The committee recommends a provision, based upon a 
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend 
for an additional 5 years, to October 1, 2020, the pilot 
program addressing Defense Exportability Features to be 
incorporated in export versions of major defense equipment.

Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for 
        research and development of technologies for military missions 
        (sec. 215)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of section 219(c) of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
(110-417) until September 30, 2020. Section 219 allows the 
Department of Defense laboratories to use up to 3 percent of 
their funds for internal competitive research and development, 
workforce development, and limited laboratory revitalization 
activities.

Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance, 
        and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to procure the currently deployed 
Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 
aircraft or to develop a plan to replace that system with a 
comparable or improved one.
    The leases for the existing Blue Devil system aircraft, 
deployed in Afghanistan, will expire in the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2014. These manned aircraft are equipped with wide-
area motion-imagery (WAMI) cameras, which work in conjunction 
with a ground-based signals intelligence (SIGINT) network that 
detects and locates specific targets with high precision. These 
SIGINT identifications and locations are used to cue analysts 
to spot and track the targets through the motion imagery 
sensor. Assessments of the performance of this system in 
theater have been outstanding, and an operations research study 
conducted by the Air Force demonstrated that a system based on 
a longer-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that carries 
both the imagery and SIGINT capabilities would be even more 
flexible and effective.
    U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), through the Air 
Force Big Safari program office, has already fielded a so-
called near vertical direction finding (NVDF) SIGINT sensor on 
an airborne platform that replicates the capabilities of the 
ground-based SIGINT system used in Blue Devil. SOCOM is 
procuring a podded version of this sensor for deployment on 
Reaper UAVs. SOCOM has also already paired this NVDF system 
with a motion imagery camera, but that camera is a traditional 
full-motion video (FMV) camera with a narrow field of view 
rather than a WAMI system. NVDF systems can simultaneously 
detect and locate a very large number of emitters in its field 
of view. An FMV camera, however, can only track one target at a 
time because of its limited area coverage. A WAMI camera, in 
contrast, could track many targets simultaneously, which 
matches the capability of NVDF sensors.
    SOCOM is in discussions with the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) on partnering to transition DARPA's 
Wide Area Network Detection (WAND) technology, which combines 
NVDF and WAMI and provides technology to track targets 
automatically.
    The Air Force has already fielded the DARPA-developed WAMI 
system on the Reaper UAV called Gorgon Stare Increment 2, and 
has funded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 
Laboratory to develop NVDF technology under the name Blue Moon. 
The Gorgon Stare pods are very large and weigh 1,500 pounds. 
However, the Blue Moon system has not been integrated with 
Gorgon Stare or the Reaper and has performance limitations 
compared to the SOCOM-fielded NVDF system.
    The provision the committee recommends would require the 
Department of Defense to integrate and rationalize all these 
disparate activities to create an important capability for a 
recognized requirement.
    The Air Force must work with SOCOM and DARPA to realize 
these objectives. The Air Force can procure more of the mature 
NVDF capability it has fielded for SOCOM, and integrate that 
with its fielded Gorgon Stare WAMI systems on the Reaper. 
DARPA's WAND technology can enhance the performance of this 
integrated capability. Likewise, the Blue Moon NVDF technology 
has important capabilities that are lacking in the SOCOM-
fielded NVDF system that should be incorporated as soon as 
possible. This technology needs to be transitioned to industry 
broadly for future competitions to improve NVDF performance. 
For the future, NVDF technology must be improved to deal with 
encryption-related target identification limitations and next-
generation signal types. Likewise, WAMI systems need to be 
dramatically reduced in size, weight, and power requirements; 
industry has already developed multiple competitive solutions.
    To implement this direction, the committee recommends an 
increase of $15.0 million to the budget request of $37.8 
million in PE 35206F for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems. This 
increase is partially offset by a reduction of $2.5 million to 
the request, which reflects the difference between the amount 
reflected in the budget tables provided to Congress and the 
amount contained in the Military Intelligence Program 
justification volume.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress concerning homeland ballistic missile 
defense, and require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the 
advantages and disadvantages of a range of potential future 
options for enhancing homeland ballistic missile defense, 
including the possible deployment of a missile defense 
interceptor site on the East Coast, and the possible deployment 
of an additional sensor on the East Coast. The provision would 
require the Secretary to submit a report on the evaluation, 
including such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as 
the Secretary considers appropriate, for potential future 
options for homeland ballistic missile defense.
    The United States currently has an operational homeland 
ballistic missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense (GMD) system, with 30 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) 
deployed in Alaska and California. In appearances before the 
committee during 2013, numerous senior military leaders 
testified that they are confident in the ability of the current 
GMD system to protect the entire United States, including the 
East Coast, from limited ballistic missile attacks from North 
Korea and Iran. The committee agrees with the Department of 
Defense that this homeland missile defense capability can and 
should be improved.
    The committee notes that, on March 15, Secretary of Defense 
Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance 
homeland ballistic missile defense, as part of the homeland 
missile defense hedge strategy, to stay ahead of the evolving 
long-range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. These 
steps include: the deployment of an additional 14 GBIs at Fort 
Greely, Alaska--a nearly 50 percent increase--by 2017; the 
deployment of a second AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar in Japan; 
the evaluation of potential sites in the United States for 
possible future deployment of a missile defense interceptor 
site; and the establishment of a new common kill vehicle 
technology development program.
    One element of the decision announced by Secretary Hagel 
was the cancelation of the previous plan to develop the 
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIB interceptor missile for 
Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile 
defense. Twenty-four SM-3 IIB missiles had originally been 
intended for deployment at an Aegis Ashore interceptor site in 
Poland in 2020, to augment the GMD system in defending the 
United States from possible future long-range Iranian missiles. 
However, congressional funding reductions and technical 
challenges had delayed the program beyond 2022, with 
significant uncertainties about its ability to accomplish the 
intended mission. Secretary Hagel made clear that the U.S. 
commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) missile 
defense ``remains ironclad,'' including the planned Aegis 
Ashore interceptor site deployments in Romania in 2015 and 
Poland in 2018. According to Secretary Hagel, these deployments 
``will still be able to provide coverage of all European NATO 
territory as planned by 2018.''
    As Secretary Hagel and other Department of Defense 
officials explained, deploying the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska 
would provide additional homeland defense at least 5 years 
sooner against both North Korea and Iran, and at far less cost 
than the SM-3 IIB program. Funds from the canceled SM-3 IIB 
program were redirected for the deployment of the additional 14 
GBIs and for the new common kill vehicle technology development 
program. They also explained that, before the 14 additional 
GBIs are deployed, the GMD system would have to be tested and 
demonstrated successfully in an intercept test, to provide 
confidence that the system would work as intended.
    This ``fly before you buy'' commitment is needed to 
demonstrate the successful correction of the problem that 
caused a GMD flight test failure in December 2010 with the 
Capability Enhancement-II (CE-II) kill vehicle. The Government 
Accountability Office estimates that correcting this problem 
and demonstrating its success in flight tests will cost more 
than $1.2 billion and has caused program delays of several 
years. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has halted all 
assembly, integration, manufacture, and refurbishment of GBIs 
with CE-II kill vehicles until the CE-II correction is 
successfully demonstrated in flight testing, including an 
intercept flight test planned for early 2014. The committee 
commends MDA for this ``fly before you buy'' approach, and 
notes that further procurement of GBIs, planned to replace the 
14 GBIs that will be deployed by 2017, would also depend upon 
successful demonstration that the CE-II kill vehicle will work 
as intended. The committee expects the GBI industry team to 
show the same level of commitment to demonstrating success in 
correcting the CE-II problems.
    In testimony before the committee, Vice Admiral James 
Syring, the Director of MDA, explained that improvements to the 
GMD ``kill chain,'' particularly in sensors, discrimination, 
and kill assessment, would provide an ``absolutely needed 
benefit'' that would be ``equally important to interceptors'' 
in staying ahead of the evolving threat from North Korea and 
Iran. The committee strongly supports Admiral Syring's priority 
to improving the overall performance and effectiveness of the 
GMD system, and notes that these enhancements are intended to 
be cost-effective, timely, and affordable. Consequently, the 
committee directs the Director of MDA to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 
2014, explaining the specific GMD kill chain enhancements that 
would be most beneficial to overall GMD effectiveness, 
including any improvements in GBI reliability and performance, 
and how and when MDA proposes to achieve those enhancements.

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress concerning the importance of regional 
ballistic missile defense and would require the Secretary of 
Defense to prepare a report on the status and progress of 
efforts to enhance regional ballistic missile defense 
capabilities.
    The committee notes that regional ballistic missile 
defenses provide a critical force protection capability for 
forward deployed U.S. forces, as well as for allies and 
partners, against missile threats from countries such as North 
Korea and Iran. North Korea's public threats in the spring of 
2013 to use ballistic missiles against South Korea, Japan, and 
Guam served as a stark reminder of the importance of regional 
missile defenses and the need to expand and improve U.S. 
regional missile defense capabilities.
    Regional missile defenses are a high priority for 
geographic combatant commanders. Lieutenant General Richard P. 
Formica, USA, Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 
Command, and Commander of the Joint Functional Component 
Command for Integrated Missile Defense, under U.S. Strategic 
Command, testified in May 2013 that the Global Ballistic 
Missile Defense Assessment for 2012 concluded that the 
operational risk for regional missile defenses is higher than 
the homeland missile defense risk. The Department of Defense is 
pursuing increased regional missile defense capabilities, such 
as the European Phased Adaptive Approach and similar approaches 
tailored to other regions, including cooperation with allies 
and partners.
    The committee supports the continued development, testing, 
and deployment of regional missile defense capabilities such as 
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system and its associated 
Standard Missile-3 interceptors, and the Terminal High Altitude 
Area Defense systems. The committee notes that missile defense 
tests over the last year have demonstrated increasing 
capability for these systems, including the capability to 
launch on remote sensor data.

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest 
of the United States to pursue efforts at missile defense 
cooperation with Russia that would enhance the security of the 
United States, its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
allies, and Russia, particularly against missile threats from 
Iran.
    The provision states that such cooperation should not ``in 
any way limit United States'' or NATO's missile defense 
capabilities,'' and that the United States should not provide 
Russia with sensitive information that would compromise United 
States national security, including hit-to-kill technology and 
interceptor telemetry. It also states that such cooperation 
should be pursued in a manner that ensures that classified U.S. 
information is appropriately safeguarded and protected from 
unauthorized disclosure.
    In testimony to the committee on May 9, 2013, Madelyn 
Creedon, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global 
Strategic Affairs, stated that the United States ``continues to 
seek cooperation with Russia on missile defense, both 
bilaterally and with our allies, through the NATO-Russia 
Council. We are pursuing this cooperation because it would be 
in the security interest of all parties and could strengthen 
the defensive capabilities of both NATO and Russia.'' She also 
testified that the ``United States has pursued missile defense 
cooperation with Russia with the clear understanding that we 
will not accept constraints on our missile defense systems, we 
will implement the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach], 
and Russia will not have command and control over NATO 
ballistic missile defense efforts.''
    The committee notes that the NATO Chicago Summit statement 
of May 20, 2012, reiterates NATO's commitment to missile 
defense cooperation with Russia, ``such as the recent [NATO-
Russia Council] Theatre Missile Defense Exercise,'' in order to 
``enhance European security.'' The statement also says, ``we 
look forward to establishing the proposed joint NATO-Russia 
Missile Data Fusion Centre and the joint Planning Operations 
Centre to cooperate on missile defense. We propose to develop a 
transparency regime based upon a regular exchange of 
information about current respective missile defense 
capabilities of NATO and Russia.''

Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the United 
        States homeland (sec. 234)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Missile Defense Agency to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable 
sensor, at a location optimized to support the defense of the 
United States homeland against long-range ballistic missile 
threats. The provision would also authorize $30.0 million for 
the Missile Defense Agency for the initial costs toward 
deployment of the radar.
    The committee notes that the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency and the Commander of the Joint Functional 
Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense have indicated 
that their highest future investment priority for homeland 
ballistic missile defense is the enhancement of sensor 
capabilities that will improve threat discrimination and kill 
assessment, and thus permit more effective defense. This 
provision would address that future investment priority.
    The committee understands that the Missile Defense Agency 
has expressed the importance of enhanced sensor capabilities 
relative to both North Korea and Iran.
    The committee believes that the additional sensor 
capability required by this provision should optimize the 
defense of the entire United States homeland against long-range 
ballistic missile threats from both North Korea and Iran.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of options and 
alternatives for future ballistic missile defense sensor 
architectures in order to enhance U.S. ballistic missile 
defense capabilities in a cost-effective, operationally 
effective, timely, and affordable manner. The provision would 
also require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress with 
the results of the evaluation, including such findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
terminated the program to develop the Precision Tracking Space 
System (PTSS) because it concluded the acquisition risk and the 
cost were too high and that it would not be affordable. PTSS 
was intended to provide persistent space-based tracking of 
regional and long-range ballistic missiles from nations such as 
North Korea and Iran, particularly to permit enhanced defense 
against large regional missile raids. The committee notes that 
the military still has a need for improved tracking and 
targeting of ballistic missiles. It is not yet clear how DOD 
intends to meet the need for enhanced sensor coverage in the 
absence of PTSS. The committee expects DOD to take advantage of 
the lessons learned from PTSS in its evaluation of options for 
future sensor architectures.
    In testimony before this committee, a number of witnesses, 
including Vice Admiral James Syring, the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency, testified that enhancing our missile 
defense sensor system is a key near-term priority for improving 
our homeland and regional missile defense capability, 
particularly for improving discrimination and kill assessment 
of missile threats.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2014 Department of 
Defense funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

                 Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to produce an annual report on the VXX 
presidential helicopter program until the program enters full 
rate production or is cancelled, whichever comes first.

                              Budget Items


                                  Army


Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project

    The budget request included $23.3 million across a number 
of program elements for the development of a new blast test 
manikin that would respond in a biofidelic manner when exposed 
to under-body blast conditions experienced by mounted soldiers.
    The committee notes that the development of such a test 
manikin would significantly improve the Department's ability to 
measure the projected injuries that could be caused by various 
blast events caused by improvised explosive devices. Such 
information would lead to improved survivability of ground 
combat vehicles. Due to various programmatic issues, the 
program is facing a budget shortfall that would lead to a 
schedule slip that would adversely impact the timeliness of 
critical design data for ground combat vehicles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 
62618A for the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project.

Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle

    The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 35205A for 
contract close-out for the now-terminated long endurance multi-
intelligence vehicle. The committee notes that the amount 
required for termination costs has not been determined and 
should be covered by prior years' appropriations. The committee 
recommends no funding for this activity in fiscal year 2014.

General Fund Enterprise Business Systems

    The budget request included $17.3 million in PE 64882A for 
General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS). The committee 
notes that funds for the development of a classified module for 
GFEBS were provided in a prior year. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $17.1 million in PE 64882A for GFEBS.

Internet mapping

    The budget request included $33.9 million in PE 65803A for 
Technical Information Activities. Cyberspace is a vast new 
operational domain that has extensive and varied topography. As 
the committee emphasized in its report (S. Rept. 112-173) 
accompanying S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), charting this new 
terrain is as fundamental to operations in cyberspace as maps 
of physical terrain have always been to military campaigns.
    Despite the obvious need, attempts to map the Internet so 
far have been very modest. The Internet has appeared to be too 
complex, too large in scale, and experiencing changes too 
rapidly. However, the committee is persuaded that commercial 
technology and data sources are now available to capture the 
necessary detail at the required speed and volume.
    The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence understands the need for a dynamic, comprehensive 
Internet mapping capability, and is working with the Air Force 
Research Laboratory to fund pilot projects to demonstrate the 
potential of commercial technology and data sources. The Army's 
Geospatial Center under the Engineer Research and Development 
Center has also initiated research and development to map this 
21st century terrain.
    The committee recommends authorization of an increase of 
$5.0 million in PE 65803A for the Army Geospatial Enterprise 
project to enhance and expand its Internet mapping research.

                                  Navy


Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development

    The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 64786N for 
developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon. 
This follows on an enacted funding level of $86.8 million in 
fiscal year 2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to develop 
an OASuW weapon system or systems solution that can be launched 
from the air or from surface vessels against hostile surface 
targets. These efforts were largely in response to an urgent 
operational need statement (UONS) seeking immediate capability.
    In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a 
request for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping 
contracts, and establish a government program office team. The 
Navy also had planned to issue a contract for $31.5 million for 
an accelerated development effort to field an interim OASuW 
capability in April 2013. That contract effort has since been 
suspended due to changing priorities within the Navy, and some 
disagreement about the validity of the UONS that initiated the 
effort. The budget exhibits indicate that the funds instead 
would be used to mature technologies applicable to an OASuW 
program.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Navy planned to spend the year 
preparing for a milestone A acquisition decision that would not 
occur until at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. In 
fiscal year 2015, the Navy budget exhibits indicate that the 
Navy will be conducting competitive prototyping if required 
under new technology development contracts awarded in fiscal 
year 2015. It is clear to the committee that the Navy intends 
to conduct no such competitive prototyping, but will instead 
try to transition a developmental effort from the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) into a program of 
record.
    The committee fails to see the need to invest so much in a 
program for which the urgency of the UONS is now in doubt, and 
certainly not to down select prematurely to a single program 
responding to a near-term requirement that would not deliver 
capability in the near term.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 
million in PE 64786N. The committee believes it would be 
prudent to continue government support activities anticipating 
a successful milestone A graduation in fiscal year 2015, but 
that the Navy should be able to do this with $36.0 million in 
fiscal year 2014, an increase of roughly 39 percent above the 
fiscal year 2013 effort that was not related to the cancelled 
accelerated development program.
    The committee further expects the Navy to present a plan 
that: (1) pursues a more competitive approach; and (2) yields a 
program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 before 
deciding on a particular technical solution.

LHA-8 design effort

    The budget request included $155.3 million in PE 64567N for 
various ship design and research and development efforts, 
including $30.8 million for the next amphibious assault ship, 
LHA-8. Within the $30.8 million, $14.5 million is for LHA-8 
ship design. Navy LHA-8 program development and design 
activities have involved two shipyards, among other 
contractors. The Navy intends to begin procurement funding for 
LHA-8 in fiscal year 2015.
    Repeated Navy shipbuilding programs have shown that failing 
to complete a ship's design before starting construction 
inevitably leads to cost growth and schedule delays. The 
committee believes that the Navy should invest more than it is 
currently planning to invest in maturing the design of LHA-8 
before starting construction activities.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million in PE 64567N for maturing the LHA-8 design.

Marine personnel carrier

    The budget request included $20.9 million in PE 26623M for 
the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The committee notes that 
the Marine Corps has deferred acquisition of the MPC until 
after it meets more urgent requirements for a new amphibious 
combat vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The 
committee further notes that there are prior-year funds 
available to continue any MPC-related requirements analysis and 
determination or technology studies until a decision is made 
regarding the sequencing and availability of resources for this 
capability. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$20.9 million in PE 26623M for the MPC.

                               Air Force


Operationally Responsive Space

    The fiscal year 2014 budget requested no funding for the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) rejected the proposed termination of the ORS Office and 
required its location be separate and distinct from the 
headquarters of the Air Force Space and Missile System Center 
while reporting to the Director of the Center. Congress awaits 
the reports required from the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on how the 
Department of Defense (DOD) will implement the legislation and 
move ORS concepts into space acquisition programs. Most if not 
all of the concepts championed by the ORS office such as low 
cost launch, disaggregation, and common bus structures are now 
being embraced by DOD in times of fiscal constraint. The 
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 64857F 
to continue the operations of the ORS office and work on a low 
cost weather satellite as was briefed to the congressional 
defense committees.

Tactical data networks enterprise

    The budget request for tactical data networks enterprise 
included $51.5 million in PE 64281F, including $21.4 million 
for airborne networking enterprise.
    Only $6.2 million of the amount for airborne networking 
enterprise is explained anywhere in the unclassified or 
classified budget documentation. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a reduction of $15.2 million in PE 64281F.

Tactical exploitation of national capabilities

    The budget request included $89.8 million in PE 27247F for 
the tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP) 
program. Included within this amount is $48.0 million to 
develop a communications pod for F-15 fighters to enable 5th 
generation and 4th generation fighters to communicate with one 
another. The total also includes $28.8 million to procure 
advanced sensors and components for installation on these 
communications pods.
    The committee appreciates the fact that elements of the Air 
Force are finally responding to the serious and embarrassing 
problem that the 5th generation fighters (the F-22 and the F-
35) cannot communicate with one another or with the 4th 
generation fighters. However, there are now multiple 
initiatives underway in the Air Force that are not coordinated 
or well-planned. In addition, there is no justification for 
pursuing fighter data link developments in the TENCAP program, 
especially since this initiative will not address the problem 
of relaying national-level intelligence information to the 
fighters or relaying tactical information from the fighters to 
national-level systems.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $76.8 
million.

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system

    The budget request included $57.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E-8 modifications 
program and $13.2 million in PE 27581F within Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for Joint 
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar Systems (JSTARS). The level of 
the RDT&E request reflects a reduction of $11.0 million from 
the enacted level of $24.2 million in fiscal year 2013, largely 
due to the planned retirement of the T-3 aircraft that has been 
a dedicated testing and development platform for the JSTARS 
program.
    Although there have certainly been reductions in current 
development activities, that does not mean that all development 
and integration activities are over. Losing the dedicated 
testing platform is also troublesome because the Air Force has 
decided it cannot afford to modernize the JSTARS capability by 
fielding a new platform. That means that the Air Force will be 
relying on the 16 operational JSTARS aircraft and 11 Global 
Hawk Block 40 aircraft to provide all of the synthetic aperture 
radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator (GMTI) support 
for ground force operations for the foreseeable future. Since 
the peacetime demand for these SAR and GMTI services is so 
high, retiring the T-3 aircraft will mean that operational 
aircraft would have to be diverted from other important tasks 
to support testing.
    Therefore, to avoid this situation, the committee 
recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE 27581F for RDT&E 
to sustain T-3 operations during fiscal year 2014.

Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence

    The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 33140F for 
the Information Systems Security Program.
    The committee has stressed for several years that the 
cybersecurity problem is largely due to vulnerabilities in the 
software controlling computing devices. The Air Force 
established the Application Software Assurance Center of 
Excellence (ASACOE) in 2007 in response to a serious breach 
that illuminated the software vulnerability problem in the Air 
Force and across the whole Department of Defense (DOD). Despite 
the seriousness of the problem, however, the Air Force has 
failed to provide the ASACOE with adequate funding. While 
funding for the ASACOE's government personnel is included in 
annual budget requests, funds for contractor support, bulk 
licenses for code analysis tools, and other expenses necessary 
to carry out the Center's mission are not budgeted, forcing the 
Center to live precariously on periodic fund transfers from 
other sources.
    Nonetheless, despite this handicap, the ASACOE has earned a 
reputation for effectiveness and lasting impacts in improving 
the security of many applications and acquisition programs, in 
the Air Force and across DOD. In a report to Congress in July 
2011, the Secretary of the Air Force stated that ``the 
capabilities demonstrated by ASACOE are integral to the 
technical tool box'' that DOD will use to implement its Supply 
Chain Risk Management strategy.
    A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of 
Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software 
and software-based applications listed the ASACOE and the 
National Security Agency's Center for Assured Software as 
organizations that would be leveraged to implement DOD's 
Trusted Systems and Networks strategy. The report further 
stated that an internal DOD study concluded that software 
vulnerability detection should be ``organized centrally'' to 
assure ``a consistent response, coherent direction, and 
comprehensive coverage'' at least until software assurance 
expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the 
Department. The committee believes that the ASACOE could 
significantly contribute to the implementation of section 933 
of the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239).
    The mission of ASACOE is to educate, train, equip, and 
assist program management offices to achieve security in 
software developments and acquisitions. It provides these 
services through its expertise in software assurance 
requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and 
tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, and 
remediation.
    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 
33140F to enable the ASACOE to fulfill this mission. These 
funds will allow ASACOE to exercise the option year on its 
current contract. The committee urges the Air Force to 
establish a regular funding line in future budget requests for 
contractor support and bulk license procurement, and a plan for 
assessment and remediation of critical software systems.

                              Defense-wide


National Defense Education Program

    The budget request included $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z 
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) that funds 
three activities related to Science, Technology, Engineering, 
and Mathematics (STEM) education: (1) Science, Mathematics, and 
Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program; (2) 
National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship 
(NSSEFF); and (3) pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12) 
STEM.
    In the fiscal year 2014 President's budget request, the 
administration consolidated most STEM programs across the 
government, including the Department of Defense (DOD), to the 
Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and 
the Smithsonian Institution. While the consolidation was well-
intended to eliminate unnecessary duplication of activities in 
this area across hundreds of programs, little analytical effort 
appeared to be expended to determine which exact programs 
should be transferred. In the case of DOD, the PK-12 program 
was terminated with much of the funding transferred to NSSEFF. 
Given that DOD has a vested interest in building a foundation 
with PK-12 activities to motivate and encourage children to 
pursue STEM careers for national security purposes, the 
committee directs that $10.0 million in this PE be transferred 
from NSSEFF back to PK-12 activities that have participation by 
DOD laboratories and directly benefit the children of DOD 
families.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on 
DOD execution of the NDEP no later than 180 days after 
enactment of this Act. The report will include an overall 
assessment of the outcomes of the NDEP program; a historic and 
projected examination of SMART, NSSEFF, and PK-12 STEM funding 
levels; a comparison of NDEP to other federal government funded 
STEM education programs; and any recommendations on improving 
program execution.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory

    The budget request included $46.9 million in PE 62234D8Z 
for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 
Laboratory, an increase of $10.0 million from the fiscal year 
2013 budget request.
    The committee believes the increase is unjustified and 
recommends a decrease of $5.0 million.

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology 
        priorities

    The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62251D8Z 
for applied research for the advancement of science and 
technology (S&T) priorities. This program element was newly 
established to fund key research opportunities identified by 
the S&T Priority Steering Councils.
    The committee believes that this funding is more 
appropriate in the services' S&T budgets and recommends a 
decrease of $15.0 million.

Automated software code analysis tool development

    The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 62668D8Z 
for Cyber Security Research, and $19.7 million in PE 63668D8Z 
for Cyber Security Advanced Research.
    The Assuring Effective Missions projects in these two 
program elements duplicate research that the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency is conducting under the Plan X 
program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease to the 
request of $2.0 million and $3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 
63668D8Z, respectively.
    In two National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee 
included provisions requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to take concrete steps to improve the security of the software 
that is the target of the cyber attacks that DOD suffers 
relentlessly. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), Congress established 
mandatory requirements for the use of automated code analysis 
tools in the development and testing of software for DOD 
systems. The committee's understanding was that DOD officials 
agreed that the use of such tools is critically important to 
cybersecurity.
    The most capable tools currently available are built by 
commercial companies with little to no government investment. 
These tools have progressed in performance, but the committee 
believes that DOD should be investing in improved tools to 
achieve fewer false positives and negatives in identifying 
defects and vulnerabilities. The committee also believes that 
DOD should be investing in so-called smart fuzzing tools to 
identify exploitable vulnerabilities in software. Such tools 
are used routinely and very effectively in the intelligence 
community, but not so far by the DOD acquisition community.
    The committee recommends authorization of $2.0 million and 
$3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively, to 
develop automated code analysis tools, including fuzzing tools. 
The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering to include funds for this purpose in 
future budget requests.

Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation of human 
        terrain in conflict

    The budget request terminated the Human Social Culture 
Behavior (HSCB) program. The fiscal year 2013 budget request 
had $6.8 million in PE 62670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Applied 
Research), $8.2 million in PE 63670D8Z (HSCB Advanced 
Development), and $5.1 million in PE 64670D8Z (HSCB Modeling 
Research and Engineering).
    The committee notes that the list of priority missions of 
the U.S. armed forces released in the fiscal year 2014 budget 
request had counter terrorism and irregular warfare as the 
first mission. During the course of the last 12 years of 
conflicts, one key lesson that has emerged is the need for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a rigorous comprehensive 
understanding of the human terrain in which it is operating. A 
deep understanding of the cultural, social, religious, and 
ethnic factors on the ground are vital to successful 
operations. While the Department claims that each of the 
services are increasing their investments in these areas, 
eliminating the need for defense-wide funding, the committee 
has not seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case.
    In 2008, DOD created the HSCB program to rapidly transition 
basic research to tools for military personnel to increase 
intelligence collection and integration, and provide our 
warfighters better situational awareness and capabilities on 
the battlefield. Since its establishment, the HSCB program has 
developed and transitioned operational tools to U.S. Special 
Operations Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, 
U.S. Southern Command, the Army's Training and Doctrine Command 
Analysis Center, and International Security Agency Forces Joint 
Command Headquarters in Afghanistan. HBSC fielded tools 
include: data ingestion, analysis and modeling capabilities; 
behavioral modeling capabilities; geospatial and social network 
analysis tools; and automated techniques to rapidly extract 
persons, events and sentiments.
    In 2009, the Defense Science Board, in its report 
``Understanding Human Dynamics'', identified a number of key 
gaps in the DOD's knowledge of human dynamics. The HSCB program 
addresses a majority of these gaps to include: multi-domain, 
multi-speaker spoken conversation, transcription and 
translation; technologies for extracting knowledge from both 
structured and unstructured human networks; automated 
assessments of the human terrain with an emphasis on attitudes, 
influence networks, and the effects of strategic communication; 
gaming for virtual training and mission rehearsal; automated 
sentiment, intention, and deception detection; and dynamic 
network analysis to understand influence, attitudes, and 
beliefs.
    Given the overall importance of this area, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for each of the above 
program elements, for a total of $15.0 million. Furthermore, 
the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering to report to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act on the Department's overall investment strategy in the 
field of human, social, cultural, and behavior research and 
engineering, an assessment of the operational utility of 
fielded HSCB tools, and a plan for transitioning funding for 
this area from defense-wide activities to those funded by the 
services.

Combating Terrorism Technology Support

    The budget request included $77.8 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for the Combating Terrorism Technical Support (CTTS) program, a 
modest increase from $77.1 million in fiscal year 2013.
    The committee supports the mission of the CTTS program to 
rapidly develop and transition a wide range of technologies to 
the joint, interagency, and international communities focused 
on combating terrorism. However, in the current budgetary 
environment, the committee observes--based upon an analysis of 
CTTS programs completed in fiscal year 2012 and ongoing in 
fiscal year 2013--that there is a significant amount of work 
conducted by this program that is more suited to be funded by 
the Special Operations Command and its associated components, 
as well as by the services. Hence, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $17.0 million to PE 63122D8Z.

Ballistic missile defense technology programs

    The budget request included $309.2 million in PE 63175C for 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for development of ballistic 
missile defense technology, including $229.9 million for 
advanced technology development, and $70.0 million for the 
Common Kill Vehicle technology development program, which is a 
new program described elsewhere in this report.
    The committee notes that MDA has placed a number of 
previous technology development programs, which had been in 
separate program elements, into a single technology development 
program element. The committee is concerned that this 
consolidation of all technology development projects into a 
single program element may degrade transparency and oversight, 
which would be contrary to the interests of the committee and 
to the MDA efforts to improve transparency and oversight.
    The committee also notes that advanced technology 
development funding for fiscal year 2014, in addition to the 
$70.0 million for the common kill vehicle technology 
development program, spikes at $230.0 million, from a level of 
$76.0 million in fiscal year 2013, and is planned to come down 
in fiscal year 2015 and beyond to a level of about $138.0 
million per year. The committee observes that a 1-year spike in 
technology development funding will not create sustainable 
progress, and is likely to lead to significant program 
management and execution challenges, as well as starting work 
that would not be continued in future years.
    One of the previous MDA program elements that has been 
moved into the technology development program element in the 
budget request is the directed energy program within the 
Weapons Technology project, for which $83.5 million is 
requested. The committee notes that the MDA-directed energy 
research and development program, along with other Department 
of Defense-directed energy programs, do not have an adequate 
level of common metrics for oversight and program evaluation, 
as described elsewhere in this report. Furthermore, one of 
MDA's directed energy projects, the Diode-Pumped Alkalai Laser 
System (DPALS) project, does not have the same level of 
coordination and oversight from an array of directed energy 
experts as the fiber-combining laser project, which includes 
the involvement of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency. Furthermore, the committee believes that MDA continues 
to place too much focus on high-energy laser lethality work for 
future boost-phase intercept missions, years before it is known 
whether the technology will ever permit such applications. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 
million to the DPALS project in the directed energy portion of 
the weapons technology component of PE 633175C for Advanced 
Technology, and an undistributed reduction of $25.0 million 
across other portions of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology as 
unsustainable growth. The committee also directs MDA to brief 
the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the 
enactment of this Act on a strategy for broadening the DPALS 
effort to encourage effective peer review, competition, and 
increased involvement of the high-energy laser expert 
community.
    The committee notes that the new Common Kill Vehicle 
Technology research and development program is planned for 
consistent levels of funding across the future-years defense 
program, which will allow for a sustained research and 
development effort. The committee believes this stable funding 
approach program will permit sustainable efforts and results.

Rapid Fielding

    The budget request included $315.0 million in Rapid 
Fielding programs spread between Joint Capability Technology 
Demonstrations ($174.4 million in PE 63648D8Z), Emerging 
Capabilities Technology Development ($62.0 million in 
63699D8Z), and Quick Reaction Special Projects ($78.5 million 
in 63826D8Z).
    The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense is 
shifting its Rapid Fielding operational model from primarily 
near-term gaps to a renewed look at longer-term interest areas 
that are more strategic in nature. In addition, the committee 
supports the Department's move to fund more conceptual, 
developmental, and operational prototyping. The committee urges 
the Rapid Fielding program to spearhead efforts to find 
innovative integrated design teams that can develop 
capabilities at far less cost than traditional defense 
contractors. The committee notes the design of the 5th 
Generation Aerial Target as one example where such a design and 
management philosophy can potentially lead to significant gains 
in affordability for the Department.
    To encourage greater quality versus quantity of its 
projects, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 
in PE 63648D8Z and $20.0 million in PE 63826D8Z from the Quick 
Reaction Fund and Rapid Reaction Fund.

Networked Communications Capability Program

    The budget request included $20.0 million for the Networked 
Communications Capability Program, PE 63662D8Z.
    The committee understands the importance of the Department 
of Defense's needs in accelerating its wireless mobile 
networking capabilities through both greater leveraging of 
commercial capabilities, as well as pursuing solutions to 
defense unique requirements. However, the committee observes 
that there is significant investment across all the services 
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 
this area, and questions the value of this program at the 
defense-wide level. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease 
of $15.0 million and directs this activity to focus on 
coordinating wireless mobile networking capabilities across the 
services and DARPA, in coordination with the Defense 
Information Systems Agency and the Department's Chief 
Information Officer.

Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment

    The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63680D8Z 
for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology and $14.0 
million in PE 67210D8Z for industrial base analysis and 
sustainment. The committee, along with other congressional 
defense committees, has been a strong supporter of programs 
that advance innovation in manufacturing and that sustain 
targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense industrial 
base. This view has also been expressed by prior studies of the 
Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as the most recent 
Quadrennial Defense Review. In the current budgetary 
environment with an increased focus on affordability, 
investments in advancing manufacturing technologies have shown 
significant overall reductions in production and life cycle 
costs.
    Despite the critical importance of manufacturing 
technology, the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall 
manufacturing investment is only 0.3 percent of overall funding 
for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation--well short of 
the 1 percent goal recommended by the DSB. Last year, Congress 
provided an additional $30.0 million to the Industrial Base 
Innovation Fund (IBIF) program for advanced manufacturing 
technologies. Recent examples of IBIF projects include improved 
producibility of the electro-optical targeting system on the 
Joint Strike Fighter, improved transparent armor for soldier 
protection in ground combat vehicles, advanced high-energy 
batteries, and light weight cables and wires for weight 
reduction on aerospace systems. The new manufacturing 
techniques for the electro-optical targeting system have led to 
a return on investment in excess of a factor of 20. Given the 
demonstrated return on investment in innovative manufacturing 
technologies, the committee recommends an additional $25.0 
million to continue the IBIF program in the 63680D8Z program 
element line.
    The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to 
continue to make competitive, merit-based investments in 
manufacturing research and development that address defense 
industrial base shortfalls, especially those related to more 
urgent production requirements and diminishing defense 
manufacturing sources and material shortages, and a sustainable 
defense design team base. Other areas of emphasis encouraged 
are those related to the emerging fields of model-based 
engineering and integrated computational materials engineering, 
as highlighted in a recent National Research Council report, 
and new innovative technologies being developed through public-
private partnerships such as the national Advanced 
Manufacturing Partnership, Connecting American Manufacturing, 
the National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium, 
and the Metal Affordability Initiative.
    Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DOD to 
institutionalize this program with adequate resources in future 
years and consider it as an important component of its wider 
manufacturing and industrial base strategy, in part, informed 
by its ongoing ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' analyses.

CWMD Systems

    Section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 established a ``Congressional Advisory Panel 
on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' No 
funding was requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget request 
for the advisory panel. The panel ends on June 1, 2014. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to PE 
0303310D8Z to carry out the functions of the advisory panel 
under a transfer to PE 0902198D8Z.

Advanced sensor applications program

    The budget request included $17.2 million in PE 63714D8Z 
for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This 
represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 
2013 of $19.0 million. This reduction reflects a general 
reduction applied to a number of budget line items in an 
across-the-board manner. The committee believes that this 
reduction, while modest by some standards, will cause the 
program to postpone important testing and experiments. The 
committee believes that these efforts are too important to 
postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of 
$2.0 million for ASAP.

U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs

    The budget request included $95.8 million in PE 63913C for 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative 
missile defense programs, including: $10.7 million to improve 
the existing Arrow Weapon System; $52.6 million for continued 
development of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor missile; and 
$32.5 million for co-development of a short-range missile 
defense system called David's Sling. These systems are part of 
Israel's layered defenses against missiles and rockets of 
varying ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria, 
to short-range missiles and large caliber rockets fired from 
Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006, to the very short-
range rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United States 
is co-managing and jointly developing these systems to ensure 
that they are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile 
defense systems.
    The committee recognizes that the threat to Israel from 
missiles and rockets of varying ranges is extremely serious and 
growing, particularly with the crisis in Syria, and that 
effective missile defenses are an essential component of 
Israel's security and regional stability. The committee 
supports efforts to enhance and accelerate these systems, in a 
manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of the 
joint Project Agreements governing the management and execution 
of these cooperative projects.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 
million in PE 63913C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile 
defense programs, including: $30.0 million to improve the Arrow 
Weapon System; $20.0 million for the Arrow-3 upper-tier 
interceptor development program; and $100.0 million for the 
David's Sling short-range missile defense system.
    The budget request also included $220.3 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide, for MDA for Israel to procure 
additional Iron Dome batteries and missiles. This is the first 
year that funding for Iron Dome has been included in the budget 
request, and the committee commends the Department of Defense 
for making it part of the regular budget process.
    The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, was 
used to great effect to defend against short-range rocket 
attacks from Gaza in 2012, and had a reported operational 
success rate of 85 percent. The committee recognizes that the 
current situation in Syria has added to the risk of rocket and 
missile attacks against Israel, and that Iron Dome is an 
important component of Israel's ability to protect its 
population against such attacks.

Advanced Innovative Technologies

    The budget request included $130.0 million in PE 64250D8Z 
for Advanced Innovative Technologies.
    The committee is concerned that this significant level of 
funding will not be able to be executed in fiscal year 2014 and 
recommends a decrease of $30.0 million to this program element.

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program focus areas

    The Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) is a competitive, 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 $250.0 
million was appropriated for the RIP in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 
113-6); however, no funds were requested in fiscal year 2014.
    The RIP was first authorized and funded in 2011. Over 170 
programs were selected by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 
2011 to include: automated engine part inspection tools, 
compact anti-jam Global Positioning System antennas, enhanced 
ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire detection 
systems for combat outposts, ceramic based explosive ordnance 
detection tool kits, and improvements to mine roller wheel 
assemblies. All these programs are scheduled to be completed in 
November 2013. The overall response from the Services has been 
positive for the program, in particular, the fact that it has 
opened up more collaborative efforts with small businesses and 
non-traditional suppliers to DOD.
    The committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in 
funding for the RIP to PE 64775D8Z focusing primarily on the 
following three broad areas:
          (1) delivering nearer-term emerging technologies to 
        current military operations to enhance capabilities in 
        areas such as: electronic warfare; cybersecurity tools; 
        robotics and autonomous systems; spectrum management; 
        intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
        capabilities; reducing soldier load; improving fixed, 
        mobile, and dismounted force protection; and detecting 
        and defeating all forms of improvised explosive 
        devices;
          (2) contributing to breakthrough technologies for 
        future military capabilities in areas such as: 
        countering weapons of mass destruction; space systems; 
        hypersonics; highly autonomous systems; large-scale 
        data management and manipulation for command and 
        control; and enhancing human performance; and
          (3) improving the affordability of defense operations 
        in areas such as: advanced manufacturing; reducing the 
        cost and footprint of energy and other logistical 
        items; interoperability across platforms and systems; 
        and innovative prototyping approaches for new platforms 
        and systems.
    The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all 
such funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based 
selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar 
competitive process. To ensure the integrity of this 
competitive process, the committee directs the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the execution of RIP. 
The report will include but not be limited to: an assessment of 
the RIP contract solicitation and award process; an assessment 
of RIP execution and monitoring of contracts; an overall 
assessment of how the RIP is meeting its goals and guidelines; 
and a complete list of all RIP awards since program inception 
to include funding organization, project, contractor, location, 
award amount, award date, description of project, confirmation 
that the contract award was competitive and merit-based, a 
description of what Joint Urgent Operational Needs or other 
critical national security need each RIP award addressed, and 
the current status of each RIP award.

Developmental test and evaluation

    The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 65804D8Z 
for developmental test and evaluation and $44.2 million in PE 
605142D8Z for systems engineering.
    The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) required the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to rebuild its systems engineering and 
developmental testing organizations to ensure that design 
problems are understood and addressed early in the acquisition 
process.
    While DOD has taken great strides in improving its 
acquisition process, the committee notes that the Fiscal Year 
2012 Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation--dated December 2012--provided a list of 17 major 
defense acquisition programs--the same number as in 2011--that 
had discoveries of significant problems during operational test 
and evaluation that should have been detected and corrected 
during developmental test and evaluation.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department's 
defense-wide systems engineering budget request is almost three 
times greater than the developmental test and evaluation budget 
request. In fiscal year 2013, the committee recommended an 
increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation. 
The committee believes that DOD is continuing to underfund its 
developmental test and evaluation activities, as evidenced by 
the unacceptable number of problems being discovered in 
operational test and evaluation.
    To bring more parity between the systems engineering and 
developmental test and evaluation activities, the committee 
recommends a transfer of $5.0 million from PE 65142D8Z to PE 
65804D8Z.

Defense Technical Information Center

    The budget request included $56.0 million in PE 65801KA for 
the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), a modest 
increase from $55.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
    The committee supports the innovation of DTIC to improve 
information technologies that enhance collaboration and 
research support and data repository services. However, the 
committee questions the role of all the web services and site 
hosting activities that DTIC provides as well as whether the 
size of the organization is commensurate with its mission. 
Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million.

Conflict Records Research Center

    The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35186D8Z for 
Policy Research and Development programs.
    The committee notes that the Conflict Records Research 
Center (CRRC) was established to address the Secretary of 
Defense's intent to enable research into captured records with 
complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and 
integrity. The mission of the CRRC is to facilitate the use of 
captured records to support research, both within and outside 
the government.
    The CRRC has made significant contributions in translating 
and facilitating the analysis of important documents in its 
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda collections. However, the CRRC is 
not funded in fiscal year 2014 and there appears to not be any 
plans for a transition of the CRRC's expertise or access to the 
documents. Hence, the committee recommends $1.0 million to the 
above PE for the CRRC and directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy to report to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act on a plan to sustain the CRRC's capabilities.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $1.3 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the 
development, integration, and testing of special operations-
unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). 
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is responsible for 
the development and acquisition of special operations 
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out 
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral 
damage.
    The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of 
funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to 
provide for the development, integration, and testing of 
additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps 
on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this 
reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million 
in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, 
for the MQ-9 UAV.

Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar

    The budget request included $1.2 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide for Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar 
(CCFLIR). Due to parts obsolescence issues with the current 
CCFLIR systems, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested a 
transfer of this funding to Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Defense-wide, for design, development, and testing 
of the next-generation CCFLIR system. The committee recommends 
this transfer.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs

    The budget request included $2.87 billion for the research 
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA). Taking into account the current fiscal 
environment, and given some lingering questions about the 
agency's ability to fully execute all its funding in a timely 
fashion, as well as concerns over certain programs, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million from DARPA's 
overall budget.
    The committee is pleased that DARPA has conducted an 
independent review of its Adaptive Vehicle Make ground vehicle 
manufacturing program, is refocusing the program, and is paying 
attention to how survivability considerations will be 
realistically taken into account.
    DARPA is pursuing a Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) X-
Plane technology program to design, develop, and demonstrate 
improvements in speed, hover performance, cruise efficiency, 
and payload. While the committee notes that the program has 
identified challenging speed goals that are significant 
improvements over rotorcraft performance today, the committee 
believes that the target size of a vehicle in the 10,000 to 
12,000 pounds class is too small to be of useful military 
utility. Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DARPA to 
anticipate more than a single performer to be selected for 
flight tests. Competition in this program is vital, and there 
should be at least two performers carried through flight 
testing. As one source for increased funding for this program, 
the committee recommends terminating the Transformer (X) 
Vehicle program due to questions about its military utility.
    The committee expresses deep concern for how the Plan-X 
cyber-security program was given a disproportionate reduction 
due to sequestration in fiscal year 2013. Given the potential 
for significant contributions by this program to the 
Department's greater cyber-security efforts, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to PE 62303E for this 
program. The committee will continue to monitor this program to 
see how its schedule will be impacted.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program

    The committee acknowledges the report that the Army 
provided to the congressional defense committees earlier this 
year about its Occupant-Centric Platform Technology Enabled 
Capability Demonstration research program and supports its 
objectives to produce military standards that inform future 
ground vehicle development to ensure that vehicle designs 
mitigate injuries due to underbody blasts and subsequent crash/
rollover events. Noting that the program will take until the 
end of fiscal year 2015 to produce these standards, the 
committee encourages the Army to move as expeditiously on this 
program as possible and to leverage emerging technologies in 
the commercial sector, especially those related to vehicle 
restraints.

Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures strategy

    The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing an enhanced 
strategy for rapid and cost-effective development, approval, 
and manufacturing of medical countermeasures (MCM) against 
chemical and biological threats, both known and validated 
threats, and emerging threats. This strategy is part of an 
integrated national bio-defense MCM strategy to produce 
vaccines and therapeutics against such high-risk threats as 
Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever viruses and pandemic 
disease outbreaks. Given the need to deploy U.S. forces in many 
parts of the world with endemic diseases and potential bio-
threats, and the need to ensure our military can operate 
successfully in a chemically or biologically contaminated 
environment, the Department has a number of unique MCM 
requirements that cannot be met outside of the Department's 
programs.
    The committee notes that this strategy is a coordinated and 
collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated national 
strategy and guidance documents, and involves particularly 
close cooperation between DOD, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 
This coordination permits each agency to perform its assigned 
tasks in a complementary fashion, reduce costs, and avoid 
duplication of effort.
    One key aspect of this DOD strategy is the development of 
an Advanced Development and Manufacturing (ADM) capability, 
formerly known as the Medical Countermeasures Initiative, which 
is intended to provide DOD an agile and flexible facility for 
rapid and affordable development and production of MCMs to 
protect military personnel, particularly prior to exposure to 
chemical and biological threats. This is a significant change 
from the traditional MCM development process, which is 
characterized by long development schedules, high risks, and 
high costs for single drugs for each validated threat.
    In contrast to the previous ``one-bug, one-drug'' approach, 
the Department is emphasizing the rapid development and FDA 
approval of broad-spectrum vaccines and anti-viral products 
that are intended to protect against a range of bio threats. 
The committee commends this more cost-effective approach and 
encourages the Department to continue with accelerated efforts 
to develop and seek FDA approval of broad-spectrum medical 
countermeasures, including anti-viral products that would 
provide improved capability against such threats as existing 
filoviruses that pose a current threat to forward-deployed U.S. 
military forces, and which could be weaponized by terrorist 
groups.
    The committee notes that the Department awarded a contract 
for the ADM facility in late 2012 and anticipates achieving 
full operational capability in 2015. The committee expects to 
be kept informed of progress with the ADM effort, including its 
results in meeting DOD objectives for cost reduction, 
flexibility, and agility in developing and producing MCMs 
against known and evolving threats, including emerging 
infectious diseases.
    The committee notes that section 1601 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) directed the Secretary of Defense to ``carry out a program 
of biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to 
therapeutics and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed 
Forces. . .''. The committee believes the Department's enhanced 
MCM strategy, particularly its development of an ADM capability 
and its focus on cost reduction and affordability, is an 
important step to meet this requirement.

Combat casualty care research

    In February 2013, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) issued a report titled, ``Actions Needed to Help Ensure 
Combat Casualty Care Research Achieves Goals.'' The GAO 
recommended that ``the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to communicate to DOD's nonmedical research organizations the 
importance of coordination with the JPC-6 chair on combat 
casualty care issues, and require this coordination early in 
the research process when these organizations conduct research 
with implications for combat casualty care.'' Furthermore, the 
GAO recommended that ``the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Health Affairs develop and implement a plan to assess the 
extent to which combat casualty care research and development 
fills gaps in DOD's capability to provide combat casualty care 
and achieves DOD's other goals for this portfolio of 
research.''
    The committee notes that DOD concurred with GAO's 
recommendations and has taken positive steps to address them. 
The committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive 
briefing to the committee, within 30 days of the enactment of 
this Act, on its progress in implementing GAO's recommendations 
and any additional actions it plans to take to achieve combat 
casualty care research goals.

Common kill vehicle technology program

    On March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel 
announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland 
ballistic missile defense, to stay ahead of the evolving long-
range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. One of the 
steps announced is the creation of a new program proposed in 
the President's budget request to develop advanced and common 
kill vehicle technologies for the Ground-Based Interceptor 
(GBI) and future variants of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) 
interceptor for the Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
program.
    The objectives of the program are to develop common 
technologies, subsystems, or components that could be used in 
either kill vehicle, and to advance the state-of-the-art kill 
vehicle capability, including propulsion, electronics, 
navigation, seeker optics, discrimination, and communications. 
Advances in these kill vehicle technologies could provide 
significant improvements in the effectiveness of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile 
Defense systems, and the overall Ballistic Missile Defense 
System, which are high priority objectives for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) and the combatant commands that rely on 
these systems.
    Given that the program was first announced in mid-March, 
the committee understands it is still at the beginning stage of 
program concept development, and does not yet have a well-
defined long-term plan in place. This is understandable for a 
new research and development program, but the committee expects 
MDA to provide more definition and clarity on the long-term 
plan for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development 
program.
    Section 225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) requires the Director of 
MDA to develop a long-term plan to modify and upgrade the 
current GBI Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, and the competitive 
development of a next-generation kill vehicle for the GBI. The 
provision also requires the Director to report to Congress on 
the plan by July 2013. The committee expects that the new 
Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program will be 
compatible and consistent with the intent of Section 225.
    One key element of any future kill vehicle program will be 
advanced propulsion for the Divert and Attitude Control System 
(DACS) that steer the kill vehicle into the target warhead, 
including solid-fueled DACS that are currently used on all SM-3 
variants. The committee notes that MDA plans to rely on the 
industrial base for innovation and competition for this Common 
Kill Vehicle Technology Development program. However, with the 
termination of the SM-3 IIB program, one of the two industry 
contractors with solid DACS expertise is at risk of ending 
their work and their ability to contribute to this program.
    With these concerns in mind, the committee directs MDA to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not 
later than March 1, 2014, setting forth the long-term plan and 
objectives for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development 
program, including an explanation of how it intends to maintain 
a competitive industrial base to implement the program.
    The committee supports the efforts of MDA to develop 
technology for a next generation high performance, high 
reliability, and highly producible kill vehicle, which MDA says 
could be ready before the end of the decade. A next generation 
kill vehicle would have enhanced discrimination capabilities 
and the potential for volume kill capability. The committee 
encourages the MDA to move the program as expeditiously as 
possible from research and development into product 
development, based on demonstrated technical progress and 
consistent with sound acquisition practices, and to transfer 
this effort from the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology 
Development program element into a new program element 
dedicated to the development of a next generation kill vehicle 
for the Ground-Based Interceptor and future variants of the 
Standard Missile-3 interceptor. The committee expects MDA to 
fully incorporate the lessons learned from the previously 
terminated Multiple Kill Vehicle program to avoid the problems 
encountered in that program.

High energy laser weapons

    The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2014 budget 
request, the Department requested $364.0 million for high 
energy laser research and development. One of the key 
challenges in comparing the performance and maturity levels of 
the various laser systems across the services, the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Missile 
Defense Agency, is the lack of common performance metrics and 
the criteria that can be used for down-selection, further 
development, and eventual deployment. To address this 
deficiency, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering shall develop a set of common high energy laser 
metrics that characterize the operational performance of a high 
energy laser to include a measurement of power deposited on a 
given area over a given amount of time at a given distance, 
dependent upon atmospheric conditions, as a function of the 
size, weight, and power of the complete laser weapon system, 
including power and thermal management sub-systems, the laser 
source, the beam control and optical sub-systems, and the 
command and control sub-systems. These metrics, as well as an 
evaluation according to these metrics that will be used for 
decisions on further development and eventual deployment of all 
current high energy laser systems the Department is currently 
developing, shall be reported to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department is 
pursuing multiple programs with solid state fiber lasers and 
strongly urges the Department to develop an integrated strategy 
that will lead to a rational down-selection process towards 
those systems that are most effective and mature in order to 
accelerate their testing in relevant operational environments 
and ultimately deployment.
    Lastly, the committee notes that the majority of DOD's 
laser directed energy programs are focused on the development 
and demonstration of high-average-power continuous wave lasers, 
which have the goal of delivering sufficient thermal energy to 
damage or destroy targets. Insufficient attention is being 
given to ultra-short-pulse very-high-peak-power lasers which 
can produce unique non-thermal effects on materials, 
components, and systems--effects which cannot be produced by 
deposition of thermal energy. The committee notes that other 
countries are exploring the applications for these non-thermal 
effects, and are advancing the development of ultra-short-pulse 
high-peak power lasers and associated technologies. The 
committee directs the Department, in particular DARPA, to begin 
considering these systems to determine what military utility 
they can provide.

Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition

    The committee notes that on March 15, 2013, Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel announced plans to deploy 14 additional 
operational Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely 
Alaska by 2017, and to procure 14 GBIs in the future to replace 
the deployed ones. The budget request, which was submitted less 
than one month after Secretary Hagel's announcement, indicates 
that the Department of Defense intends to procure the 14 
replacement GBIs at a rate of 2 per year for seven years, with 
funding starting in fiscal year 2016 and deliveries continuing 
until at least 2024.
    The committee observes that there are a number of issues 
facing the Department with respect to future acquisition of 
GBIs stretching more than a decade into the future. These 
issues include: (1) the need to correct and demonstrate the 
problems experienced with the Capability Enhancement-II exo-
atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), and to have alternative options 
available in case the correction is not successfully 
demonstrated in an intercept flight test in 2014; (2) planned 
development efforts for significant EKV upgrades and new 
capabilities and designs, some of which may be available for 
deployment before 2020; (3) planned GBI reliability 
improvements and upgrades, some of which may be available for 
deployment before 2020; (4) procurement of 2 interceptors per 
year does not appear to be the most cost-effective acquisition 
approach; and (5) the possibility of producing a mix of 3-stage 
and 2-stage GBIs as part of the 14 additional GBIs to be 
procured. The committee notes that, given current plans, the 
GBI production line will remain operational for at least the 
next decade, thus enabling the option of procuring additional 
GBIs in the future, if needed. However, it is not yet clear 
what the best acquisition options are for procuring the 14 
additional GBIs.
    Given these issues, the committee directs the Director of 
the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, describing the issues and 
options under consideration for future GBI acquisition, 
including a cost-benefit assessment of multi-year procurement 
authority. The report should include any recommendations for 
congressional action to support future GBI acquisition.

Hybrid Airships

    Over the last several years, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has pursued a number of airship vehicles to span a range 
of missions from long duration Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (ISR) to heavy lift. Many of these programs have 
been terminated or concluded due to either budgetary issues, 
technical challenges, changed requirements, or declining 
interest. Nevertheless, in testimony before the committee, 
General William M. Fraser, III, USAF, the Commander of U.S. 
Transportation Command said, ``hybrid airships represent a 
transformational capability, bridging the longstanding gap 
between high-speed, lower-capacity airlift, and low-speed, 
higher-capacity sealift. Across the range of military 
operations, this capability can be leveraged from strategic to 
tactical distances... We encourage development of commercial 
technologies that may lead to enhanced mobility capabilities in 
the future.''
    One class of airships--hybrid airships--has been 
investigated under DOD's Pelican program and the Army's Long 
Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). The Pelican 
airship uses a system to control its buoyancy, while the LEMV 
is a standard hybrid airship with fixed buoyancy. While the 
Pelican program recently demonstrated a limited capability of 
the underlying technology for controlled variable buoyancy, 
there are still significant advances that are needed to be made 
in order to develop a robust flight vehicle that would have a 
cargo capacity with any military utility. The committee 
understands that there is some degree of interest in the 
commercial sector for the transportation capabilities of a 
heavy-lift hybrid airship. If such a capability were developed 
in the private sector, there is the potential opportunity for 
DOD to leverage this capability for its needs. The committee 
directs U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force Mobility 
Command to monitor progress in this area and report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act on the status of developments in the 
commercial sector regarding hybrid airships that could be used 
to provide the capability identified by General Fraser, and to 
what extent the DOD could benefit from them.

Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan 
        Recommendations

    The December 2012 U.S. Air Force Report to Congress titled, 
``Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan'' states, 
``Air Force Weather Agency products, processes, and 
organizations must continue to improve while using technology 
and training as enablers to assist Airmen to achieve increased 
efficiency and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, Air 
Force Weather must remain at the cutting edge of science and 
technology. At the same time, to successfully operate in the 
current high-technology, yet fiscally constrained environment, 
it is imperative to partner with other Department of Defense 
(DOD), civil, research and development, and international 
agencies to develop, access, and transition needed capabilities 
to operations. Air Force Weather will focus modernization 
efforts on those capabilities required to collect, analyze, 
predict, tailor, and integrate accurate, timely, and relevant 
weather data for the warfighter.''
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force currently 
lacks a comprehensive meteorological and weather analysis 
training program that relies on the most up to date technology. 
Therefore, the committee recommends that the Air Force brief 
this committee on its plan to implement the recommendations of 
its weather modernization report to include an incremental 
improvement strategy that ultimately creates a meteorological 
and weather analysis training program for the Air Force in 
coordination and cooperation with other DOD, civil, research 
and development, and international agencies.

Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical information 
        technology services

    The committee supports the Air Force's ongoing efforts to 
acquire information technology (IT) products and services at 
lower costs and increased efficiencies. These efforts include 
standardizing configurations, maintaining strict adherence to 
Air Force and Department of Defense technical standards, 
leveraging $24.0 billion in IT buying power, and maximizing 
small business participation. The committee also supports 
additional efforts being taken by the Air Force to achieve 
cost-savings and improved efficiencies by instituting better 
business practices.
    However, the committee is concerned about a potential 
disconnect between broader IT modernization efforts and those 
efforts focused on the Air Force's mission critical, high 
consequence networks, such as those related to its nuclear and 
space missions. Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to 
take all steps required to preserve and sustain the high 
consequence, mission critical IT services to ensure there are 
no adverse mission impacts.

Improved turbine engine program

    The committee supports research and development for the 
Improved Turbine Engine Program that would increase the 
operational capability and fuel efficiency of Army helicopters. 
The committee is aware that the Army has achieved a Material 
Development Decision and that under the current acquisition 
strategy will fund competitive prototyping through Milestone-B.
    The committee encourages the Army to take competitive 
prototyping as far as resources will permit to mitigate 
technical risk and prove out performance. For example, there 
may be an opportunity to continue competition into and through 
a preliminary flight rating test milestone, or through a flight 
demonstration of each competing engine. This investment in 
continuing competition could help control costs, reduce 
programmatic risk, and mitigate modeling and simulation 
shortfalls. Selecting the appropriate point at which to down 
select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step to 
ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best 
value in investment and performance.

Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground System analyst 
        tool integration

    The budget request included $27.6 in PE 35208A for 
development of the Army's Distributed Common Ground System 
(DCGS). The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
to task the National Assessment Group (NAG) to conduct the 
following activities with respect to the Army's DCGS:
    (1) Identify the software tools and capabilities in DCGS 
that provide the human-machine interface for manipulating DCGS, 
querying data stores, and displaying results.
    (2) Characterize the Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs) and other technical interface specifications used by 
DCGS human-machine interface tools and capabilities.
    (3) Determine whether DCGS interfaces are adequate to 
support successful integration of existing DCGS human-machine 
interface tools and capabilities or similar tools that perform 
the same or similar functions.
    (4) Create an inventory of such tools and capabilities 
within DCGS and identify which of them are licensed products 
developed by a private corporation, were developed with 
government funding, or are open source products, and at what 
cost.
    (5) For each tool and capability, determine whether it was 
integrated into DCGS by government or private sector funding, 
by government or contractor personnel, and where data is 
available, at what cost.
    (6) Select a representative sample of advanced commercially 
licensed analyst tools that perform the same or similar 
functions as tools currently used in DCGS.
    (7) With the permission of the owners of those tools, 
characterize the technical interface specifications that would 
have to be satisfied for the tools to be successfully 
integrated into DCGS.
    (8) Compare the interface specifications necessary for 
successful integration of commercial tools to DCGS existing 
specification and identify any obstacles to the successful 
integration of commercially licensed analyst tools.
    The committee directs the NAG, in characterizing the tool 
integration interfaces within DCGS and commercial products, to 
assume that the tools would need to be able to ingest and 
manipulate data created or acquired locally as well as data 
already resident in the DCGS system. The NAG shall evaluate the 
DCGS Release 1, 2, and 3 versions.
    The committee directs the NAG to provide the results of 
this analysis to the Secretary of the Army and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
(USD(AT&L)) within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and 
the USD(AT&L) to forward the NAG assessment, together with any 
comments and recommendations, to the congressional defense 
committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 
210 days of the enactment of this Act. The committee directs 
that not more than 65 percent of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated for Army DCGS development in fiscal year 2014 may 
be obligated or expended prior to delivery of the required 
report.

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

    The Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor 
(JLENS) system is a paired aerostat system intended to provide 
persistent elevated sensor data needed to detect, track, and 
defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles, manned and 
unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets, including 
swarming boats. Based on a recently restructured engineering 
and manufacturing development (EMD) program, JLENS is nearing 
the completion of the EMD phase of the acquisition cycle, and 
is planned to demonstrate its potential capability and assess 
future options. As a joint system managed by the Army, it has 
demonstrated interoperability with a number of Army and Navy 
weapon systems. The Army plans to conduct an operational 
exercise with JLENS at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to 
demonstrate its capabilities in support of the North American 
Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their 
National Capital Region homeland defense mission, starting in 
October 2014.
    The committee supports the planned JLENS demonstration in 
this operational exercise and believes it will provide critical 
information for the Department of Defense to assess the ability 
of JLENS to support other combatant commander sensor 
requirements in the future. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees, not later than 90 days after the initiation of the 
JLENS demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it 
plans to use from the demonstration to guide future acquisition 
decisions for JLENS. The report shall also include a discussion 
of how the Department intends to support validated requirements 
of combatant commanders for persistent elevated surveillance of 
cruise missile and surface moving threats.

Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified

    The budget request included $181.6 million in PE 33140G for 
the Information Systems Security Program at the National 
Security Agency (NSA). NSA's Commercial Solutions for 
Classified (CSfC) program aims to shift the protection of 
classified information from reliance on government-engineered 
solutions toward publicly available commercial technologies. 
The program's technical approach is to layer commercial devices 
into a system for the protection of classified information, 
relying on the redundancy and mutual support of multiple 
commercial products to mitigate the risk of security flaws in 
any one layer. The committee strongly supports NSA's initiative 
to provide rapid and affordable security solutions for 
commercial products to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to exploit advanced commercial technology.
    However, the committee is concerned that the program's 
metrics of success focus on breadth and speed of deployment and 
user acceptance, not actual measurements of the level of 
security achieved. Commercial technologies potentially offer 
lower cost and advanced capability, but NSA must ensure that it 
detects any degradation in security should it arise due to the 
use of CSfC architectures.
    Therefore, the committee directs that NSA develop a plan to 
collect data on deployments of CSfC solutions and products and 
compare their security performance to systems engineered by 
traditional methods. In building the plan, NSA should consider 
options from the full range of potential sources of data on 
security, such as security analyses, testing, blue- and red-
team events, cyber exercises, and field performance, such as 
intrusion rates, speed with which intrusions are detected, and 
effort required for remediation. The committee further directs 
that the DOD Chief Information Officer review and approve the 
plan and transmit the plan to the congressional defense 
committees and the congressional intelligence committees within 
120 days of enactment of this Act.
    The committee also directs the program manager for the CSfC 
program to examine the problem of detecting and remediating 
vulnerabilities in the software that controls the power 
conditioning for mobile devices that could allow attackers to 
rapidly deplete limited power sources. In today's mobile 
communications world, power sources are the key limiting factor 
for mission success and optimization of battery performance and 
longevity are largely software controlled.

Military Scientists and Engineers

    The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department 
of Defense's (DOD) science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) education and outreach programs. The DOD 
needs to be able to attract and retain the best and brightest 
scientists and engineers for both its civilian and military 
personnel. The committee acknowledges that there has been 
greater emphasis on the civilian STEM sector and that the 
number of military STEM officers has experienced a steeper 
decline than the total number of officers over the last two-
plus decades. The broader question that needs to be addressed 
is how well DOD is managing its uniformed STEM workforce to 
ensure that it will keep pace with its own evolving needs and 
high technology developments around the world.
    Hence, to better understand the current situation with DOD 
uniformed STEM personnel, the committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in 
coordination with the services, to report to the congressional 
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment 
of this Act on the following:
          (1) the current and future requirements for uniformed 
        STEM personnel, including requirements for types of 
        degrees and scientific and technical fields;
          (2) how uniformed STEM personnel are used and 
        integrated into the total force (by service), including 
        how the balance between officer leadership and 
        technical competence is addressed;
          (3) what differences, if any, exist between the data 
        DOD collects on its civilian workforce and uniformed 
        personnel in STEM fields to include:
                  (a) the educational degree discipline;
                  (b) the granting school of all baccalaureate, 
                graduate, and professional degrees; and
                  (c) the non-military occupation of Reserve 
                component members; and
          (4) how the Defense Manpower Data Center is used for 
        managing both civilian and military STEM personnel.

Scientific and technical conferences

    As a result of some unfortunate recent events in other 
government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget 
released Memorandum M-12-12 last year that provided guidance to 
departments and agencies on government travel and conference 
attendance. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued further 
implementing guidance later in the year that established a 
tiered approval structure for conference oversight 
responsibilities. The committee understands that the 
implementing guidance has led to the oversight and approval of 
science and technology (S&T)-funded travel and conference 
sponsoring and attendance by very senior service and department 
levels that requires additional time and resources.
    An unintended consequence of this guidance has been a 
significant reduction in the DOD's participation in S&T-funded 
travel to major scientific facilities or experimental sites for 
research projects, grantee and contractor site visits, program 
reviews and technical evaluations, science board and advisory 
group meetings, international S&T engagements, standards-
setting committees, scientific society-sponsored conferences, 
and events and competitions authorized under section 2192 of 
Title 10, United States Code, for educational outreach 
initiatives. Reductions in travel and conferences pose a 
special threat to science and engineering activities because of 
the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of 
extensive interchange among researchers to remain cognizant of 
and extend the current state of knowledge. The committee is 
concerned that decreased participation may be jeopardizing the 
ability of DOD S&T to successfully complete their S&T missions.
    In order to quantify the impact that these policies are 
having on the DOD S&T enterprise, the committee directs the 
Government Accountability Office to undertake a study of the 
impact of the above mentioned policies on the DOD S&T 
enterprise, including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, and report to the congressional defense 
committees its findings no later than 6 months after the date 
of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, in order to streamline 
approval timelines and reduce attendant delays, the committee 
directs the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to establish procedures to allow the services and 
agency heads to exercise more local control and decision making 
authority over travel and conference oversight and approval, 
consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the need to 
ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

Tactical power grids

    The committee is aware that the U.S. Army Research, 
Development, and Engineering Command and the Office of Naval 
Research are each pursuing the development of tactical power 
grids and advanced mobile electric power distribution systems 
to assist the Army and Marine Corps respectively, to meet the 
need for the efficient distribution of mobile electric power in 
a stable tactical grid environment. While the committee 
encourages these efforts to improve safety, reliability, reduce 
fuel consumption, and maximize energy efficiency, the committee 
urges the services to closely coordinate to avoid unnecessary 
duplication and to continue these efforts to determine whether 
these objectives can be met.

Trusted microelectronics

    The committee recognizes the vital importance of supply 
chain risk management for Department of Defense (DOD) systems, 
especially for microelectronics components and software, in 
order to maintain mission assurance of its weapons systems. A 
key component of microelectronics manufacturing for critical 
DOD systems is the Trusted Foundry program as well as the 
Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA). Given the rapid pace 
of microelectronics obsolescence, the committee supports the 
continued improvement of DMEA's capabilities as a foundry of 
last resort when commercial entities in the Trusted Foundry 
program are not able to manufacture a given component.
    In addition to supporting the Trusted Foundry program and 
DMEA, the committee urges DOD to ensure that an enterprise-wide 
approach to microelectronics trust is taken, to include the 
security of photomask design and inspection tools given their 
criticality in the integrated circuit manufacturing process. 
The committee urges DOD to continue to work with the private 
sector in ongoing partnership programs to reduce supply chain 
vulnerabilities and to ensure that technologies and products 
developed are transitioned to the manufacturing processes used 
for DOD microelectronics components.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

                 Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment

Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within Army arsenals 
        (sec. 311)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the military 
services and defense agencies, to review current and expected 
manufacturing requirements for which there is no or limited 
domestic commercial source and which are appropriate for 
manufacturing within an arsenal owned by the United States in 
order to support critical manufacturing capabilities.
Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 312)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to develop an overarching strategy, along 
with an implementation plan, to integrate and synchronize at a 
Department-wide level, the services' prepositioning program. 
The strategy and implementation plan would ensure that the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) prepositioning programs, both 
ground and afloat, align with national defense strategies, new 
DOD priorities, and emphasize joint oversight to maximize 
effectiveness and efficiencies in prepositioned materiel and 
equipment across the DOD.
    The committee continues to believe in the strategic 
importance of the effective prepositioning of material and 
equipment in locations around the world, both ground and 
afloat, to facilitate and speed our response to crises or 
contingencies. Fiscal challenges require the DOD to carefully 
balance the investment in prepositioned materiel and equipment 
to achieve both national military objectives and other DOD 
priorities.
    The committee understands that the DOD is committed to 
reconstituting prepositioned materiel and equipment but must 
balance these efforts with the Department's other priorities, 
such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned 
materiel and equipment and changes in its overseas military 
presence.
    The committee is concerned that the DOD has not implemented 
an overarching strategy and joint service oversight framework 
for its prepositioning programs. As the DOD and the nation face 
fiscal constraints in the coming years, overarching strategic 
guidance that emphasizes joint oversight of the DOD's 
prepositioning program is essential to reduce any unnecessary 
overlap, duplication, and inefficiencies among the services and 
to maximize cost savings while minimizing risks.
    As far back as 2005, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) has reported that each of the services and the Defense 
Logistics Agency were planning the future of their 
prepositioning programs without the benefit of an integrated 
DOD-wide plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts. 
The GAO has made several recommendations over the years for the 
DOD to develop overarching strategic guidance and improve the 
joint service oversight of its prepositioning programs. While 
the DOD has agreed with the need to develop department-wide 
strategic guidance, efforts to do so have not materialized.
    Moreover, the committee is concerned that the DOD may be 
moving away from such efforts. For example, the DOD had 
previously stated that its Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan 
would provide the strategic guidance and that the Department 
would pursue opportunities for joint oversight as the GAO 
recommended. However, when the plan was approved in January 
2013, it specifically excluded prepositioning. The committee 
believes that an increased emphasis on joint program management 
and oversight of prepositioned materiel and equipment would 
unify the DOD's prepositioning efforts in support of defense 
priorities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and achieve cost 
savings and efficiencies.
Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at 
        Department of Defense rates for non-Department of Defense 
        Federal cargoes (sec. 313)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2642(a) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority to provide to other Federal agencies airlift 
transportation at the same rate the Department of Defense (DOD) 
charges its own units for similar transportation and to expand 
the authority to include all means of transportation, not just 
airlift. The Department currently uses this authority to: (1) 
provide transportation support to other departments and 
agencies to increase peacetime business; and (2) promote the 
improved use of airlift by filling excess capacity with paying 
cargo.
    The proposal also would expand the authority to allow the 
use of extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the 
military, to include aircraft and vessels, for transportation 
provided in support of foreign military sales. During peacetime 
operations, utilization of aircraft and vessels to meet 
training and readiness requirements is typically greater than 
actual cargo transportation requirements. Therefore, DOD can 
transport extra cargo at little or no increase in operating 
costs, making utilization of excess capacity by other federal 
agencies prudent. Additionally, use of such capacity for the 
shipment of items for other departments or agencies complements 
the training needs of DOD.
    The provision would also extend the sunset date for this 
authority from October 28, 2014, until September 30, 2019.

                         Subtitle C--Readiness


Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for equipment 
        readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321)

    The committee recommends a provision that would cancel the 
requirement for an annual report on the Army's transition to 
modular force structure. The provision would also cancel the 
review of the Army's modularity report by the Government 
Accountability Office.

Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of 
        operating forces used to support overseas contingency 
        operations (sec. 322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy setting forth the 
programs and priorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) for 
the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of units and 
materiel used to support overseas contingency operations. The 
provision would direct that the policy shall take into account 
national security threats, the requirements of the combatant 
commands, the current readiness of the operating forces of the 
military departments, and risk associated with the strategic 
depth and the time necessary to reestablish required personnel, 
equipment, and training readiness in such operating forces.
    The provision would further direct that the required DOD 
implementation plan, and the annual updates to the initial plan 
for the following three years, shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 120 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    The provision would also directs the Comptroller General to 
review the DOD implementation plan and policy and report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after 
submission of the report or updates from the Secretary of 
Defense.
    Lastly, the provision would encourage DOD to submit a 
classified annex to accompany the implementation plan and 
policy, where appropriate.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec. 
        331)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to complete a comprehensive strategy and 
implementation plan for improving asset visibility tracking and 
in-transit visibility across the Department of Defense.

Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 332)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and 
streamline the quarterly readiness report to Congress. The 
committee notes that in striking the term ``borrowed 
personnel'' the committee is referring to personnel assigned to 
a unit that may not have the rank, school completed, or 
specialized training to be able to carry out the 
responsibilities for the assigned position.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would align 
Department of Defense high-threshold Information Technology 
Capital Asset reporting with the Department's Major Automated 
Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to 
the Office of Management and Budget.

Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting 
        requirements (sec. 334)

    The committee notes that the military departments' 
corrosion control and prevention executives coordinate with the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) Corrosion Policy and Oversight 
Office on their respective strategic plans. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has found that linking the military 
departments' strategic goals to those of the DOD should improve 
corrosion control and prevention efforts. However, the 
committee notes that the GAO also found that the military 
departments varied in the extent that their strategic plans 
show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in 
the DOD corrosion prevention and mitigation strategic plan. The 
committee notes the Army's strategic plan showed clear linkage 
to all 10 of the goals and objectives. Additionally, the 
committee notes that the GAO found no inconsistencies with DOD 
Instruction 5000.67, which establishes policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and provides guidance for managing programs 
to prevent or mitigate corrosion.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that 
would modify section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417; 
10 U.S.C. 2228 note) to update the military departments' 
strategic plans with performance measures and show clear 
linkage to the DOD's overarching goals and objectives as 
described in the DOD's strategic plan for corrosion control and 
prevention.

           Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority


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

    The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) 
testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM is placing 
greater emphasis on its presence in the National Capital Region 
(NCR) to better support coordination and decision making with 
interagency partners. Thus, USSOCOM began to consolidate its 
presence in the NCR in early 2012. This is not a duplication of 
effort. We are focused instead on consolidating USSOCOM 
elements in the Washington, DC region under the leadership of 
the USSOCOM Vice-Commander--who resides in Washington.'' To 
support this effort, the budget request includes $10.0 million 
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the 
USSOCOM-NCR.
    The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better 
coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational 
partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR. 
However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints 
dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a 
resource and manpower neutral manner. While this is the first 
year USSOCOM has requested funding for the USSOCOM-NCR in its 
budget request, USSOCOM-NCR activities have been underway for 
more than a year resulting in significant expenditures for 
leased facilities and contract support. To date, the committee 
has not received sufficient detail on the implementation plan 
for the USSOCOM-NCR and its associated costs, particularly in 
future years.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the expenditure of any funds for the USSOCOM-NCR until 
30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the 
congressional defense committees a report which describes, at a 
minimum: (1) the purpose of the USSOCOM-NCR; (2) the activities 
to be performed by the USSOCOM--NCR; (3) an explanation of the 
impact of the USSOCOM-NCR on existing activities at USSOCOM 
headquarters; (4) a detailed breakout, by fiscal year, of the 
staffing and other costs associated with the USSOCOM-NCR over 
the future years defense program; (5) a description of the 
relationship between the USSOCOM-NCR and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC); (6) the role of the ASD SOLIC 
in providing oversight of USSOCOM-NCR activities; and (7) any 
other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a budget 
item related to the use of contractors to support the USSOCOM-
NCR.

Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination 
        Centers (sec. 342)

    The budget request included $14.7 million for the 
establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination 
Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. The 
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 
expenditure of any funds for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014 and 
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the 
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, not later than 
September 30, 2013, to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees outlining, at a minimum: (1) the requirement 
and justification for the establishment of RSCCs; (2) the 
number and locations of planned RSCCs; (3) the projected cost 
to establish and maintain the proposed RSCCs in future years; 
(4) the relevance to and coordination with other multilateral 
engagement activities and academic institutes supported by the 
geographic combatant commanders and State Department; and (5) 
any legislative authorities that may be needed to establish 
RSCCs.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends no 
funding for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014.

Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative 
        (TRWI) (sec. 343)

    The budget request included $19.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Trans Regional Web 
Initiative (TRWI), a contractor operated and U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) funded strategic level military 
information support operations program. Under the TRWI, USSOCOM 
establishes and maintains news and information websites in 
support of certain geographic combatant command's (GCC) 
countering violent extremism objectives.
    The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM and the GCCs 
to conduct phase zero operations to counter violent extremism, 
but believes that the costs to operate the websites developed 
under the TRWI are excessive. The effectiveness of the websites 
is questionable and the performance metrics do not justify the 
expense. The committee believes USSOCOM resources are better 
used to support tactical and operational military information 
support activities. The committee acknowledges the utility of 
strategic level information operations activities, but believes 
they would be more appropriately funded and managed by the 
State Department and other relevant U.S. Government agencies, 
with support from USSOCOM, as necessary.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the Secretary of Defense from expending any funds in 
OMDW to continue the TRWI and the associated websites.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 
        351)

    Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) required the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to review the performance, 
interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the 
services' combat camouflage and utility uniforms. In April 
2010, the GAO reported that since 2002, the services continued 
to develop unique combat and utility uniforms. The committee 
notes that prior to 2002, the services wore the same pattern 
and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO 
found no performance standards for specific combat 
environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of 
camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to 
test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical 
gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and 
Textiles Governance Board in 2008.
    The committee remains concerned that until this year, the 
Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines 
with different types of combat uniforms, providing 
significantly different levels of protection in combat 
environments.
    The GAO recently identified that the DOD's fragmented 
approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be 
more efficient, better protect service members, and result in 
up to $82.0 million in development and acquisition cost savings 
through increased collaboration among the military services.
    The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of 
the military departments to explore additional methods for 
sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop 
their combat and utility uniforms. The committee continues to 
believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the 
most advanced levels of protection and should be available to 
all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military 
service in which they serve.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that 
would direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate 
development and fielding of service-specific combat and 
camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and 
field the same combat and camouflage utility uniforms for use 
by all members of the armed forces. The committee notes that 
the recommended provision would also restrict any military 
service from preventing another military service from 
authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility 
uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act, 
each military service would be prohibited from adopting new 
designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including 
uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage 
patterns used in current combat and camouflage utility 
uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use, 
all services adopt the same combat or camouflage utility 
uniform, or the Secretary of Defense determines that unique 
circumstances or requirements justify an exception to the 
policy.

Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection 
        system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military 
        personnel serving outside the United States (sec. 352)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.5 million from 
defense-wide operation and maintenance to the Postal Service 
Fund for purposes of implementing the modernization of the 
United States Postal Service's mail delivery system to improve 
the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving 
outside the United States.

                              Budget Items


Army readiness funding increases

    The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $888.1 million was for 
maneuver units, $1.2 billion was for aviation assets, $3.5 
billion was for force readiness operations support, and $1.4 
billion was for land forces depot maintenance. The budget 
request also included $7.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $712.1 
million was for facilities sustainment, restoration, and 
modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.0 
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of 
which $294.1 million was for FSRM.
    The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness 
accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of 
sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended 
increases will improve the Army's fiscal year 2014 flying hour 
program and ground operations tempo requirements and enable 
units to conduct additional training to restore readiness lost 
in fiscal year 2013. The committee also notes that the 
recommended increase in land forces depot maintenance will 
allow additional maintenance to occur on aviation assets, 
ground vehicles, missiles, electronics, and post-production 
software support. Additionally, the recommended increases for 
FSRM will increase funding to 90 percent of the fiscal year 
2014 requirement for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $195.9 
million in OMA for maneuver units, $15.8 million in OMA for 
aviation assets, $209.9 million in OMA for force readiness 
operations support, $200.0 million in OMA for land forces depot 
maintenance, $74.2 million in OMARNG for FSRM, and $36.4 
million in OMAR for FSRM.

U.S. European Command funding decrease

    The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $185.0 million was for 
combatant commanders core operations.
    The committee is concerned that the funding increase in the 
fiscal year 2014 budget request for U.S. European Command's 
(EUCOM) information operations campaign is unjustified growth.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million in OMA (subactivity 138) for EUCOM.

Navy readiness funding increases

    The budget request included $39.9 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.9 billion was for mission 
and other flight operations, $1.8 billion was for fleet air 
training, $35.8 million was for aircraft depot operations 
support, $3.8 billion was for mission and other ship 
operations, $734.8 million was for ship operations support and 
training, $5.1 billion was for ship depot maintenance, $1.3 
billion was for ship depot operations support, $2.6 million was 
for depot operations support, and $1.9 billion was for 
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM). 
The budget request also included $1.1 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $586.6 million was 
for mission and other flight operations and $100.6 million was 
for aircraft depot maintenance.
    The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness 
accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of 
sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended 
increases in funding will improve the Navy's fiscal year 2014 
flying hour program, steaming days, depot maintenance, 
training, and FSRM to restore readiness lost in fiscal year 
2013.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases in OMN: $32.5 million for mission and other flight 
operations, $11.2 million in fleet air training, $608,000 in 
aircraft depot operations support, $99.5 million in mission and 
other ship operations, $61.4 million in ship operations support 
and training, $5.7 million in ship depot maintenance, $126.2 
million in ship depot operations support, $660,000 in depot 
operations support, $100.0 million in FSRM. The committee also 
recommends the following increases in OMNR: $1.9 million in 
mission and other flight operations and $8.9 million in 
aircraft depot maintenance.

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support

    The budget request included $199.1 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for Combatant Commanders Direct Mission 
Support. Of this amount, $3.0 million is for a classified U.S. 
Pacific Command (PACOM) program.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in OMN 
for the development of the program at PACOM.

Marine Corps readiness funding increases

    The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $223.3 million was 
for depot maintenance.
    The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in this 
readiness account that could help offset cuts as a result of 
sequestration. The committee notes that the recommended 
increase will improve the Marine Corp's critical depot 
maintenance requirement to 100 percent in order to restore 
readiness lost in fiscal year 2013.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.0 
million in OMMC for depot maintenance.

Air Force readiness funding increases

    The budget request included $37.2 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.2 billion was for 
primary combat forces, $1.5 billion was for air operations 
training, $5.9 billion was for depot maintenance, and $1.8 
billion was for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.1 
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 
(OMAFR), of which $89.7 million was for FSRM. The budget 
request also included $6.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $296.9 
million was for FSRM.
    The Air Force has identified specific amounts in these 
readiness accounts that could help offset fiscal year 2013 cuts 
as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that these 
recommended increases in amounts will improve the Air Force's 
fiscal year 2014 flying hour program, weapons systems 
sustainment, training ranges, and FSRM.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMAF: 
$220.0 million in primary combat forces, $30.0 million in air 
operations training, $210.0 million for depot maintenance, and 
$75.0 million for FSRM. The committee also recommends an 
increase of $8.7 million in OMAFR for FSRM and an increase of 
$28.2 million in OMANG for FSRM.

Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support

    The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Direct 
Mission Support. Of this amount, $22.4 million is for a U.S. 
Central Command (CENTCOM) classified program.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $22.4 million in 
OMAF for this classified CENTCOM program.

Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers

    The budget request included $14.7 million for the 
establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination 
Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 
(OMDW).
    According to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the 
RSCCs would be partner-led multinational organizations designed 
to ``promote partner-nation SOF [Special Operations Forces] 
capacity building through coordination, education, and 
information sharing.'' These RSCCs would function as ``regional 
operational-level hubs of the larger global SOF network to 
facilitate cooperation and interoperability among partner-
nation SOF and SOF-like organizations.''
    To date, the committee has not received appropriate 
justification and a plan for the establishment of the proposed 
RSCCs, particularly the costs to sustain RSCC operations in 
future years. The committee is concerned that the RSCCs may 
duplicate other efforts by the geographic combatant commanders 
(GCC), their subordinate component commands, existing GCC 
regional centers, and complicate diplomatic activities by the 
State Department and relevant chiefs of mission. In addition, 
the committee is concerned that the RSCCs as proposed by 
USSOCOM would be heavily reliant on contractors for planning, 
study, and engagement activities with funding for such 
contractors making up nearly the entire budget request for 
RSCCs in fiscal year 2014.
    USSOCOM indicates that the RSCCs would be modeled, at least 
in-part, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The committee has been 
strongly supportive of the NSHQ and its efforts to enhance the 
capabilities and interoperability of NATO SOF. The efforts of 
the NSHQ have been especially evident in the increased 
participation and success of allied SOF in operations in 
Afghanistan. While the committee agrees there are important 
lessons to be learned from the NSHQ that can be applied in 
other regions, the committee believes the NSHQ is a flawed 
model for the proposed RSCCs. The NATO alliance is unique in 
the world and the NSHQ has been built on a foundation of 
longstanding multilateral agreements that underpin its 
activities.
    Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends 
no funding in OMDW for the establishment of RSCCs by USSOCOM.

U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region

    The budget request included $10.0 million for the 
establishment of a U.S. Special Operations Command--National 
Capital Region (USSOCOM-NCR) office in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide.
    The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better 
coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational 
partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR. 
However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints 
dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a 
resource and manpower neutral manner. The committee is 
concerned that two-thirds of the requested funding for the 
USSOCOM-NCR in fiscal year 2014 would pay for contractor 
support. The committee believes such a heavy reliance on 
contractors to implement the USSOCOM-NCR is inconsistent with 
the purpose of this effort.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 million for the 
USSOCOM-NCR, a reduction of $7.1 million. The committee 
recommends a provision elsewhere in this title that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees prior to the expenditure of 
any fiscal year 2014 funds for the USSOCOM-NCR.

Department of Defense STARBASE program

    The budget request included no funding for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is 
to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten 
through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and 
math (STEM) subjects, and to motivate them to explore STEM as 
they continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at 
76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, primarily on military installations. To date, 
nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program. 
STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated 
service members and strengthens the relationships between the 
military, communities, and local school districts.
    The committee notes that the budget request eliminated 
funding for this successful program due to a reorganization of 
STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes 
that STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $21.7 
million for the DOD STARBASE program.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

    The budget request included $788.4 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency (DSCA), of which $85.9 million is to support 
the operation and maintenance budgets of the five regional 
centers for security studies. The five centers serve as a forum 
for bilateral and multilateral communication within a region. 
Their activities range from extended academic programs to 
conferences on topics such as regional security issues, defense 
planning, and civilian-military relations. The committee notes 
that the regional centers serve an important role in supporting 
the Secretary of Defense and the geographic combatant 
commanders, but the committee also notes that the budgets of 
these centers continue to grow--even after the Secretary of 
Defense's efficiency initiative explicitly sought to reduce 
their budgets.
    In addition, the DSCA budget also included $34.8 million 
for the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP). While 
the committee remains supportive of this program, the committee 
is concerned about the expanding activities and increased 
operating costs of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The 
committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on: its 
core counterterrorism training and education; a limited number 
of regions where the threat posed by terrorism is the most 
significant; and efforts to offset rising costs such as 
increased use of virtual education opportunities and programs.
    As such, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease 
of $12.0 million to OMDW for the DSCA's budget request to 
support the five regional centers and a decrease of $7.0 
million for the CTFP.
    The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy (USD(P)), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the geographic combatant commanders to conduct a review of 
the mission, mandate, curriculum, and other activities of the 
five regional centers to ensure that their ongoing and planned 
activities continue to directly support the theater security 
cooperation campaigns of their respective combatant commanders. 
The review shall also assess whether the current organizational 
construct and chain of command associated with the five 
regional centers is appropriate given the recent presidential 
guidance on security assistance. As part of the review, the 
committee urges the USD(P) to focus particular attention on the 
need to enhance engagement in areas of emerging security 
interests (e.g. the area of responsibility in U.S. Africa 
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Central Command) and 
promoting continued interoperability among International 
Security Assistance Force partners and capturing the lessons 
learned from coalition operations in Afghanistan.
    Following the completion of this review--and no later than 
90 days after enactment of this Act--the committee directs the 
USD(P) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
    The committee is aware that the Department has taken steps 
to establish a governance board to enhance its ability to 
oversee the centers and has set broad programmatic priorities, 
but has not yet fully developed an approach for measuring the 
centers' progress in meeting these priorities, including 
establishing measurable goals, related performance metrics, and 
a methodology for assessing performance of the centers. 
Therefore, as part of the aforementioned briefing, the 
committee directs the USD(P) to also provide information on the 
status of its efforts to measure the centers' progress.

Funding for impact aid

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

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

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request

    The budget request included $371.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic 
Adjustment (OEA), of which $273.3 million was for water and 
wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the 
relocation of marines to Guam.
    Given the reevaluation of the relocation of marines to 
Guam, the committee remains concerned that the funds requested 
for the OEA are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $273.3 million in OMDW for the OEA.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy funding decrease

    The budget request included $32.9 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $66.0 million was 
for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
(OUSD(P)).
    In light of sequestration reductions and readiness concerns 
faced by the Department, the committee is concerned by the 
growth of the OUSD(P) budget request. The committee notes that 
nearly 50 percent of the OUSD(P) budget is dedicated to 
contractor support, which in the committee's view, is based on 
past staffing paradigms and is far too great. As the Department 
considers areas to make reductions within OUSD(P) to adjust for 
this cut, the committee expects that the first reductions 
should target the size and/or cost of the contractor workforce.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 
million in OMDW for the OUSD(P).

Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass

    The budget request included $32.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $14.2 billion is for 
classified programs. Within that amount for classified 
programs, the request includes classified amounts to sustain 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to 
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) included funds to enhance the ISR support 
to AFRICOM's Operation Observant Compass, an operation to 
support the efforts of Ugandan and other regional militaries to 
remove Joseph Kony and other senior leaders of the Lord's 
Resistance Army from the battlefield in Central Africa.
    The budget request included funds for commercial aircraft 
with full motion video sensors. The committee notes that this 
capability is of limited utility in regions where there is 
dense canopy, and believes that the Department is paying more 
than it should for this capability.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to 
the request for full motion video surveillance and recommends 
$40.0 million to sustain the congressionally mandated 
initiative.

                       Items of Special Interest


Additive manufacturing

    The committee notes that the introduction of additive 
manufacturing, also known as third dimensional (3-D) printing, 
has the potential to contribute to Department of Defense (DOD) 
missions and capabilities with the effective and efficient use 
of lightweight materials, rapid production, and design 
innovation. The committee remains concerned that the long lead 
time often associated with spare parts can in some instances 
take multiple years to arrive at various DOD depots.
    The committee notes that the potential to use ceramic 
composite materials could offer enhanced aircraft performance 
over metal alloys with higher temperatures ranges, less weight, 
and greater fuel efficiency. Similarly, a deployable 3-D 
printing capability could enable a forward operating base with 
an adaptive and onsite manufacturing capability with a reduced 
logistical burden. Furthermore, the DOD is providing funding to 
the recently established National Additive Manufacturing 
Innovation Institute (NAMII).
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later 
than February 1, 2014 on the potential benefits and constraints 
of additive manufacturing, how the process could or could not 
contribute to DOD missions, and what technologies being 
developed at NAMII are being transitioned for DOD use.

Advanced situational awareness training

    The committee understands that the Army has successfully 
introduced a program to train deploying units to detect changes 
in human behavior through the Advanced Situational Awareness 
Training module. The committee commends the Army for continuing 
to broaden and adapt its training efforts to best enable 
soldiers to react to the vast array of complex and asymmetrical 
threats often faced in a combat environment. The committee 
notes that training to increase situational awareness imparts 
enduring and important skills for individual soldiers and 
units, and encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider 
expanding this type of training to additional deploying units 
and at the appropriate advanced leadership courses.

Air show support by the Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense issued guidance in early April 
2013 prohibiting all aerial demonstrations, including flyovers, 
jump team demonstrations, and participation in civilian air 
shows and military open houses.
    Many believe that this lack of community engagement may 
have negative consequences on military recruiting and local 
economies. The committee recognizes that the Department had to 
take serious steps in order to deal with the effects of 
sequestration in fiscal year 2013.
    However, the committee has been informed that there are 
certain circumstances where an exception to this general policy 
could provide some level of community engagement as a no-cost 
addition to activities that are required for training or 
readiness.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of 
Defense reconsider whether this policy should be enforced on a 
blanket basis or whether the policy should allow for community 
engagement if that engagement can be completed as a no-cost 
adjunct to missions fulfilling other required operational or 
training activities.

Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments

    The Department of Defense (DOD), Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 
of 2013 (Public Law 113-6) provided $20.0 million in Air Force 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) only for 
research that will improve emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) 
fuel to enable this technology to be a competitive alternative 
energy resource.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a detailed spending plan to the committee for 
the CTL RDT&E program no later than July 31, 2013. 
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the 
committee on the feasibility of potential technologies that 
could enable coal-based fuels to meet the requirements of the 
DOD consistent with section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140). The report 
shall also include a proposal for joint research on those 
technologies that are most promising for the capture of carbon, 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and other approaches 
that could enable coal-based fuels to be procured under section 
526 of the EISA 2007. The DOD shall submit this report to the 
committee no later than February 1, 2014.

Combatant command support agent accounting

    The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget 
justification material within the Air Force's Combatant 
Commander Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commander Core 
Operations (lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of 
multiple combatant commands' budgets under the purview of the 
Air Force as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee 
is concerned that due to this consolidation, the justification 
material lacks the level of detail necessary for this committee 
to make informed budget decisions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the services to annually 
deliver independent, detailed budget justification for each 
combatant command they are assigned Combatant Command Support 
Agent responsibility.

Comptroller General of the United States review of United States 
        Central Command

    Since fiscal year 2001, the resources provided to U.S. 
Central Command (CENTCOM) and its supporting military service 
components have grown dramatically to conduct and manage wars 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Department of Defense 
(DOD) reports provided to Congress, the military and civilian 
manpower at CENTCOM has more than doubled since fiscal year 
2001 and this does not include the contractors that support the 
headquarters. With the drawdown of operational forces from Iraq 
and ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan, it will be important to 
examine levels of headquarters manpower and mission support 
costs needed by CENTCOM and its respective service component 
commands to manage steady state operations.
    As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to undertake a review of CENTCOM to include 
the following items: (1) what have been the trends in manpower 
and mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of 
CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service 
component commands since 2001; (2) what steps has DOD taken to 
reexamine the size and structure of the headquarters of 
CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service 
component commands in light of the significant drawdown of 
forces and operations in its area of responsibility and 
changing U.S. military strategy; (3) what are the future plans 
for CENTCOM and its service component commands, including any 
plans to maintain headquarters in forward locations such as 
Kuwait and Qatar; (4) what changes, if any, should be made to 
intelligence and other defense functions that support CENTCOM 
combat operations; (5) what personnel adjustments are 
recommended at senior levels to right size the command 
structure; and (6) any other items the Comptroller General 
determines to be appropriate while conducting this review, 
including relevant plans regarding right-sizing and properly 
posturing manpower at headquarters for steady state post-2014.
    The Comptroller General shall provide the preliminary 
results of the study to the congressional defense committees by 
September 30, 2013, with a final report to follow as soon as 
practicable thereafter.

Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde

    The committee notes that the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, the Joint Staff J-4, the military services, and other 
entities are developing consolidated guidance on equipment 
retrograde and disposition for equipment currently deployed for 
use in Operation Enduring Freedom and elsewhere throughout the 
U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee 
notes that the consolidated guidance includes a process outline 
for transferring excess defense articles (EDA) to coalition 
partners via the existing Letter of Request/Letter of 
Acceptance process.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the 
committee on the progress of the consolidated guidance for 
equipment retrograde and EDA process no later than January 1, 
2014.

Contingency basing

    The committee notes the Department of Defense (DOD) issued 
a directive on January 10, 2013 which established a policy and 
assigned responsibility for DOD contingency basing outside the 
United States. The committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent 
to pursue increased effectiveness and efficiency in contingency 
basing to better assist the warfighter. The committee believes 
that contingency basing while often executed in an expedient 
fashion, should also take into account the sustainment cost of 
materials and seek opportunities to reduce the logistical and 
operational burden of the warfighter.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to notify the congressional defense committees of the decision 
to designate a senior official to be responsible for the 
oversight of all aspects of contingency basing policy, no later 
than March 1, 2014. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the 
committee no later than March 1, 2014 on the resourcing 
decisions and progress made regarding the action items 
published in enclosure 2 of the DOD Directive 3000.10.

Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management

    The committee notes that the Defense Institute of Security 
Assistance Management (DISAM) is the only dedicated institution 
of the Department of Defense (DOD) for the education and 
training of U.S. and foreign nation personnel involved in the 
planning, management, and assessment of security cooperation 
and partner capacity-building programs conducted under the 
authorities of the Departments of Defense and State. DISAM is 
primarily funded via the Department of State authorities, and 
only in recent years has DISAM been resourced to support 
training and education on the planning, management, and 
assessment of DOD security cooperation efforts, including many 
title 10 programs (e.g., section 1206 train-and-equip 
authorities, DOD counternarcotics authorities, Joint Combined 
Exchange Training, and Latin America and African Cooperation 
authorities). As stated in the budget request, these title 10 
programs are of particular importance to DOD in meeting the 
emergent needs of the geographic combatant commanders in 
support of theater security campaign plans and contingency 
operations.
    However, the committee notes that despite the additional 
funding to incorporate title 10 authorities into the curriculum 
at DISAM, security assistance officers deployed overseas remain 
less informed of the flexible building partnership capacity 
programs that Congress has provided to DOD over the last 
decade.
    As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to jointly conduct a full review of the security 
assistance curriculum at DISAM to ensure that DOD's title 10 
programs, particularly DOD's counternarcotics authorities, are 
incorporated in the curriculum fully. Not later than 30 days 
following completion of this review, the committee directs the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the 
committee on their findings and recommendations.

Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum of 
        understanding to enhance energy security

    The committee remains encouraged by the memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) signed on July 22, 2010 by the Department 
of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy concerning 
cooperation in a strategic partnership to enhance energy 
security. The committee notes that the MOU was to cover, but 
not limited to, efforts in the areas of energy efficiency, 
renewable energy, water efficiency, fossil fuels, alternative 
fuels, efficient transportation technologies and fueling 
infrastructure, grid security, smart grid, energy storage, 
waste-to-energy, basic science research, mobile/deployable 
power, small modular reactor nuclear energy, and related areas.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later 
than January 1, 2014 on the progress made to date regarding the 
MOU signed on July 22, 2010 to enhance energy security.

Energy metering

    The committee notes that section 2828 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) 
required the Secretary of the Navy to meter Navy piers so that 
the energy consumption of naval vessels while in port can be 
accurately measured and captured. The committee is encouraged 
by the utilities meter policy signed on April 16, 2013 which 
established a Department of Defense (DOD) policy to install 
advanced meters on individual DOD-owned facilities and directs 
the services to develop a meter data management plan. The 
committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent to improve the 
management of energy and water consumption, improve mission 
assurance, and increase reliability. The committee recognizes 
that energy metering alone does not independently save energy 
or water, which is why the committee strongly encourages the 
DOD to ensure energy metering data is not only captured but 
used to implement greater efficiencies, inform decisions, 
optimize installation performance, and achieve results through 
better practices.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the 
military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the 
committee with finalized meter data management plans with 
proposed practices to achieve greater efficiencies no later 
than March 1, 2014.

Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review

    The Secretary of Defense is required every 4 years to 
conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), pursuant to section 
118 of title 10, United States Code. The QDR is intended to 
provide a national defense strategy necessary to successfully 
execute the full range of missions called for in the national 
security strategy.
    The committee believes a defense strategy should consider 
assured access to energy resources as essential to the 
Department of Defense's ability to project power and provide 
combat capability for operations. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), 
energy security was defined as ``having assured access to 
reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and 
deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential 
requirements.''
    The committee notes a forecast by the International Energy 
Agency (IEA) predicts that ``by around 2020, the United States 
is projected to become the largest global oil producer 
(overtaking Saudi Arabia until the mid-2020s) and starts to see 
the impact of new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The 
result is a continued fall in U.S. oil imports, to the extent 
that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030.'' 
The IEA forecast goes on to say for all types of fuels: ``But 
there is no immunity from global markets. No country is an 
energy 'island' and the interactions between different fuels, 
markets, and prices are intensifying.''
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to ensure that the 2013 QDR assessment includes a review of the 
extent of defense resources and budgets that would be required 
to successfully carry out an energy security strategy.

Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets and 
        critical military language training

    The committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts to 
establish a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign 
exchange program that seeks to enhance cultural understanding, 
foster regional expertise, and improve foreign language 
training among cadets in the ROTC. The committee is also 
encouraged by similar efforts to provide overseas professional 
development training and education, including opportunities for 
training in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and 
multinational environment with partner military service members 
at accredited universities. The committee recognizes the 
importance of short-term overseas training events in regions 
and cultures of strategic importance to the nation that could 
better prepare ROTC cadets to meet the future requirements of 
our combatant commanders' theater campaign plans.
    Additionally, the committee encourages the Department of 
Defense and the Army to provide greater oversight and 
coordination to ensure the goals of these programs are in 
concert with the security cooperation strategy and national 
security objectives.

Full spectrum operations

    The committee is encouraged by the Army and Marine Corps' 
proposal to plan for training for a full spectrum of operations 
in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee notes 
that for more than a decade the services have been consumed 
with preparing and deploying forces for counterinsurgency 
operations in combat, leaving little time and resources to 
train for other contingencies. As combat operations decline, 
the committee encourages the secretaries of the military 
departments to ensure that sufficient training resources are 
dedicated to full spectrum operations when preparing the fiscal 
year 2015 budget request.

Government Accountability Office readiness analysis

    The committee notes that the drawdown of forces first from 
Iraq and now from Afghanistan presents the Department of 
Defense (DOD) with a new set of challenges as it plans for an 
uncertain future with fewer resources. In its January 2012 
strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: 
Priorities for 21st Century Defense and related documents, DOD 
called for a smaller, lighter, and flexible joint force able to 
conduct a full range of activities but no longer sized to 
conduct large and protracted stability operations. The guidance 
also called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia-Pacific 
region along with the Middle East and several other changes. In 
March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense to work with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to conduct a strategic choices and management 
review to examine the opportunities and challenges that 
underlie the defense strategy, posture, and investments, 
including all past assumptions and systems. The committee notes 
that shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material 
impact on the way DOD portrays its readiness and the risks it 
faces.
    Accordingly, to help inform the committee's oversight and 
its consideration of the Department's budget request, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to review the Department's readiness and the risks DOD faces 
and to report the results of this review to the congressional 
defense committees. The review should specifically address, but 
not be limited to:
          (1) the current and historical readiness status of 
        each of the military services including any trends in 
        reported readiness;
          (2) the current and historical readiness status of 
        each of the current geographic and functional combatant 
        commands, including any trends in reported readiness;
          (3) the key factors that impact readiness, and how 
        these factors contributed to any reported changes in 
        readiness between March 1, 2013, when sequestration 
        went into effect, and the December 2013 readiness 
        reports; and
          (4) changes in strategic and military risk levels 
        between 2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way 
        the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and 
        reports strategic and military risks.
    The committee notes that in reporting on these four 
elements, the Comptroller General may take a phased approach, 
reporting on elements (1), (2), and (3) by March 15, 2014, and 
reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD delivers the annual 
Chairman's Risk Assessment, as required by section 153 of title 
10, United States Code, to the congressional defense 
committees.

Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local governments

    The committee notes that section 331 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) provided expanded authorities to the Secretary of Defense 
to enter into intergovernmental service agreements with state 
and local governments in order to provide, receive, or share 
installation-support services if the Secretary determines that 
the agreement will serve the best interests of the Department 
of Defense (DOD) by enhancing mission effectiveness or creating 
efficiencies or economies of scale, including by reducing 
costs.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the committee not later than February 1, 2014, regarding the 
status of the use of this authority to enter into such 
agreements. The report shall include:
          (1) a review of the policy adopted by DOD to guide 
        the development of proposals to share installation 
        support services;
          (2) a description of the structure and components of 
        intergovernmental agreements, including the adherence 
        to Federal Acquisition Regulations;
          (3) guidance for delegating authority to enter into 
        such agreements to the installation level;
          (4) a list of any proposed locations and types of 
        services that are being considered for the use of this 
        authority; and
          (5) any other matters the Secretary deems 
        appropriate.

Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, Title 
        III authority

    The committee notes that under the Defense Production Act, 
Title III authority, one current project is developing a 
domestic production capability for light-weight polymer-based 
ammunition. The committee believes that light-weight ammunition 
has the potential to decrease the individual load of the 
warfighter, increase mobility, decrease logistical burden, and 
reduce fuel consumption in military operations. The committee 
notes that traditional ammunition cartridges are produced using 
metallic-based materials such as steel, copper, aluminum, or 
brass. The committee understands that any new ammunition must 
meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, accuracy, and 
must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, weapon 
function, lethality, storage, and transportation.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the 
military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the 
committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the pursuit of 
additional small arms and ammunition projects which could 
enhance combat capability, reduce logistical burdens, and 
improve efficiencies.

Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy

    The committee understands that the Marine Corps policy on 
core depot maintenance workload is currently under revision. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare 
a briefing or a report to the committee on the status and 
progress of a finalized core depot maintenance policy no later 
than January 1, 2014.

Meals ready to eat war reserve

    The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics 
Agency's (DLA) potential reduction of its Meals Ready to Eat 
(MRE) war reserve may lower production in a manner that may 
negatively affect the industrial base which could threaten the 
DLA's ability to respond to contingency operation capabilities 
commensurate with service end strength. Therefore, the 
committee directs the DLA in consultation with the services, to 
develop a comprehensive strategic plan that ensures an adequate 
MRE inventory for each of the services that meets both DLA and 
service-specific requirements, maintains the appropriate levels 
of MRE war reserves, and provides for a surge capability to 
support unforeseen contingencies. The DLA shall report to the 
committee on this plan no later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act.

Mission compatibility reviews

    The committee is concerned about the implementation of 
section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) collaboration with other involved 
agencies to ensure that the development of energy sources and 
the increased resiliency of the commercial electric grid may 
continue to move forward while protecting the missions of 
military test and training ranges and installations in the 
United States. The committee urges DOD to use a consistent 
standard and process pursuant to Federal Rule 32 CFR Part 211 
for all mission compatibility reviews on public or private land 
and to review offshore energy projects using the same process. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
committee with a report that details the status of its review 
process on each of its applicants within 90 days of enactment 
of this Act.

Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan

    The committee notes with concern the recently released 
report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction (SIGAR) titled, ``Forward Operating Base 
Salerno: Inadequate Planning Resulted in $5 Million Spent for 
Unused Incinerators and the Continued Use of Potentially 
Hazardous Open-Air Burn Pit Operations,'' dated April 2013. In 
the report the SIGAR concluded, among other things, that 
Forward Operating Base (FOB) Salerno in Afghanistan constructed 
two waste incinerators that it has not and will not use. As a 
result, the FOB Salerno continues to use open pit burning to 
dispose of waste at the base.
    Over the past several years, the committee has been 
concerned about the use of open pit burning to dispose of trash 
during contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because 
of the potential effects the smoke from these pits can have on 
the health of personnel in the vicinity. As the SIGAR report 
sets forth, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) regulation 200-2, 
CENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance, dated January 3, 
2011, requires that when a base exceeds 100 U.S. personnel for 
90 days, it must develop a plan for installing waste disposal 
technologies, such as incinerators, so that open pit burning 
operations can cease. The SIGAR report shows that, despite 
efforts to eliminate open pit burning in favor of incinerators 
and other methods, some of those efforts have failed and open 
pit burning continues at some locations.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
of the House of Representatives by September 30, 2013, on the 
efforts to reduce reliance on open pit burning of waste at 
operating bases in Afghanistan. The report shall include:
          (1) a list of bases that have functioning 
        incinerators installed and in use;
          (2) for those bases that do not have functioning 
        incinerators in place, an explanation for each as to 
        why incinerators are not in use;
          (3) a list of all bases or camps in Afghanistan at 
        which the U.S. armed forces use open pit burning as the 
        primary means of disposing of waste;
          (4) a plan for how the Secretary intends to bring 
        operating bases in Afghanistan into full compliance 
        with Department of Defense regulations and CENTCOM 
        regulations regarding waste disposal; and
          (5) an assessment of incinerator technologies that 
        are available to the Department of Defense for use in 
        Afghanistan, including any such incinerator 
        technologies that could also contribute to energy 
        production, and any other waste-to-energy strategies.

Organizational clothing and equipment

    The committee notes that a Department of Defense Inspector 
General (DOD IG) report dated February 22, 2013 found that over 
the last six years inadequate tracking and recovery procedures 
resulted in a loss of approximately $20.0 million in unreturned 
organizational clothing and equipment (OCIE) for redeploying 
civilians and contractors. The committee notes that this is the 
second report since 2010 regarding a lack of control over the 
tracking and recovery of OCIE.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later 
than February 1, 2014 on the corrective action taken, including 
a time-phased plan with measurable goals and metrics, to 
address the recommendations in report number DODIG-2013-050 
regarding OCIE recovery from civilians and contractor 
employees.

Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material shipments

    The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the 
United States is in the process of conducting a comprehensive 
review of the policies and procedures by the Department of 
Defense in the handling of hazardous material shipments 
pursuant to section 363 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), including the 
review of Transportation Protective Services (TPS) safety 
standards for commercial surface carriers transporting 
dangerous or sensitive cargo on public highways within the 
United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that commercial TPS carrier safety 
performance standards measured by the Compliance, Safety, 
Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) are not 
altered to less stringent safety standards during the duration 
of the Comptroller General review.

Readiness concerns under sequestration

    The committee recognizes that the implementation of 
sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a 
result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 poses significant risk 
to the readiness, training, and operational capability of our 
military forces. The committee remains concerned that the 
sequestration in fiscal year 2013, and the threat of 
sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and beyond forces the DOD to 
cutback combat training exercises, flying hours, steaming 
hours, and other military training. Other impacts include 
cancelling and delaying contracts, civilian employee furloughs, 
civilian hiring freezes, reductions or eliminations of 
temporary and term employees, deferred facilities maintenance, 
and the cancelling or postponing of maintenance for ships, 
aircraft, ground vehicles, and facilities. Additionally, many 
investment, acquisition, and research and development programs 
will be negatively impacted if sequestration remains in place. 
The committee understands from testimony by Department 
witnesses that the services have already reduced, canceled, or 
deferred a number of training exercises and scheduled 
maintenance activities as a result of the sequestration cuts.
    The Chief of Staff of the Army testified that the Army has 
``curtailed training for 80 percent of the force, canceled six 
brigade combat training center rotations, and cut 37,000 flying 
hours, initiated termination of 3,100 temporary employees, 
canceled third and fourth quarter depot maintenance, and are 
planning to furlough its valued civilian work force.'' The 
committee understands that along with a higher-than-expected 
operating tempo in Afghanistan, the Army has an $8.3 billion 
shortfall for the last 6 months of fiscal year 2013 in the base 
budget and a $7.8 billion shortfall to overseas contingency 
operations. The committee notes that by the end of September 
2013, only one-third of the Army's Active Duty units are 
expected to have acceptable readiness ratings.
    The Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy plans 
to ``reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, defer an 
additional 84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance, 
and defer eight of 33 planned depot-level surface ship 
maintenance availabilities'' and that ``by the end of fiscal 
year 2013, a majority of our non-deployed ships and aviation 
squadrons--nearly two thirds of the fleet--will be less than 
fully mission capable and not certified for major combat 
operations.'' The committee understands the Navy faces a $4.1 
billion operation and maintenance (O&M) shortfall and has 
deferred $1.2 billion in facilities maintenance.
    The committee understands that the Marine Corps face a 
$775.0 million shortfall in O&M during fiscal year 2013 as a 
result of sequestration. The Commandant of the Marine Corps 
testified that, ``sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will mean 
that more than half of our non-forward-deployed ground and 
aviation units will have readiness ratings of C3 or below.'' 
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that, 
``44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions across all types, 
models, and series . . . will not occur as a result of 
sequestration reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.'' 
Additionally, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps 
predicted that a year from now, air squadrons will have only 
about half of their aircraft ready.
    The Secretary of the Air Force testified that 
sequestration, ``required approximately $10.0 billion in 
reductions to be taken in the last seven months of fiscal year 
2013'' and ``impacts include reductions in weapons systems 
sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance, increase 
costs, and take perhaps 2 to 3 years to recover from repair 
backlogs.'' The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified 
that the Air Force has, ``already ceased operations for one-
third of our fighter and bomber force'' and ``will force us to 
induct 60 less airplanes and 35 less engines into depots'' and 
``forced us to reduce approximately 200,000 flying hours in the 
last 6 months of the year'' and to cut ``220 energy projects in 
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization'' due to 
sequestration.
    The committee believes that sequestration cuts to the DOD 
are arbitrary and irrational. The committee notes that 
continued budget uncertainty further jeopardizes the DOD's 
ability to defend our Nation. Sequestration cuts increase 
operational and strategic risk by deferring vital maintenance 
and cancelling necessary training, and will cost the Nation 
more over time to recover from this damage.

Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll

    The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command recently 
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to have U.S. Army 
Installation Command maintain certain infrastructure at the 
Kwajalein Atoll. The committee is pleased with bringing the 
expertise of the Installation Command to help manage certain 
aspects of the Atoll's infrastructure. However, given the 
unique and important nature of test facilities at the Atoll and 
its remoteness, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to report on the Installation Command's long-term management 
plan for the Atoll. The report shall be due not later than 
April 30, 2014.

Report on the identification of a hollow force

    The committee recognizes that the implementation of 
sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a 
result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, poses significant 
risk to the readiness, training, and operational capability of 
our military forces and the potential of a hollow force.
    Accordingly, not later than February 1, 2014, the Secretary 
of Defense shall, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, submit to the committee a report on criteria and means 
for identifying the existence of a so-called ``hollow force''. 
The report shall include a definition of what constitutes a 
hollow force for each branch of the Armed Forces and a 
description of the criteria and metrics used to assess the 
existence and extent of a hollow force. The report shall also 
include for each military department, an assessment whether, 
and if so to what extent, its operating forces are hollow as 
determined using the above-cited criteria and metrics, and if 
such operating forces are hollow, a mitigation plan to restore 
those forces to an acceptable level of readiness such that they 
no longer meet the definition of a hollow force. The report 
shall also explain how the Department will use the Defense 
Readiness Reporting System and other readiness assessment and 
reporting systems to monitor and manage risk related to the 
hollowing of operating forces.
    The committee notes that each Quarterly Readiness Report to 
Congress, as required by section 482 of title 10, United States 
Code, shall include a description and explanation for each 
service with respect to evidence and management of risk of 
operating forces becoming or having become hollow.
    The committee also directs the Comptroller General to 
review the report required above and not later than March 15, 
2014, provide the congressional defense committee as assessment 
of the elements of the report as established above.
    Lastly, the committee notes that the report shall be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex.

Review of defense headquarters and combatant command resources

    The committee notes the significant growth in the 
geographic combatant commands over the past decade and is 
concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) should take 
steps to ensure adequate oversight of those commands. In its 
May 2013 report titled ``Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to 
Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Command 
Resources'' (GAO-13-293), the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) found significant growth in the resources being devoted 
to the geographic combatant commands and weaknesses in the 
processes used by DOD to periodically evaluate the size and 
structure of the geographic combatant commands, as well as 
limitations in the information used to oversee the commands. 
The report also brought into focus a longstanding concern of 
the committee about DOD's reporting to Congress; specifically, 
the report found that congressional oversight may be hampered 
because current budget justification documents do not specify 
the personnel and budget resources being devoted to each 
combatant command, among other limitations.
    The trends reported by the Comptroller General are 
concerning in light of DOD's recent efforts to reduce 
headquarters and other overhead. Over the past decade 
(excluding U.S. Central Command due to the large-scale 
operations in that area of responsibility over the period), the 
geographic combatant commands authorized positions grew by 
nearly 50 percent and included more than 10,000 military and 
civilian positions in fiscal year 2012, plus an unknown number 
of supporting contractors and temporary personnel. Since 2008, 
their supporting service component commands grew by about 30 
percent to about 7,800 authorized positions in fiscal year 
2012. The cost to operate and support the commands has also 
ballooned. After adjusting for inflation, the costs to operate 
and support the headquarters of the combatant commands more 
than doubled since 2007 and now totaled more than $1.1 billion 
annually. Costs to operate and support the headquarters of the 
service component commands also increased substantially since 
2007 and totaled more than $600.0 million annually.
    GAO made four recommendations to improve processes for 
evaluating requirements and provide better visibility of 
personnel and resources. The committee was pleased to see that 
DOD concurred with three of the four recommendations, including 
providing region-by-region resource breakdowns in future budget 
justification documents. However, the Joint Staff non-concurred 
with a key recommendation that it take an active role in 
overseeing the size and structure of the combatant commands, 
including periodic reviews to ensure that the resources being 
devoted to the commands are commensurate with their assigned 
missions and priorities.
    The committee urges the DOD to take steps to implement all 
of the recommendations of GAO and looks forward to reviewing 
the future budget justifications provided by DOD. If the 
Department concludes that the Joint Staff is the wrong entity 
to undertake periodic reviews and ensure that staffing and 
resource levels are appropriate, the committee directs the 
Secretary to establish alternative mechanisms for providing 
such oversight on a periodic basis.

Small modular reaction study

    The committee continues to be concerned about the 
survivability, sustainability, and significant logistical costs 
of fuel and water associated with the support of deployed 
personnel at remote forward operating bases. The availability 
of deployable, cost-effective, regulated, and secure small 
modular reactors with a modest output electrical power (less 
than 10 megawatts) could improve combat capability and improve 
deployed conditions for the Department of Defense (DOD).
    The committee understands the pursuit of such an endeavor 
invites ample concerns, not limited to: technical feasibility, 
policy oversight and regulation, robust safety and secure 
design features, logistics and resources, proliferation 
concerns, life cycle costs, deployment policies and 
transportability, personnel costs, and lessons learned from 
recent combat operations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to submit a report 
to the congressional defense committees on the challenges, 
operational requirements, constraints, cost, and life cycle 
analysis for a small modular reactor of less than 10 megawatts 
no later than January 1, 2015.

Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements

    The committee is aware that the manufacturing of tungsten 
and molybdenum powders, including tungsten rhenium (WRe) wire, 
is used in a variety of Department of Defense (DOD) 
applications. The committee is aware that currently there are 
not suitable substitutes available for WRe wire.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 1, 2014, with a determination as to whether DOD has a 
sufficient supply of WRe wire to support DOD requirements. If 
not, the Secretary shall also submit a mitigation plan to 
ensure that DOD has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support 
its requirements.

Unfunded requirements from the service chiefs

    The committee remains concerned, particularly in light of 
sequestration, that after more than a dozen years of combat 
operations and high operations tempo, backlogs of deferred 
depot maintenance remain unexecuted. The committee understands 
that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face 
significant challenges with respect to competing budget 
priorities. The committee notes that a continued failure to 
address the depot maintenance backlog will jeopardize and erode 
materiel readiness, further reduce the expected service life of 
DOD equipment, increase long-term sustainment costs, and 
further increase strategic risk for the Nation.
    Despite this depot maintenance backlog, DOD continues to 
underfund critical readiness accounts. In past years, the 
committee has been able to provide additional support and 
funding for DOD through unfunded requirements lists submitted 
by the service chiefs.
    The committee continues to strongly urge DOD to identify 
and provide a list of service-specific unfunded requirements 
with each fiscal year's budget request.

United States Africa Command

    United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is the smallest of 
the Department of Defense's regionally-focused combatant 
commands with fewer than 5,000 service members on the continent 
of Africa, 54 countries and over 12 million square miles. The 
United States no longer has the luxury of ignoring Africa; and 
AFRICOM, while still a relatively new combatant command, has 
been thrust to the forefront of our Nation's security 
interests. Terrorist groups, including some affiliated with al 
Qaeda, are growing in numbers and capability, and have expanded 
their areas of operation. Many of our partners in the region, 
however, still lack the capacity to effectively combat these 
organizations and require further support. AFRICOM will be a 
vital component to this effort.
    Despite the challenges within its area of responsibility 
and its massive size, AFRICOM suffers from persistent resource 
shortfalls. It has no assigned forces, lacks sufficient 
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and mobility 
support to meet theater requirements, and must rely on manpower 
from United States Central Command and United States European 
Command. This committee understands the need to properly 
resource AFRICOM and supports its efforts to build partnerships 
and combat the terrorist threat posed by violent extremists 
filtering down to Africa in response to successful U.S. and 
multilateral operations in other regions.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    FY 2014                   Change from
                                               FY 2013   -------------------------------------------------------
                  Service                     authorized                                FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                            Request    Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................      552,100      520,000         520,000          0         -32,100
Navy.......................................      322,700      323,600         323,600          0             900
Marine Corps...............................      197,300      190,200         190,200          0          -7,100
Air Force..................................      329,460      327,600         327,600          0          -1,860
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total..............................    1,401,560    1,361,400       1,361,400          0         -40,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD) 
fiscal year 2014 end strength request for active forces, but 
remains concerned about the impact the drawdown is having on 
service members and their families. The committee urges the 
services to use involuntary measures sparingly, especially for 
those with significant years of service but who are not yet 
eligible for retirement. The committee recognizes that the 
services must balance the need to reduce overall end strength 
while ensuring the proper force mix, and avoiding grade and 
occupational disparities where possible, which have long-term 
effects that can take years to correct. In recent years, 
Congress has provided authorities requested by DOD that allow 
it to execute the drawdown in a measured, responsible way. The 
committee expects DOD to manage the drawdown accordingly.
    The committee also remains concerned about the impact that 
sequestration would have in 2014 and beyond on end strength 
levels for both the active and reserve components. The Army 
Chief of Staff has testified that the Army would reduce total 
force end strength by an additional 100,000 soldiers should 
sequestration continue beyond 2013. The committee expects that 
the other services may make reductions in end strength to meet 
Budget Control Act targets. The committee expects DOD to begin 
planning now for how it would address end strength in 2014 and 
beyond should sequestration continue in order to mitigate the 
effects such potential reductions in force would have on 
morale, recruiting, and retention.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2014                  Change from
                                                  FY 2013  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................     358,200    354,200         354,200          0          -4,000
Army Reserve..................................     205,000    205,000         205,000          0               0
Navy Reserve..................................      62,500     59,100          59,100          0          -3,400
Marine Corps Reserve..........................      39,600     39,600          39,600          0               0
Air National Guard............................     105,700    105,400         105,400          0            -300
Air Force Reserve.............................      70,880     70,400          70,400          0            -480
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................     841,880    833,700         833,700          0          -8,180
Coast Guard Reserve...........................       9,000      9,000           9,000          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown 
below:
    FY 2014 Change from Service FY 2013 authorized Request 
Recommendation FY 2014 FY 2013 request authorized

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2014                  Change from
                                                  FY 2013  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      32,060     32,060          32,060          0               0
Army Reserve..................................      16,277     16,261          16,261          0             -16
Navy Reserve..................................      10,114     10,159          10,159          0              45
Marine Corps Reserve..........................       2,261      2,261           2,261          0               0
Air National Guard............................      14,765     14,734          14,734          0             -31
Air Force Reserve.............................       2,888      2,911           2,911          0              23
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      78,365     78,386          78,386          0              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for 
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force for fiscal 
year 2014, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2014                  Change from
                                                  FY 2013  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      27,210     27,210          27,210          0               0
Army Reserve..................................       8,395      8,395           8,395          0               0
Air National Guard............................      22,180     21,875          21,875          0            -305
Air Force Reserve.............................      10,400     10,429          10,429          0              29
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      68,185     67,909          67,909          0            -276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2014                  Change from
                                                  FY 2013  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                             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, for fiscal year 2014, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2014                  Change from
                                                  FY 2013  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2014       FY 2013
                                                             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--Authorizations of Appropriations

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

                              Budget Item

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

Permanent Change of Station travel funding..............          -150.0
Undistributed reduction related to pace of drawdown.....          -120.0
    Total...............................................          -270.0

    The committee recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in 
Military Personnel funding to reflect the recent trend of the 
services underexecuting their Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
travel funding due to efficiencies resulting from longer tour 
lengths, fewer moves, and lower disbursement rates. The 
committee expects the services to continue to achieve 
efficiencies in their PCS travel programs, particularly as the 
Department fully implements the consolidated travel reform 
enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
    The committee also recommends a decrease of $120.0 million 
in Military Personnel funding to reflect the services' 
underexecution in various accounts relating to the drawdown and 
the redeployment of forces from Afghanistan, including lower 
officer and enlisted average strengths, subsistence costs, and 
lower than budgeted deployment costs.
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally

Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon 
        original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 533 of title 10, United Sates Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to award constructive service credit upon 
original appointment as a commissioned officer for special 
experience or training in certain cyberspace-related fields and 
for periods of advanced education in certain cyberspace-related 
fields beyond the baccalaureate degree level. Constructive 
service credited under this provision is limited to 1 year for 
each year of special experience, training, or advanced 
education, and 3 years total of constructive service credit.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Information to be provided to boards considering officers for selective 
        early removal from the reserve active-status list (sec. 506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14704(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
service secretaries to specify the number of officers that a 
selection board may recommend for removal from the reserve 
active-status list, and to require the secretary to submit a 
list of officers to the selection board that includes each 
officer on the reserve active-status list in the same grade and 
competitive category in the zone of consideration except for 
officers who have been approved for voluntary retirement or who 
will be involuntarily retired. This would align the statutory 
procedures for a board convened to consider officers with 
sufficient qualifying service for early removal from the 
reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an 
active-duty selective early retirement board.
Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between the active 
        and inactive National Guard (sec. 507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of officers of the Army and Air National Guard 
from the Selected Reserve to the inactive National Guard and 
from the inactive National Guard to the Selected Reserve during 
the period ending on December 31, 2016. This authority 
currently exists for enlisted members of the Army and Air 
National Guard.
Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve component 
        units within 180 days of scheduled date of deployment (sec. 
        508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to personally approve of any decision to 
cancel the deployment of a reserve component unit within 180 
days of its scheduled deployment date when an active-duty unit 
would be sent instead to perform the same mission, and to 
notify the congressional defense committees and Governors 
concerned whenever such a decision is made.
    The committee notes with displeasure the decision of the 
Army in March 2013 to cancel the deployment of four National 
Guard units from Indiana for missions in the Horn of Africa and 
the Sinai Peninsula and replace them with active component 
forces for the purpose of addressing a fiscal year 2013 budget 
shortfall. Two of these units, approximately 500 people, were 
within 6 weeks of departure, and the remaining two units were 
within 90 days of departure. All units had been mobilized in 
October 2012 and had been preparing for the mission since that 
time.
    The Army described this as a ``short fuse decision,'' but 
its impact has been wide ranging on the National Guard in 
Indiana and the communities that support these service members. 
Over 1,000 families lost access to TRICARE benefits, after all 
had been enrolled in the TRICARE Early Eligibility Program 180 
days ahead of their scheduled deployment date. Additionally, 
many service members made financial decisions and commitments 
based on the projected pay and benefits that accompany a year-
long deployment. Students missed deadlines to apply for 
financial aid because they expected to be deployed. Some 
service members had already terminated leases. Moreover, these 
units will be placed at the bottom of rotation for future 
deployments, and will have lost a year of eligibility for 
deployment.
    The committee is concerned that this type of decision 
indicates a disregard for the preparation of reserve component 
forces for deployment and the impact that a last-minute 
cancellation of deployment, for reasons other than a change in 
mission requirements, can have on morale, retention, and 
training. This provision is not intended to limit the 
flexibility of the Army to cancel the deployment of reserve 
component forces for the purpose of replacing them with active 
component units, but rather to ensure that strategic thought is 
given to reserve component mobilization and the determination 
to cancel a deployment.
National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 509 of title 32, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to use the National Guard to conduct the 
National Guard Youth Challenge Program; and require the Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau to conduct the program in such 
states as the Chief considers appropriate, to prescribe the 
standards and procedures for selecting program participants, 
and to submit a report to Congress annually on the program.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected 
        communications of members of the Armed Forces and prohibited 
        retaliatory actions (sec. 511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance 
protections for military whistleblowers.
Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the 
        Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the armed 
forces to accommodate individual expressions of belief of 
service members unless such expressions could have an adverse 
impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and 
discipline.
Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with 
        requirements for the protection of rights of conscience of 
        members of the Armed Forces and their chaplains (sec. 513)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) to assess and 
report to Congress on the compliance of the Department of 
Defense with regulations promulgated under section 533 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239), within 180 days of promulgation. The provision 
would also require the DOD IG to investigate the Department's 
and the services' compliance with those regulations with 
respect to adverse personnel actions within 18 months of 
promulgating the regulations.

               Subtitle D--Member Education and Training

Authority for joint professional military education Phase II 
        instruction and credit to be offered and awarded through 
        senior-level course of School of Advanced Military Studies of 
        the United States Army Command and General Staff College (sec. 
        521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2151(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the School of Advanced Military Studies senior-level course at 
the Army Command and General Staff College to offer joint 
professional military education Phase II instruction and 
credit.
Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to 
        support undergraduate and other medical education and training 
        programs for military medical personnel (sec. 522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to 
provide greater flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, 
through the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences (USUHS), to access existing federal resources outside 
of the National Capital Region and to enable the USUHS to grant 
undergraduate degrees, certificates, and certifications in 
addition to advanced degrees.
Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under the 
        Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 9315(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Community College of the Air Force to award associate 
degrees to enlisted members of services other than the Air 
Force who participate in joint-service medical training and 
education or instructors in such joint-service medical training 
and education.
Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for 
        purposes of certain educational assistance under laws 
        administered by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 524)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
new section 2006a of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that educational institutions participating in certain 
Department of Defense education assistance programs enter into 
and comply with program participation agreements under title IV 
of the Higher Education Act, and to meet certain other 
standards. The provision would authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to waive these requirements in certain cases.
Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military 
        occupational specialties with skills and training required for 
        civilian certifications and licenses (sec. 525)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
service secretaries to make information on civilian 
credentialing opportunities available to members of the armed 
forces during all stages of their military occupational 
specialty training. The provision would also require the 
service secretaries to provide information on military course 
training curricula, syllabi, and materials, levels of military 
advancement attained, and professional skills developed by 
service members, to civilian credentialing agencies and 
entities approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or by 
state approving agencies, for the purposes of the 
administration of education benefits under the purview of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to military 
        information technology under pilot program on receipt of 
        civilian credentials for skills required for military 
        occupational specialties (sec. 526)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the military occupational specialties designated for the 
purposes of the pilot program on receipt of civilian 
credentials authorized by section 558 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) 
include those specialties relating to the military information 
technology workforce.
Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 527)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate to strongly urge the Secretary of Defense 
to ensure that the Troops-to-Teachers Program is a priority of 
the Nation's commitment to the higher education of members of 
the armed forces, and to provide funds to the Troops-to-Teacher 
Program in order to help separating members of the armed forces 
and veterans who wish to transition into a teaching career.
Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North Georgia College and 
        State University as University of North Georgia (sec. 528)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
paragraph (6) of section 2111a(f) of title 10, United States 
Code, to change the name of North Georgia College and State 
University to University of North Georgia to reflect the name 
change of this institution.

Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice 
                                Matters

             Part I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been 
        convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 531)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code to prohibit the 
commissioning or enlistment in the armed forces of individuals 
who have been convicted of felony offenses of rape or sexual 
assault, forcible sodomy, incest, or of an attempt to commit 
these offenses.
Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member of the 
        Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a 
        sexual assault or related offense (sec. 532)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 39 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to provide guidance for commanders 
regarding their authority to make a timely determination and to 
take action regarding whether a service member serving on 
active duty who is alleged to have committed specified sexual 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be 
temporarily reassigned or removed from a position of authority 
or from an assignment, not as a punitive measure, but solely 
for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within 
the unit.

Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding 
        consideration of request for permanent change of station or 
        unit transfer by victim of sexual assault (sec. 533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 673(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
the requirement for timely determination and action on an 
application by a victim of certain sexual offenses for a change 
of station or unit transfer applies to the Coast Guard.

Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related offenses 
        in personnel service records of members of the Armed Forces 
        (sec. 534)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that substantiated complaints of a sexual-related offense 
resulting in a court-martial conviction, non-judicial 
punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service 
record of the service member, regardless of the member's grade. 
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe regulations requiring commanders to review the 
history of substantiated sexual offenses of service members 
permanently assigned to the commander's facility, installation, 
or unit.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1611(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to 
require the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Office (the Director) to: (1) oversee development and 
implementation of the comprehensive policy for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) sexual assault prevention and response 
program; (2) serve as the single point of authority, 
accountability, and oversight for the sexual assault prevention 
and response program; (3) undertake responsibility for the 
oversight of the implementation of the sexual assault 
prevention and response program by the armed forces; (4) 
collect and maintain data of the military departments on sexual 
assault; (5) provide oversight to ensure that the military 
departments maintain documents relating to allegations and 
complaints of sexual assault involving service members and 
courts-martial or trials of service members for sexual assault 
offenses; (6) act as a liaison between DOD and other federal 
and state agencies on programs and efforts relating to sexual 
assault prevention and response; (7) oversee development of 
strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives for 
resources in support of the sexual assault prevention and 
response program, and make recommendations on modifications to 
policy, law, and regulations needed to ensure the continuing 
availability of such resources; and (8) provide the Secretary 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) any records or 
documents on sexual assault in the armed forces, including 
restricted reports with the approval of the individuals who 
filed such reports, that are required for the purposes of the 
administration of the laws administered by the Secretary of the 
VA.
    The provision would amend subtitle A of title XVI of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director to collect 
and maintain data from the services on sexual assaults 
involving service members and to develop metrics to measure the 
effectiveness of, and compliance with, the training and 
awareness objectives on sexual assault and prevention.
    The provision would also amend section 1631(f) of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the service secretaries to 
include in the case synopsis portion of the annual report 
regarding sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces 
the unit of each service member accused of committing a sexual 
assault and the unit of each service member who is a victim of 
a sexual assault.

Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members of the Armed 
        Forces on sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 536)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of: (1) the 
training provided to service members on sexual assault 
prevention and response, and (2) the training, qualifications, 
and experience of each service member and Department of Defense 
civilian employee assigned to a position that includes 
responsibility for sexual assault prevention and response. The 
provision would require the Secretary to take appropriate 
corrective action to address any deficiencies identified during 
these reviews and to report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
findings and responsive action, including recommendations for 
legislative action, on the adequacy of the training, 
qualifications, and experience of each service member and 
Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position 
that includes responsibility for sexual assault prevention and 
response.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
service secretaries to ensure that each member of the National 
Guard or Reserve who is the victim of a sexual assault either 
during the performance of duties as a member of the National 
Guard or Reserve, or is a victim of a sexual assault by another 
member of the Guard or Reserve, has access to a Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator not later than 2 business days following a 
request for such assistance.

Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted Reports and 
        Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the 
        Armed Forces (sec. 538)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 577(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that copies of Department of Defense Forms 
2910 and 2911 filed in connection with Restricted Reports and 
Unrestricted Reports of sexual assault are retained for the 
longer of 50 years or the period that such forms are required 
to be retained pursuant to Department of Defense Directives.

Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed by 
        members of the Armed Forces (sec. 539)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
service secretaries to implement a program to provide a Special 
Victims' Counsel to service members who are victims of a sexual 
assault committed by a member of the armed forces. The Special 
Victims' Counsel would provide legal advice and assistance to 
the victim in connection with criminal and civil legal matters 
related to the sexual assault.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that: (1) commanding officers are responsible 
for establishing a command climate in which sexual assault 
allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a 
victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, 
without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group 
pressure from other members of the command; (2) the failure of 
commanding officers to maintain such a command climate is an 
appropriate basis for relief from their command positions; and 
(3) senior officers should evaluate subordinate commanding 
officers on their performance in establishing a command climate 
free of retaliation.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate 
military criminal investigation organization reports of sexual-
related offenses involving service members in the commander's 
chain of command.

Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of allegations of 
        retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making 
        protected communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to 
require the Inspector General to review and investigate 
allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for making a 
protected communication regarding violations of law or 
regulation that prohibit rape, sexual assault, or other sexual 
misconduct.

Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on 
        assessment of military response systems to sexual assault (sec. 
        543)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 576(c)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to provide that the 
panel established to conduct an independent review and 
assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and 
adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would terminate no 
later than one year after the first meeting of the panel.

Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of database 
        of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional duties of 
        independent panel on review and assessment of systems to 
        respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 544)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel 
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of 
the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate 
crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to also include an 
assessment of: (1) the opportunities for clemency provided in 
the military and civilian systems, the appropriateness of 
clemency proceedings in the military system, the manner in 
which clemency is used in the military system, and whether 
clemency in the military justice system could be reserved until 
the end of the military appeals process; and (2) the means by 
which the name, if known, and other necessary identifying 
information of an alleged offender that is collected as part of 
a restricted report of a sexual assault could be compiled into 
a protected, searchable database accessible only to military 
criminal investigators, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, 
or other appropriate personnel for the purpose of identifying 
subjects of multiple accusations of sexual assault and 
encouraging victims to make an unrestricted report to 
facilitate increased prosecution of serial offenders.

Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on sexual 
        assault prevention and response as additional duties of 
        independent panels for review and assessment of Uniform Code of 
        Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual assault 
        cases (sec. 545)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel 
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of 
the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate 
crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to assess: (1) the 
effectiveness of the provisions of law on sexual assault 
prevention and response in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) the potential effectiveness 
of the provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and 
response that were offered but not adopted during the markup by 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services of the bill to enact the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
    The provision would also require the panel established to 
conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial 
proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related 
offenses to: (1) monitor and assess the implementation of the 
provisions of law on judicial proceedings in connection with 
sexual assault in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) assess the potential effectiveness of 
provisions of law on judicial proceedings that were offered but 
not adopted during the markup by the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services of the bill to enact the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses under 
        the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty of 
        independent panel on review and assessment of judicial 
        proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 546)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel 
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of 
judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and 
related offenses to assess the adequacy of the provision of 
compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the 
UCMJ and to develop recommendations on expanding such 
compensation and restitution.

               Part II--Related Military Justice Matters


Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-
        martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes 
        (sec. 551)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 843 
of title 10, United States Code) to eliminate the 5-year 
statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual 
assault and sexual assault of a child.

Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to 
        trial by court-martial (sec. 552)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
review of decisions not to refer charges of rape or sexual 
assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses 
to trial by court-martial. In any case in which the staff judge 
advocate recommends that the charges be referred to trial by 
court-martial and the convening authority decides not to refer 
the charges to trial by court-martial, the convening authority 
would be required to forward the case file to the service 
secretary for review. In cases where the staff judge advocate 
recommends that the charges not be referred to trial by court-
martial and the convening authority agrees, the convening 
authority would be required to forward the case file to a 
superior commander authorized to exercise general court-martial 
convening authority for review.

Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence of trial 
        counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 846 
of title 10, United States Code) to require that, upon notice 
by trial counsel to defense counsel that trial counsel intends 
to call a complaining witness to testify at an investigation 
under Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 842 
of title 10, United States Code) or court-martial, the defense 
counsel must make all requests to interview the complaining 
witness through the trial counsel, and, if requested by the 
complaining witness, the defense counsel interview shall take 
place only in the presence of the trial counsel, counsel for 
the witness, or outside counsel.

Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses under 
        the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trial of such offenses 
        by general courts-martial (sec. 554)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 56 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
(section 856 of title 10, United States Code) to require that 
the punishment for convictions of violations of Articles 120, 
120b, or 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sections 
920, 920b, or 925 of title 10, United States Code), include, at 
a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge. The provision 
would also amend Article 18 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (section 818 of title 10, United States Code) to 
provide that only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over 
charges of violations of articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the 
UCMJ.

Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify findings of a 
        court-martial (sec. 555)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860 
of title 10, United States Code) to limit the authority of a 
convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial 
to qualified offenses for which the maximum sentence of 
confinement that could be adjudged does not exceed 1 year and 
the sentence adjudged by the court-martial does not include a 
punitive discharge or confinement for more than 6 months. 
Qualified offenses do not include offenses under Articles 120, 
120a, 120b, and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(sections 920, 920a, 920b, and 920c of title 10, United States 
Code).
    The provision would also require the convening authority to 
explain, in writing, any action to modify the findings or 
sentence of a court-martial and require the written explanation 
to be made a part of the record of trial.

Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase of courts-
        martial process (sec. 556)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 60(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 
860(b) of title 10, United States Code) to: (1) afford a 
complaining witness an opportunity to respond to any clemency 
matters submitted by an accused to the convening authority that 
refer to the complaining witness; (2) afford a complaining 
witness an opportunity to submit matters to the convening 
authority in any case in which findings and sentence have been 
adjudged for an offense involving the complaining witness; and 
(3) prohibit the convening authority from considering matters 
that go to the character of a complaining witness unless the 
matters were presented at the court-martial.

Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform Code of 
        Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between 
        military instructors and trainees (sec. 557)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
report on whether legislative action is required to modify the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10, 
United States Code) to prohibit sexual acts and contacts 
between military instructors and their trainees.

Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain sexual 
        misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
        through courts-martial (sec. 558)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that charges of rape, sexual assault, 
forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses should be 
disposed of by court-martial rather than by non-judicial 
punishment or administrative action, and that the disposition 
authority should include in the case file a justification in 
any case where these charges are disposed of by non-judicial 
punishment or administrative action.

Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of members of 
        the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that: (1) the armed forces should be 
sparing in discharging in lieu of court-martial service members 
who have committed rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or 
attempts to commit such offenses, and should do so only when 
the facts of the case clearly warrant such discharge; (2) 
whenever possible, victims of these offenses should be 
consulted about the discharge of the service member; (3) 
commanding officers should consider the views of these victims 
when determining whether to discharge service members in lieu 
of court-martial; and (4) discharges of service members in lieu 
of court-martial for the specified offenses should be 
characterized as Other Than Honorable.

           Part III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters


Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 
942 of title 10, United States Code) to authorize appointment 
of former commissioned officers of a regular component of an 
armed force as judges on the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Armed Forces. However, these former officers may not be 
appointed as a judge of the court within seven years after 
relief from active duty.

Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of 
        Military Justice (sec. 562)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 
925 of title 10, United States Code) to prohibit forcible 
sodomy and bestiality.

Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed Forces for 
        reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations, not later than 
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that prohibit 
retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the 
armed forces who reports a criminal offense. The provision 
would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, setting forth recommendations as to 
whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended 
to prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other 
member of the armed forces who reports a criminal offense.

Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of offenses under the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to recommend modifications to the Manual 
for Courts-Martial and to promulgate regulations to ensure 
compliance by responsible members of the armed forces and 
personnel of the Department of Defense with the obligation to 
enforce specified rights of victims of military crimes, 
including mechanisms for ensuring that victims of military 
crimes are afforded the rights in all applicable proceedings.

Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating 
        to character and military service of the accused in rule on 
        initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the discussion pertaining to Rule 306 of the Manual for 
Courts-Martial be amended, not later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, to strike the character and 
military service of the accused from the factors a commander 
should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense.

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

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

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

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

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

                   Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3744, 6247, and 8744 of title 10, United States Code, 
to authorize the award of more than one Medal of Honor, 
Distinguished Service Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal to 
a person whose subsequent acts justify an additional award.
    The provision would also amend sections 3744 and 8744 of 
title 10, United States Code, to require that recommendations 
for the award of the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service 
Cross, Air Force Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal for 
members of the Army and Air Force be made within 3 years and 
that the award be made within 5 years after the date of the act 
justifying the award. These timelines are consistent with the 
timelines for comparable awards in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard 
        Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a roll 
designated as the ``Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard 
Medal of Honor Roll'' and require the service secretaries to 
record on this roll the name of each person who has been 
awarded a Medal of Honor. The provision would also amend 
section 1562 of title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the automatic enrollment and payment of the special pension to 
living Medal of Honor recipients.

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F. 
        Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 583)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service 
Cross under Section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to 
Robert F. Keiser for acts of valor during the Korean War.

Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant 
        First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during 
        the Vietnam War (sec. 584)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service 
Cross under section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to 
Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam 
War.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Additional requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces 
        and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing 
        (sec. 591)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prisoner of War/
Missing Personnel Affairs to conduct periodic briefings for 
families of missing persons on Department activities to account 
for those persons.

Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports 
        of certain recovered persons who were never placed in a missing 
        status (sec. 592)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1506 and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, to 
include as privileged information, for the purposes of 
personnel files maintained under the system for accounting for 
missing persons, any survival, evasion, resistance, and escape 
debriefing reports by certain persons returned to United States 
control under a promise of confidentiality.

                       Items of Special Interest


Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment program

    The United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort 
Leavenworth, Kansas, offers Assaultive Offender's Group 
Treatment (AO) to inmates that are confined for violent 
offenses. It is part of a comprehensive behavioral health 
program developed to meet the unique needs of military inmates 
confined at the USDB, and is tailored to address the needs of 
each inmate. The AO program consists of 30 group treatment 
sessions which normally meet weekly with 8-10 inmates per 
group. The USDB reports that they have only been able to run 
one AO group per year due to staffing limitations. There are 
currently over 60 inmates on the waitlist for the program, 
resulting in a wait for over two years for some inmates who may 
desire to complete this program as part of their program of 
rehabilitation to be considered by a service clemency and 
parole board.
    The committee is concerned about the long wait time for 
inmates to participate in the AO program and directs the 
Commandant of the USDB to assess courses of action to reduce 
wait times and to provide the defense committees a report on 
his assessment no later than 180 days after passage of this 
act.

Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention under 
        Wounded Warrior Act authority

    Section 10216(g) of title 10, United States Code, enacted 
by section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizes the services 
to retain military technicians (dual status) as non-dual status 
technicians when losing their military membership due to 
combat-related injuries. The provision was intended to ensure 
that no dual status technician, required by statute to maintain 
military membership in a reserve component as a condition of 
their civilian employment, was unfairly treated due to injuries 
sustained in combat. The committee is aware of reports that 
this authority has rarely, if ever, been used despite many 
military technicians having been separated or retired since 
then with combat-related injuries.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2013, the 
following: (1) the number of dual status technicians who have 
been retained as non-dual status technicians under the 
authority of section 10216(g); (2) the number of dual status 
technicians separated or retired with combat-related injuries 
since January 28, 2008; and (3) the number of technicians so 
separated or retired who qualified, or should have qualified, 
for retention under section 10216(g).

Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for sexual 
        assault

    The committee notes that it is possible for a service 
member to commit and be convicted of sexual assault at an off-
post location without the command knowing of the conviction. 
The Department of Defense primarily relies on local police or 
blotter reports, periodic security clearance initiations and 
renewals, and self-reporting to monitor off-post criminal 
actions of service members. As a general rule, service members 
are not subject to periodic criminal record checks during their 
period of service unless they require a security clearance 
review or initiation, or are accepted into programs where 
background checks are required. This process could create a 
loophole for a sexual predator to serve in the military without 
the knowledge of the chain of command.
    General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, addressed 
these loopholes for felony or serious offenders in the a Senate 
Committee on Armed Services hearing on sexual assault on June 
4, 2013, stating: ``Background checks are done, but the ability 
to identify sexual offenders is certainly not 100 percent right 
now, and we have to do a better job of doing that. We need help 
with having a better database, but also making sure we're 
scrutinizing those as we go forward.'' Accordingly, as the 
military contends with the serious issue of identifying and 
prosecuting sexual predators, the committee expresses concern 
that service members with sexual assault convictions could 
continue to serve because these convictions are undetected by 
the chain of command.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives a report by no later than December 
31, 2013, examining: (1) the scope and prevalence of the 
problem and whether there are existing loopholes and 
shortcomings in the current system; (2) the frequency and 
methods by which the military conducts criminal record checks 
after enlistment or swearing-in to the armed forces; (3) 
policies that direct members of the armed forces to self-report 
criminal arrests and convictions to the chain of command, and 
any penalties associated with failure to do so; and (4) 
procedures for submitting names of service members convicted of 
sexual offenses to the National Sex Offender Public Registry.

Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and 
        incorporation of civilian law enforcement best practices in 
        sexual assault prevention and response

    The civilian law enforcement community has invested 
significant time and resources in developing proven strategies 
to effectively respond to sexual crimes. The Department of 
Justice regularly publishes established best practices 
incorporating the experience of thousands of federal, state, 
and local officers as well as academic experts.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 
the Department of Defense's current policies and procedures 
regarding sexual assault prevention and response to identify 
ways to better incorporate civilian law enforcement best 
practices, particularly regarding training, investigation, and 
prosecution of sexual crimes.

Department of Defense child development center personnel

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense, following 
troublesome allegations of abuse at two Army Child Development 
Centers, for directing a Department-wide audit of all 
Department of Defense (DOD) providers who have regular contact 
with children in DOD child development, school age care, and 
youth programs, and a comprehensive review and evaluation by 
each of the military services of the actual background check 
documentation on file for each individual, employee, and 
volunteer for compliance by the appropriate authorities in 
accordance with applicable DOD and service policies. However, 
the committee has yet to see the results of that review.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives a report by no later than October 
1, 2013, examining:
          (1) any changes to DOD child development center 
        hiring or personnel practices the Secretary determines 
        are necessary based on the review;
          (2) steps DOD is taking to implement any necessary 
        changes;
          (3) a description of the hiring practices at DOD 
        child development centers, to include criminal 
        background checks, credential verification procedures, 
        and interview processes; and
          (4) an assessment of the contract with Child Care 
        Aware of America (formerly known as the National 
        Association of Child Care Resource and Referral 
        Agencies) regarding hiring and termination procedures 
        and referrals.

Department of Defense reports on sexual assault

    The committee is concerned with the use of the imprecise 
terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted sexual contact'' to 
present statistics on the number of incidences of rape, sexual 
assault, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual acts 
perpetrated against members of the military that are reported 
in both the annual Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office (SAPRO) report on sexual assaults in the military and 
the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (WGRS). 
The 2012 SAPRO report notes that there were 3,374 reports of 
sexual assault in fiscal year 2012, but defines the term 
``sexual assault'' as ``a range of crimes, including rape, 
sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual 
contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these 
offenses.'' In the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sexual 
assault is a specific serious offense that carries a possible 
sentence of up to 30 years confinement, but the annual SAPRO 
report uses the term sexual assault to refer to the range of 
sexual offenses.
    Similarly, the WGRS measured the incidences of ``unwanted 
sexual contact'', defined as ``intentional sexual contact that 
was against a person's will or which occurred when the person 
did not or could not consent'', finding that 6.1 percent of 
female respondents and 1.2 percent of male respondents 
experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. The Department 
then used these figures to estimate that 26,000 incidences of 
unwanted sexual contact occurred in 2012, but provided no 
numbers on the estimated number of rapes, sexual assaults, and 
other unwanted sexual acts that occurred.
    Using the imprecise terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted 
sexual contact'' to refer to a range of sexual offenses creates 
confusion about the types of unwanted sexual acts that are 
being perpetrated against members of the military. To address 
this issue, the committee directs the Department to modify the 
language used in the annual SAPRO report and the WGRS to 
clearly report the number of instances of each type of unwanted 
sexual act, to include rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, 
and attempts to commit those acts.

General and flag officer billets

    The committee recommends that, in concert with any plans to 
streamline the Department of Defense command, management, and 
headquarters support staff organizations, the Secretary of 
Defense develop a plan to ensure that the number of general and 
flag officer billets are adjusted appropriately to achieve a 
proper ratio relative to end strength and complies with 
guidance in section 525, title 10, United States Code.

Medical management of sexual assault cases

    The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Health Affairs, in a memorandum dated April 15, 2013, 
provided Department of Defense (DOD) guidance to each of the 
services on medical management of sexual assault cases based on 
the revision to DOD Instruction 6495.02, ``Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,'' to include 
provision of standardized, timely, and comprehensive medical 
care. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives not later than February 1, 2014 
outlining the Department's plan to ensure that health care 
providers are appropriately trained to manage the acute and 
long-term health needs of victims of sexual assault, accredited 
as necessary to properly handle evidence collected from victims 
of sexual assault, and to ensure that these trained health care 
providers are located in military treatment facilities based on 
the Department's projection of needs.

Military dependent suicides

    The committee remains extremely troubled by the numbers of 
suicides in each of the services in both the active duty and 
the reserve components, and has recently been informed by the 
National Military Family Association and other military family 
advocacy groups that anecdotal reports indicate the number of 
suicides committed by dependents of service members is 
increasing. However, the committee notes that the Department of 
Defense does not currently track the suicides of military 
family members.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report no later than February 1, 2014, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on the Department's current capabilities to 
track the suicides of military dependents of both active duty 
and reserve component members, the feasibility and advisability 
of tracking such suicides, a description of any impediments to 
the ability to track suicides by military family members, and a 
description of current resiliency programs provided to family 
members by each of the services.

Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material

    The committee notes that section 2495b(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually 
explicit material on Department of Defense property. The 
committee has been made aware that despite this prohibition, 
sexually explicit material remains available for sale on 
certain Department of Defense premises. The committee is 
concerned about the impact this material may have on the health 
and wellness of military service members and their families. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the service chiefs, to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a report, within 180 days of the enactment of 
this Act, that outlines the Department's efforts to comply with 
the statutory prohibition.

Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations made by 
        the Military Leadership Diversity Commission

    The Military Leadership Diversity Commission established in 
section 596 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) made 
recommendations for improving diversity within the armed forces 
after conducting a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of 
policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and 
advancement of minority members of the armed forces.
    It has been 2 years since the Commission made these 
recommendations. The committee continues to be interested in 
increasing diversity in the armed forces and the services' 
progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess 
the services' progress in implementing the Commission's 
recommendations and to report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on that 
assessment by December 31, 2013.

Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl

    Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the congressional defense committees an 
unclassified report, with a classified annex, regarding the 
status of the search for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who 
was captured by the Taliban on June 30, 2009, in Paktika 
Province in eastern Afghanistan. The report should include 
Sergeant Bergdahl's suspected whereabouts, his likely captors, 
and what efforts are being made to find and recover him.

Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities for female 
        members of the Armed Forces

    The committee notes and is encouraged by the efforts of the 
Department of Defense to expand service opportunities for women 
in the military. In February, the Secretary of Defense 
rescinded the ground-combat exclusion policy and required that 
the services open all positions to service by women by January 
1, 2016, or request an exception to policy by that date to keep 
certain positions closed, an exception that must be approved by 
the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 
Department is moving toward an assignment system that is 
gender-neutral and performance-based, and the committee 
supports that effort and encourages the Department to continue 
to work toward full integration of women in all military 
occupations to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with 
military capabilities required for our Nation's defense.
    Even with the increasing service opportunities for women, 
however, the committee remains concerned that women may not 
always be afforded the maximum opportunity to serve a full 
career. The committee is particularly interested in addressing 
the balance between career and personal goals of all service 
members--both men and women--and how the ability of a service 
member to meet his or her personal goals may impact a decision 
to remain in military service, while being mindful of the 
military mission and the core need for all service members to 
be fully trained, ready, and available for deployment.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives a report by no later than December 
31, 2013, examining:
          (1) retention rates and career progression 
        opportunities for female service members;
          (2) causes of voluntary mid-career separations, 
        especially those related to childbirth, to include 
        disparities in service policies on postpartum leave, 
        deferral from deployment, and service member 
        accommodation for infant nursing; and
          (3) how the Department might better accommodate 
        service members in a manner consistent with military 
        necessity and without degrading unit readiness, to 
        include consideration of wider use of temporary 
        assignments to the reserve components or other career 
        intermission programs as a way to allow service members 
        to pursue personal or family goals while maintaining a 
        commitment to a full military career.

Sexual assault first responder training

    The committee continues to be concerned with sexual 
assaults in the military. The effect on good order and 
discipline of a unit is immeasurable. It ruins the trust that 
individuals have in the institution. One of the aspects that is 
vital in order to hold confidence in the reporting system for 
sexual assaults is to ensure that the sexual assault response 
coordinators, victim advocates, health care personnel, law 
enforcement personnel, judge advocates, and chaplains are 
trained on topics to include available medical and mental 
health treatment options. A Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) report from January 2013 indicates that some first 
responders interviewed were unsure of the health care services 
available to sexual assault victims at their respective 
locations.
    The GAO also reported that sexual assault response 
coordinators, victim advocates, and health care personnel 
differed in their understanding of where to take sexual assault 
victims for forensic examinations. Given that the quality of 
this evidence diminishes as the period of time from the actual 
assault increases, this could become a serious issue.
    The committee understands and appreciates that the 
Department is focusing additional resources to increase the 
numbers of first responders. This is a positive step. However, 
it is also important that first responders thoroughly 
understand the options available in general as well as at their 
specific duty location.
    Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of each of 
the military departments to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act with details on how each service will ensure that 
first responders are adequately trained to be able to deal with 
sexual assault victims. The report should also indicate how 
each service will keep track and enforce service specific 
refresher training requirements.
    By December 1, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees indicating the 
number of first responders who should have had either initial 
or refresher training during the fiscal year and how many 
actually completed this required training. The statistics 
should be broken out by service.

Suicide prevention screening

    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and each of the military services have made suicide 
prevention a priority. In addition, Congress has attempted to 
enhance DOD efforts to address military suicides. Even though 
military suicide rates are lower than comparable civilian 
suicide rates, work must be done in the area of early detection 
of mental health conditions and suicide risk. The committee 
notes that many of the existing programs designed for suicide 
prevention and screening of service members for mental health 
issues are linked to the deployment cycle. Yet, DOD Suicide 
Event Reports from recent years indicate that less than half of 
the service members who have committed suicide had deployed, 
and only a small number were involved with direct combat.
    The committee remains committed to exploring new means to 
identify mental health concerns and prevent suicides, and 
expects the Department to continually monitor best practices in 
other government agencies, academia, and the private sector in 
order to recognize when a service member may need psychological 
help. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in collaboration with each of the military services 
and the reserve component, to assess the feasibility and 
advisability of utilizing innovative tools to screen service 
members for mental health conditions and risk of suicide, and 
to submit a report not later than February 1, 2014, that 
includes the following elements:
          (1) current ways in which each of the services and 
        reserve components screen service members for mental 
        health conditions;
          (2) an assessment of utilizing a computerized 
        adaptive test during a service member's annual physical 
        health assessment;
          (3) an assessment of incorporating input through a 
        computerized survey from a service member's first-line 
        supervisor with regard to any behavioral changes 
        observed in the service member;
          (4) an assessment of analyzing the wellness of a 
        service member utilizing publicly available data to 
        develop predictive analytical models that may identify 
        individuals that could be more susceptible to suicide;
          (5) a description of how a pilot program to evaluate 
        these new screening tools could be designed in a manner 
        consistent with medical testing procedures and ethical 
        and privacy requirements; and
          (6) a description of any other innovative methods to 
        enable early identification of mental health conditions 
        or risk of suicide that the Department has recently 
        considered and the reasons why the Department decided 
        not to utilize those methods.

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

    The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) 
testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM must ensure our 
SOF [Special Operations Force] warriors and their families are 
properly cared for and that we work to help them reduce the 
stress they face related to high operation tempos. Difficulty 
also occurs as forces reconnect and reintegrate into garrison 
and family activities. The Department of Defense provides 
preventive and responsive counseling, medical, psychological, 
and rehabilitative care to institutionalize the resiliency of 
our SOF warriors and their families.''
    The committee applauds USSOCOM for its focus on the support 
and resiliency of SOF and their families through various 
initiatives, including human performance, personnel tempo, and 
family programs. The committee also supports the decision of 
the Commander of USSOCOM to use special operations-peculiar, or 
Major Force Program-11, funds to augment family support 
programs provided by the services to meet the unique needs of 
the SOF families when there is a ``clear and demonstrable 
connection between the services provided and the combat 
readiness of the service member.''
    According to USSOCOM, ``while the services offer a host of 
excellent family support programs, there are aspects of SOF 
that necessitate innovations and the expansion of programs that 
are not common to the general purpose forces . . . Currently, 
many of the family programs sponsored by the services are 
limited in scope, and are centric to the sponsoring service. 
Despite a recent emphasis by the services to bolster family 
support programs, we still find that there is limited access to 
some services and a dearth of programs that adequately account 
for the unique needs of the SOF community.'' The committee 
believes the services have a responsibility to provide 
appropriate family readiness support to all service members and 
their families, including the SOF community.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the 
Commander of USSOCOM, to submit a report not later than 90 days 
after enactment of this Act that, at a minimum: (1) describes 
any family support requirements that are unique to the SOF 
community; (2) offers an analysis of support provided by the 
services to address these unique requirements; (3) identifies 
any gaps in family support provided by the services to the SOF 
community; (4) provides recommended actions for addressing 
identified gaps; and (5) relates any other matters deemed 
appropriate by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness or the Commander of USSOCOM.

Veteran unemployment

    The committee is concerned about the high rate of 
unemployment that persists for our youngest veterans. The 
unemployment rate also impacts the Department of Defense 
budget. Over the past 10 years, the Department of Defense 
expended more than $6.0 billion in unemployment compensation 
for veterans.
    The Departments of Defense and Labor should review and 
place emphasis on improving the management and oversight 
associated with the veteran unemployment compensation program 
and payments.
    In addition to the unemployment compensation issue, both 
veterans and prospective employers have brought to our 
attention that there is no single portal for veterans to find 
jobs, and employers to post jobs. There are numerous redundant 
websites and portals managed by federal agencies to provide 
employment services to veterans.
    As such, the committee strongly urges the Departments of 
Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs to continue the process of 
streamlining existing employment portals into a consolidated 
portal.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an across-the-board pay raise for members of the uniformed 
services of 1 percent effective January 1, 2014.
Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay for members 
        of the National Guard called into Federal service for less than 
        30 days (sec. 602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
subsection (c) of section 204 of title 37, United States Code, 
to remove the existing limitation on when members of the 
National Guard are entitled to receive basic pay when called 
into federal service for a period of 30 days or less.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic 
        allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily 
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas 
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx 
of personnel.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        reserve forces (sec. 611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service, and income replacement for reserve component 
members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for 
active duty service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health 
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and 
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the 
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual 
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 
        special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the 
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and 
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special 
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and 
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in 
health professions. The provision would also extend for 1 year 
the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special 
duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and 
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military 
skills or assigned to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 
        bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for 
active members, the enlistment bonus, the accession bonus for 
new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for 
conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel 
shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between armed 
forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates.
Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for 
        travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of normal 
        commuting distance and additional one-year extension (sec. 616)
    The committee recommends a provision that would correct an 
erroneous citation in section 611(7) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
that extended authority to pay travel expenses for certain 
inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distances. 
The provision would further extend the authority to December 
31, 2014.
Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses in 
        critical specialties under health professions stipend program 
        (sec. 617)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 16201(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
payment of the health professions stipend to a nurse enrolled 
in an accredited program of nursing in a specialty designated 
as critical by the Secretary of Defense who is eligible for 
appointment as a Reserve officer in any of the reserve 
components.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of Defense travel 
        and transportation authorities in connection with reform of 
        such authorities (sec. 631)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1040, 1074i, 1482, and 1491 of title 10, United States 
Code, and sections 451 and 453 of title 37, United States Code, 
to make technical changes to those sections to conform with the 
travel consolidation reform enacted in sections 631 and 632 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81). The provision would also repeal sections 
1036, 1053a, and 2634 of title 10, United States Code, as 
superseded.

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

Clarification of prevention of retired pay inversion in the case of 
        members whose retired pay is computed using high-three (sec. 
        641)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical amendment to section 1401a of title 10, United States 
Code, to clarify that certain provisions of subsection (f) of 
that section do not apply to the computation of retired pay of 
members who first entered active duty on or after September 8, 
1980.

Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related 
        special compensation after previous election to receive 
        concurrent retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
effect on prior payments of an election to receive combat-
related special compensation after a previous election to 
receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation was 
made relative to the division of retired pay under section 1408 
of title 10, United States Code.

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established 
        for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support 
        (sec. 643)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1450 and 1455 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to a 
special needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C) of 
section 1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the 
sole benefit of a disabled dependent child incapable of self-
support because of mental or physical incapacity.

Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early retirement 
        credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status 
        or active duty (sec. 644)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
service secretaries to provide periodic notice to reserve 
component members of any early retirement credit they have 
earned for service described in that section by such means as 
the secretary concerned considers appropriate.

Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon 
        death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom 
        dependent status is based (sec. 645)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1060b of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
no further certification of a dependent for financial support 
shall be required or carried out in the case of a dependent who 
has been granted a permanent identification card by reason of 
permanent disability when the member or retiree providing the 
basis for dependency dies or becomes permanently incapacitated.

                  Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters


Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military Lending 
        Act (sec. 661)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide civil 
enforcement authority over the Military Lending Act to the 
Department of Justice.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of human 
        remains that were retained by the Department of Defense for 
        forensic pathology investigation (sec. 671)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the payment of certain expenses for the care and disposition of 
human remains retained by a service secretary pursuant to a 
forensic pathology investigation by the Armed Forces Medical 
Examiner under section 1471 of title 10, United States Code.

Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army incentive to 
        provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 672)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 681 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to continue through December 31, 2015, 
any pilot program carried out under that section that was 
ongoing as of December 31, 2012.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements for 
        health care services provided in military medical treatment 
        facilities (sec. 711)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service 
secretaries, to carry out a pilot program to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of using commercially available 
enhanced recovery practices for medical payment collection at 
military treatment facilities. The provision would also require 
the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report on the pilot program not later than 180 days after 
completion of the program.
    The committee is concerned that the lack of an effective 
collection process in each of the services has resulted in lost 
reimbursement to the government for medical services rendered. 
While the committee understands that the Department of Defense 
is currently exploring options to outsource third party 
collections, the committee believes that such action has been 
delayed.
Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic health 
        records for the Department of Defense and the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs (sec. 712)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that: despite years of effort and the 
expenditure of significant resources, full electronic 
interoperability between the health record systems of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 
has not yet been achieved; the Secretary of Defense, in 
collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, should 
fully staff the Interagency Program Office and establish 
challenging, but achievable, deadlines for development and 
implementation of measures and goals for electronic health 
record interoperability; and the Interagency Program Office 
should establish a secure, remote, network-accessible computer 
storage system.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics to members of 
        the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, on the plans of the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the most 
clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are made 
available to injured service members and veterans using 
technological advances as appropriate.

                       Items of Special Interest

Autism spectrum disorder services
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
continued efforts to ensure that military families have access 
to appropriate autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, 
intervention, and treatment services. The committee expects the 
Department to continue to assist eligible autistic 
beneficiaries to receive effective, evidence-based intervention 
and treatment approaches, and to ensure the provision of such 
services for autistic dependents of service members living in 
rural or underserved communities.
Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the TRICARE 
        Management Activity
    The Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) 
released a report on May 1, 2013, titled, ``TRICARE Management 
Activity Needs to Improve Oversight of Acquisition Workforce.'' 
The DOD IG audit found that acquisition personnel of the 
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) ``did not have required 
certifications for their functional areas, accurate position 
descriptions for their assigned duties, or proper training.'' 
Additionally, the DOD IG discovered that the Component 
Acquisition Executive ``did not have procedures to adequately 
monitor the acquisition workforce and did not place the 
required emphasis on the identification, development, training, 
and assignment of acquisition workforce personnel.'' The 
committee notes that in the DOD IG's view, these deficiencies 
placed the TMA at ``increased risk for fraud, waste and 
abuse.'' While the TMA has agreed with and worked to address 
the DOD IG's findings and recommendations, the committee 
remains extremely concerned about the findings in the DOD IG's 
report.
    The committee believes that with the significant number of 
high value contracts awarded by the TMA--over $11.0 billion in 
fiscal year 2012 alone--the Department of Defense must ensure 
that the TMA's acquisition management process meets workforce 
training and certification requirements. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on the actions the Department is taking 
to correct the education and training challenges facing the 
TRICARE acquisition workforce.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury
    The committee remains extremely concerned about the effects 
of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on our service members and 
veterans, as TBI is a signature wound of Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The committee notes that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) reports that there were over 
266,000 TBI cases in service members, both active and reserve 
component, from 2000 through 2012. The committee applauds DOD 
for its significant investment in TBI research with a focus on 
development of diagnostic tools and evidence-based care 
protocols, and understands that DOD is currently conducting 
three randomized, placebo-controlled pilot studies to determine 
the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for alleviating 
symptoms following mild TBI in military personnel. The 
committee expects that these pilot studies will inform the 
Department about the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for 
mild TBI.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 days of 
completion of the pilot studies that describes the methodology, 
results, and conclusions of the studies. If hyperbaric oxygen 
therapy is determined to be effective, the report should 
address any changes in policy or legislation that may be needed 
regarding the provision of hyperbaric oxygen services to 
patients with mild TBI.
Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their 
        families
    The committee recognizes that many years of combat 
operations have caused service members in both the active and 
reserve components to experience increased exposure to unique 
and significant stressors. Additionally, service members and 
their families face daily stress in every phase of military 
life and as they transition to veteran status. The committee 
believes that mental health counseling needs of service 
members, veterans, and their families will continue to increase 
for the foreseeable future.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report 
within 270 days of the enactment of this Act that describes a 
coordinated, unified plan to ensure adequate mental health 
counseling resources to address the long-term needs of all 
members of the armed forces, veterans, and their families. In 
developing the plan and report, the committee expects the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
consider all available types of trained counseling providers, 
including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, 
chaplains, and other counseling professionals, as appropriate. 
The report shall also include a comprehensive staffing plan to 
ensure an appropriate alignment of mental health resources and 
needs.
Ribonucleic acid research
    The committee notes with concern that service members are 
hospitalized more often for infectious diseases than service 
members who are wounded in combat, and commends the Department 
of Defense for its ongoing efforts to address these diseases. 
Therefore, the committee supports Department of Defense 
investment to further improve prevention, diagnosis, and 
treatment for service members from rare and infectious viral, 
bacterial, immune, and neurological diseases through research 
initiatives such as ribonucleic acid-based research addressing 
proteins.
TRICARE appeals process
    The committee believes that a fundamental right of TRICARE 
beneficiaries is a fair and efficient process for resolving 
disputes with the TRICARE program. The committee notes that the 
TRICARE appeals process is a multi-level sequential process 
that allows beneficiaries to request reconsideration from the 
managed care support contractor, file an appeal with the 
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), and finally, request an 
independent hearing if they dispute either a medical necessity 
determination or a factual determination made in their case. If 
a case dispute moves to the final stage of the appeals process, 
a hearing officer examines the available evidence and issues a 
recommended decision on the case.
    The committee has learned that the Director of the TMA or 
their designee, after consideration of a hearing officer's 
recommended decision, may unilaterally issue a final decision 
that overturns the independent hearing officer's 
recommendation. Advocacy groups have informed the committee 
that beneficiaries who have pursued the full range of options 
in the appeals process and received a favorable recommendation 
from the independent hearing officer perceive the process as 
unfair when the TMA summarily overturns the hearing officer's 
recommended decision.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act, that: (1) describes the current TRICARE 
appeals process; (2) provides summary data showing the numbers 
and types of cases submitted by beneficiaries for appeals and 
hearings over the previous 5 fiscal years; (3) provides data to 
show both the favorable and unfavorable beneficiary outcomes of 
all independent hearing cases over the previous 5 fiscal years; 
(4) describes the average length of time for beneficiaries to 
obtain a decision from the TMA either from an appeal or a 
hearing; and (5) provides data on the number of cases in which 
the Director of the TMA makes a determination different than 
the recommended decision of the hearing officer to grant a 
beneficiary appeal.
TRICARE emergency department utilization
    The committee is concerned about the rate of emergency 
department utilization by TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee 
understands that families often seek 24-hour emergency 
department care rather than urgent care clinics to manage 
after-hours health concerns, and that active-duty family 
members in transition are a population with a particularly high 
incidence of emergency room usage.
    The committee notes that current regulations require that 
TRICARE Prime beneficiaries seeking care from a provider other 
than their primary care manager, to include visits to urgent 
care clinics or facilities, must first obtain a referral. In 
addition, the average cost of a private sector emergency 
department visit under TRICARE is $541 per visit, while the 
average cost for a visit at a private sector urgent care clinic 
is only $88 per visit.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
is currently conducting a demonstration program that allows 
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote U.S. Coast Guard 
beneficiaries in the southern region four unmanaged urgent care 
visits per fiscal year without point-of-service charges, and 
that thus far, the demonstration has shown promising results in 
reducing emergency room utilization. The committee commends DOD 
for conducting this demonstration and requests to be kept 
apprised of its results.
    In addition, the committee has learned that DOD plans to 
implement a nurse advice line across the military health system 
to provide around-the-clock medical information and advice to 
TRICARE beneficiaries through registered nurses who would guide 
them to the most appropriate level of care required and assist 
them with appointment scheduling for conditions that can be 
treated during routine hours. The committee has been informed 
that implementation of this advice line has been delayed until 
at least the fall.
    The committee believes that current TRICARE policy may 
incentivize emergency department use by requiring TRICARE Prime 
beneficiaries to obtain pre-authorizations for urgent care 
visits, and that this requirement places an administrative 
burden on families and discourages utilization of less costly 
urgent care options. While the committee does not want to 
discourage emergency department use when a true emergency 
exists, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense 
to revise existing policy to encourage beneficiaries to use 
urgent care, when appropriate, rather than more expensive 
emergency department care, and to field its nurse advice line 
without further delay.
Use of simulation technology in medical training
    The committee appreciates the Department of Defense's work 
to reduce the use of live animals in combat training courses 
when appropriate as detailed in the April 2013 ``Report to 
Congress on the Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based 
Methods for Certain Medical Training.'' The committee commends 
the Department's interest in the development of simulation 
technology and shares its commitment to improve and modernize 
the training of military medical personnel without degradation 
to combat trauma care. The Department's 2009 ``Final Report on 
the Use of Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint 
Analysis Team'' projected that validated simulators for many 
``high volume/high value'' medical procedures could be 
developed by 2014. The 2013 report provides an updated timeline 
indicating that a more realistic timeline for the development 
and procurement of simulation products would be in 2017 and 
beyond. In light of this, the committee encourages the 
Department to expedite wherever practicable the transition to 
human-based medical training methods and replacement of live 
animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate and 
where modern validated simulators can provide equally effective 
training that achieves established combat casualty survival 
rates.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management

Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear 
        defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec. 
        801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and 
reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the 
Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization 
for multiyear contract authority.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or 
greater than $500.0 million, to certify that certain 
requirements will be met by the proposed contract no later than 
March 1st of the year in which the legislative authority to 
enter into such contract is requested. The Secretary must send 
a notification of the findings regarding the same requirements 
30 days before award of the contract.
    The committee finds value in both the certification and the 
notification, but, believes that the timing is reversed. The 
recommended provision would reorganize the timeline so the 
Secretary provides the initial findings of the enumerated 
requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and 
then certifies the completed findings prior to contract award.
    The committee believes this will provide more reasonable 
and complete information.
Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in 
        countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 
        802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 801 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2399), as amended, to acquire 
goods and services on a non-competitive basis in certain 
countries along the Northern Distribution Network transit 
routes that support U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
seeking to extend this authority in part because it anticipates 
that retrograde operations for U.S. equipment coming out of 
Afghanistan will extend beyond the conclusion of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization International Security Assistance 
Force mission at the end of 2014.
Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit an updated version of the 2009 
Department of Defense report titled: ``OSD [Office of the 
Secretary of Defense] Study of Program Manager Training and 
Experience'' not later than 120 days from enactment of this 
Act.

 Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense acquisition 
        programs (sec. 821)
    The committee recommends a provision that as part of a 
milestone B decision for a major defense acquisition program, 
would require that there be a plan in place to mitigate and 
account for costs in connection with decertification of 
cryptographic equipment during production and procurement of 
the system. The provision includes a waiver based on national 
security needs. The provision is based on prior experience with 
the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System which 
has had to re-engineer a new cryptographic unit as it was 
decertified during the production of the satellite system.
Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B approval of 
        major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program 
        (sec. 822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would implement a 
recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report, ``Satellite Control Operations,'' GAO-13-315, 
concerning the use of dedicated satellite control systems. The 
provision requires the Department of Defense, as part of its 
Milestone B decision, to perform a business case analysis on 
the use of a dedicated control system instead of a shared 
system. The Department should adhere to the report's 
recommendation on page 28, that ``[t]he analysis should include 
a comparison of total dedicated network costs to the 
incremental cost of integrating onto a shared network.''
Additional responsibility for product support managers for major weapon 
        systems (sec. 823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2337 of Title 10, United States Code, and section 823 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) to provide an assurance that all product 
support arrangements explicitly state how the arrangement will 
maximize use of government owned inventory before obtaining 
inventory from commercial sources.
    The committee notes that this provision is a result of the 
recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector General 
(DOD IG) report dated April 25, 2013, that found the Defense 
Logistics Agency (DLA) did not cost-effectively manage 118 high 
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) parts valued at 
$11.1 million while purchasing these parts from AM General, LLC 
for $17.6 million.
    The committee notes this occurred because the DLA did not 
review DLA-owned inventory at key contract decision points to 
maximize use of its own stock. As a result, the DOD IG 
identified $9.7 million of excess inventory that could have 
been used for HMMWV maintenance requirements.
    The committee notes that this particular DOD IG 
investigation and report only focused on one particular weapon 
system at one particular depot. The committee believes there 
could be an opportunity for greater and similar inventory 
efficiency across all Department of Defense weapon systems.
Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of 
        Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec. 
        824)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a 
comprehensive review of the processes and procedures of the 
Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons 
systems and report upon this review to the congressional 
defense committees.

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

Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor 
        employees (sec. 841)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
cap on allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees 
to an amount consistent with the original legislative cap, 
adjusted for inflation, and provide for future annual 
adjustments by reflecting the change in the Employment Cost 
Index (ECI) for all workers, as calculated by the Bureau of 
Labor and Statistics.
    Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) limited the amount of 
contractor executive compensation allowable for reimbursement 
under federal contracts to a benchmark based on the median 
amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large 
U.S. corporations, as calculated by the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP)--then $340,650.
    Since that time the cap has more than doubled to $763,029 
for 2011 and 2012, and is expected to increase to more than 
$950,000 in 2013. By contrast, if the original cap had been 
adjusted for inflation it would now be only $487,325. The 
committee concludes that the growth of the cap by almost 
$300,000 more than the rate of inflation cannot be justified.
    At a time when most Americans are seeing little or no 
increase in their paychecks and budget constraints require the 
Department of Defense to find efficiencies in all areas, the 
committee concludes that increases of this magnitude are 
unsupportable.
Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of 
        the Comptroller General of the United States on oversight of 
        pensions offered by Department contractors (sec. 842)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility within the 
Department for oversight of the reasonableness of the pension 
plans offered by Department contractors and issue certain 
guidance on pension benefits.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United 
        States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) by striking ``the date that is 
three years after the date of the enactment of this Act'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
    Section 841 allowed the Secretary of Defense to void a 
contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of 
responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or 
individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in 
hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are 
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its 
coalition partners.
Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).
    Section 841 allows the Secretary of Defense to void a 
contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of 
responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or 
individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in 
hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are 
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its 
coalition partners.
    The committee recommends expansion of this provision to all 
combatant commanders. Upon receiving findings that a person or 
entity is providing funds to a person or entity who is engaged 
in hostilities against the United States, the combatant 
commander would, in consultation with the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the relevant U.S. 
embassy, determine an appropriate plan of action to mitigate 
the flow of funds to that person or entity.
    When that plan of action includes contract actions, the 
head of contracting activity may terminate or void the 
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, and restrict future 
awards to such person or entity.
    The individual or entity would be provided with post-
deprivation due process within 30 days of the receipt of 
notification.
Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to report on the Department's plan to 
implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General 
regarding the elimination of improper payments.
Items of Special Interest
Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of athletic 
        footwear in the Department of Defense
    Congress passed the Berry Amendment in 1941 to ensure that 
American soldiers trained and operated, to the greatest extent 
practicable, in American-made materials. The Berry Amendment 
specifically covers footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 
8430 or 8435.
    The Army, in 2001, and the Air Force, in 2008, have moved 
away from issuing athletic footwear to new recruits. Instead, 
new recruits are given an allowance to acquire athletic 
footwear from the service exchange.
    During this period of time, no athletic footwear was 
available that could have met the requirements of the Berry 
Amendment without a waiver. It is the committee's understanding 
that at least one domestic contractor is now producing such 
footwear.
    Therefore, the committee directs U.S. Army Natick Soldier 
Research, Development, and Engineering Center to undergo a 
study, to be completed no later than January 1, 2014, of 
currently available Berry compliant athletic footwear to 
ascertain whether the Department's needs could be satisfied for 
new recruits. The committee believes this study should review 
the various sizes and fit of athletic shoes required, the cost 
and capacity of products available in sufficient quantity and 
quality to meet the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD), 
and whether such footwear could be made.
    During roughly the last decade, certain procurement 
incidents and policy changes have created some level of unease 
with respect to the Berry Amendment's application to not only 
athletic footwear but also textiles and clothing. As such, the 
committee directs DOD to submit a publicly releasable report to 
the congressional defense committees that includes, but not be 
limited to, any audits or auditing policy, investigations and 
enforcement, incentives, procurement officer training, and 
regulatory interpretation guidelines relating to the 
Department's contracting for textiles and clothing contained in 
Federal Supply Codes 83 and 84, and athletic footwear listed in 
Federal Supply Class 8430 and 8435.
Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a 
        written justification and approval
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) included a requirement for a written 
justification and approval (J&A) when awarding applicable 
federal sole-source contracts in excess of $20.0 million.
    Ensuring competition in the federal acquisition process is 
of vital importance to U.S. taxpayers. Section 811 was intended 
to further this objective; however, the committee understands 
government contracting officers may inadvertently be deterred 
from awarding Small Business 8(a) contracts over $20.0 million 
as a result of confusion over the proper interpretation of 
section 811.
    Section 811 does not prohibit the award of sole source 
contracts of over $20.0 million to those businesses which 
qualify for the Small Business 8(a) program; however, those 
contracts do require a J&A.
    Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees on the actions taken and 
guidance issued regarding the proper use and implementation of 
section 811 as it regards Small Business 8(a) contracts.
Competition in the development and procurement of training systems
    Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 (Public Law 111--23) requires the Secretary of Defense 
to take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent 
practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, 
contracts for the procurement of major weapon systems are 
awarded on a competitive basis that gives full consideration to 
all potential sources.
    This provision reflects the committee's view that 
competition, where it is feasible, results in reduced costs and 
improved contractor performance.
    The committee believes that competition can have a similar 
beneficial impact in the area of training systems related to 
major programs. The committee urges the military departments to 
actively explore the expanded use of competition as a tool to 
drive down costs and improve performance in the acquisition of 
training systems for major programs.
Comptroller General of the United States report on best value 
        competitive source selection techniques
    The Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 allows the use 
of several best value competitive source selection techniques 
to meet agency needs. An agency can obtain best value in 
negotiated acquisitions by using any one of a number of source 
selection approaches. Within this best value continuum, the 
contracting officer (CO) should choose an approach that is most 
advantageous to the government.
    The CO may elect to use the lowest price technically 
acceptable process in acquisitions where the requirement is 
clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract 
performance is minimal. By contrast, the CO may elect to use a 
trade-off process in acquisitions when it may be in the best 
interest of the government to consider award to other than the 
lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically 
rated offeror. In these instances, non-cost evaluation factors, 
such as technical capabilities, can play an important role in 
the source selection and trade-offs among price and non-cost 
factors and allow the Department to accept other than the 
lowest priced proposal.
    The committee has concerns that the appropriate acquisition 
process is not always being utilized and therefore directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of 
the sufficiency of the training of the acquisition workforce in 
the selection of the appropriate acquisition process, and 
review guidance and directives on the appropriate use of the 
various acquisition processes.
Comptroller General of the United States report on in-line management 
        process for the acquisition process
    Not later than April 15, 2014, the Comptroller General of 
the United States shall review the chain of command for 
acquisition-related functions of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and potential changes to that chain of command.
    The committee understands that the current system is 
intended to avoid fragmentation, as recommended by the Packard 
Commission report in 1986, by ensuring that program managers 
report only to program executive officers, who report only to 
service acquisition executives, who are in turn subject to the 
management and supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to consider 
alternate approaches that would increase the role of the 
service secretaries and/or the service chiefs in that process, 
including the ``in-line management process'' recommended by the 
independent panel assessment accompanying the 2009 Quadrennial 
Defense Review (QDR), to determine whether or not such changes 
would be likely to enhance performance and accountability in 
the acquisition of major defense acquisition programs.
    The Comptroller General's review should, at a minimum, 
consider: (1) whether adding the service secretaries and/or 
chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would be 
likely to increase or reduce fragmentation of authority and 
accountability in the acquisition system; and (2) whether 
adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the 
acquisition chain of command would or would not be likely to 
help address the underlying causes of cost, schedule, and 
performance problems in the acquisition process.
    In conducting this review, the Comptroller General should 
also consider the requirements of section 853 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) regarding program manager empowerment and 
accountability and assess whether adding the service 
secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of 
command would be likely to contribute to or detract from the 
objectives of that provision.
Comptroller General report on process and procedures for identifying 
        duplicative and/or inefficient major development and 
        procurement programs
    The committee requires the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the various processes and procedures 
for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major 
development and procurement programs, report upon their 
efficiency, and make any recommendations for improvement to the 
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act.
Report on the configuration steering boards
    The committee supports the work of the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council (JROC) that has identified mechanisms to 
ensure ``appropriate trade-offs are made among the life-cycle 
cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement 
quantity objectives, in the establishment and approval of 
military requirements.'' Specifically, the JROC has issued 
guidance that ``encourages Program Managers, Program Executive 
Officers and Component Acquisition Executives, in coordination 
with the requirements sponsor, to officially require 
requirements relief, through the appropriate requirements 
validation authority, where Key Performance Parameters appear 
out of line with an appropriate cost-benefit analysis.''
    The committee, however, continues to have concerns with the 
growth and change of requirements during a program's life-cycle 
and believes that such requirements creep can occur at lower 
levels of the requirements chain.
    The committee attempted to address this issue in the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(P.L. 110-417) with a provision, section 814, creating 
Configuration Steering Boards for cost control under major 
defense acquisition programs.
    Configuration Steering Boards are responsible for reviewing 
any proposed changes to program requirements or system 
configuration that could have the potential to adversely impact 
program cost or schedule and for recommending changes that have 
the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner 
consistent with program objectives.
    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
to conduct a study of the implementation of section 814 and the 
extent to which the services have convened Configuration 
Steering Boards, and the extent to which requirements creep has 
been successfully addressed.
Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness 
        reports
    The Department of Defense (DOD) is required to achieve 
audit readiness for its Statement of Business Resources by 
September 30, 2014 and audit readiness for its full financial 
statements by September 30, 2017. In order to assist in 
achieving these legal requirements, DOD has published a 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance.
    The FIAR Guidance outlines a process of four waves for 
achieving audit readiness. Each wave has objectives that must 
be achieved before progressing to the next wave. DOD provides 
quarterly reports on their progress in meeting their 
objectives.
    The committee notes that progress is being made toward 
these goals; however, the committee also notes that the most 
recent quarterly report did not contain a specific deadline for 
completion of the third wave. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Department to include a deadline for completion of each 
wave in the next quarterly report, including specific metrics 
tracking progress on their completion.
    The committee notes that substantial progress has been made 
toward meeting these statutory goals; however, the committee 
remains concerned with the Department's ability to actually 
achieve them. The Department's financial and related business 
management systems and control weaknesses have adversely 
affected its ability to control costs and ensure basic 
accountability.
    As the most recent FIAR Guidance points out, ``each of the 
military departments is larger than most American companies. 
The Department's annual budget is 56 percent of the Federal 
Government's discretionary budget and it holds 86 percent of 
the Federal Government's assets, as reported on the Federal 
Government's Consolidated Financial Statements. With over $1.0 
trillion in combined budgetary resources, producing auditable 
financial statements requires a strategic, long-term plan that 
addresses issues in an organized, prioritized, and incremental 
manner.''
    The committee strongly believes, therefore, that producing 
auditable financial statements is crucial to providing 
efficient and effective use of limited budgetary resources.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would convert the 
position of Deputy Chief Management Officer to Under Secretary 
of Defense for Management (USD(M)) and to designate that 
position as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the 
Department of Defense (DOD).
    Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) designated the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense as the DOD Chief Management Officer 
(DCMO), established an Under Secretary of Defense-level Deputy 
Chief Management Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary, and 
named the under secretaries of the military departments as 
their organizations' Chief Management Officers.
    This legislation was intended to strengthen the management 
of DOD's business operations and was the result of a series of 
recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
and several think-tanks that argued the need for a senior 
official at DOD with significant authority and experience to 
focus attention on enterprise-wide business transformation and 
sustain progress at the highest levels of DOD.
    The framework enacted into law was a compromise between 
those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who 
advocated creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense 
focused solely on management, and those who asserted that no 
reorganization was necessary to address DOD's persistent 
business challenges.
    Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly 
to implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of 
integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD's business 
operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by 
the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the 
new management structure put in place by the FY08 NDAA was 
properly scoped and defined to enable DOD to make significant 
progress in breaking down its functional stovepipes.
    The committee believes that while significant progress has 
been made, it has become increasingly clear that additional 
changes to the structure of the DCMO position are needed to 
position DOD for success in its business mission.
    Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-
equal of the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the 
independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and 
drive implementation of transformational change and improvement 
in the Department's business operations.
    The provision also would designate the USD(M) as the 
Department's CIO and would mandate that the USD(M) exercise 
authority, direction, and control over the Information 
Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency 
(NSA). Since the elimination of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 
(ASD(NII)), the DOD CIO has not been a Senate-confirmed 
position. In addition, in creating the DCMO position, Congress 
assigned multiple roles and responsibilities to the DCMO that 
had been performed by the CIO, which further diluted the clout 
of the CIO. Also, the bifurcation of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 
Communications, and Intelligence into the ASD(NII) and the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) led to the 
USD(I) supervising the NSA IAD, despite the fact that the CIO, 
not the USD(I), is responsible for information systems 
security, which is the mission of the IAD.
    The current provision would unify roles and functions 
traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by 
making it a Senate-confirmed position again, but without 
creating an additional position. A strengthened CIO will 
provide better management and oversight of information 
technology, systems, and operations within DOD, including over 
the U.S. Cyber Command. Combining these offices also should 
produce some savings in overhead.
    The recommended provision would also amend section 137a(d) 
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the order of 
precedence for the Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of 
Defense would be immediately following the officials serving in 
the positions of the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, the 
Under Secretaries of Defense, and the officials serving in 
positions specified in section 131(b)(4) of title 10, United 
States Code.
Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the United States 
        Special Operations Command by the Under Secretary of Defense 
        for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 902)
    The budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) included approximately $1.6 billion for procurement 
and $372.7 million for research, development, test, and 
evaluation (RDTE). The committee notes that this total 
represents an increase of more than double in USSOCOM's 
investment accounts since fiscal year 2001.
    The Commander of USSOCOM is unique within the Department of 
Defense as the only combatant commander empowered with 
authorities for the development and acquisition of special 
operations-peculiar equipment. Furthermore, the staff of the 
Commander of USSOCOM includes an acquisition executive that 
reports solely to the Commander. This is unlike the service 
acquisition executives of the military departments who are 
subject to the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) in addition 
to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of 
the military department concerned.
    The committee is supportive of USSOCOM's unique acquisition 
authorities to provide for the special operations-peculiar 
requirements of its forces, including rapid acquisition of 
urgently needed capabilities for deployed or deploying special 
operations forces. Further, the committee notes that the 
flexibility inherent in these authorities is enormously 
important to ensuring that our special operations forces can 
adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of global threats. 
However, given the significant growth in USSOCOM's budget in 
recent years and current fiscal pressures, the committee 
believes additional civilian oversight of USSOCOM investment 
programs is prudent, particularly the development and 
acquisition of special operations-peculiar platforms.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
make the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive subject to the direction 
of the USD(AT&L) for certain acquisition programs. The 
provision would also require the USD(AT&L) to designate an 
appropriate official within the Office of the USD(AT&L) to 
provide such oversight and direction for those programs. The 
provision would not alter the relationship between the USSOCOM 
Acquisition Executive and the Commander of USSOCOM and it is 
not the intent of the committee to delay, unnecessarily impede, 
or undermine the flexibility of USSOCOM development and 
acquisition efforts.
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and 
        Communications System (sec. 903)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
council to coordinate activities related to national leadership 
command, control, and communications systems, including the 
nuclear command, control, and communications system.
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from 
        Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration (sec. 904)
    The committee recommends a provision, based upon a 
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would transfer 
responsibility for administration of the Ocean Research 
Advisory Panel (ORAP) from the Department of the Navy to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the 
Department of Commerce. This change would allow the functions 
of the ORAP to be aligned more appropriately to address the 
full range of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes policy issues.
Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters (sec. 
        905)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for streamlining 
Department of Defense management headquarters by reducing the 
size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting 
functions that provide little or no added value, and 
consolidating overlapping and duplicative program offices.
    The objective of the required plan is to reduce aggregate 
spending for management headquarters by not less than $100.0 
billion over a 10 fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 
2015.
Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman of the Joint 
        Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, and education 
        (sec. 906)
    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would codify the responsibility of 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) by amending 
section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the 
current joint training, doctrine, education, and force 
development functions that are overseen by the CJCS.
Modification of reference to major Department of Defense headquarters 
        activities instruction (sec. 907)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 194(f) of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
reference to Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, titled 
``Major DOD Headquarters Activities.''

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities

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

    The committee has expressed concern with the failure of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to keep Congress apprised of its 
counter space strategy. DOD states that they have developed an 
integrated effort but the committee remains concerned by the 
lack of details and resources. Of note, the Air Force's fiscal 
year 2014 budget provides no funding for counter space programs 
after fiscal year 2016 in the base budget. The committee 
recognizes that the establishment of the Space Protection 
Program is meant to provide a central focus for mission 
assurance of national space capabilities. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a strategy identifying the 
near-term and long-term threat to critical national security 
space systems and the Department's plan for addressing that 
threat as well as the resources requested in the 5-year budget 
plan to address those threats. The strategy should also include 
an assessment of the capabilities and resources other countries 
have allocated and plan to allocate towards their own offensive 
counter space capabilities. The strategy shall be due no later 
than March 1, 2014.
    On numerous occasions over the past year, the committee has 
requested that the Department provide a complete copy of the 
study directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense which led to 
a significant revision of the Department's counter space 
strategy. A copy of the study has not yet been provided to the 
committee, therefore, the committee restricts $10.0 million of 
the funds appropriated for the Space Protection Program until a 
copy of the study is provided.

                Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters


Personnel security (sec. 931)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
major reform of the personnel security clearance investigation, 
adjudication, and transfer processes to improve security and 
reduce costs. Specifically, the provision would require:
          (1) the Director of Cost Analysis and Program 
        Evaluation to conduct a comprehensive, comparative 
        analysis of the cost, schedule, and performance of 
        personnel security investigations acquired through the 
        Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and through 
        components of the Department of Defense (DOD);
          (2) the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan by 
        October 1, 2014, to acquire investigations through the 
        approach most advantageous to DOD and to determine 
        whether investigations can be improved through the 
        increased utilization of private entities to conduct or 
        provide supporting information for security 
        investigations;
          (3) the Secretary and the Director of National 
        Intelligence (DNI) to develop a joint strategy to 
        continuously modernize all aspects of personnel 
        security to lower costs and improve security, and to 
        develop and report annually on metrics that will 
        demonstrate progress in achieving those objectives;
          (4) the Secretary and the DNI to consider, and allow 
        them to adopt, a series of innovations in security 
        investigation methods and data sources that have been 
        shown to be effective through analysis and/or 
        demonstrations;
          (5) the Secretary and the DNI to ensure, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, reciprocal acceptance of 
        clearances; and
          (6) development of benchmarks by which to measure the 
        current level of reciprocity in clearance transfers and 
        the costs imposed by delays.
    DOD transferred the bulk of its security investigations in 
2004 to OPM because DOD had accumulated a large backlog of 
clearance applications and investigations were taking an 
enormous amount of time which imposed high indirect costs 
through productivity losses, and (rightly) DOD did not consider 
security investigations to be a core mission.
    OPM successfully eliminated the backlog that it inherited 
and substantially reduced the time it takes to complete 
investigations.
    However, personnel security costs have steadily risen and 
DOD has had little visibility into OPM's cost structure to 
determine what has been driving those increases. A recent 
Government Accountability Office report documented OPM's lack 
of cost transparency and rapidly rising costs. DOD is spending 
three-quarters of a billion dollars annually on security 
investigations, and costs have been rising at a rate of 10 
percent a year. Multiple intelligence agencies that conduct 
their own investigations using the same contractors as OPM have 
achieved savings of up to 50 percent compared to the prices 
charged by OPM. The pressure on budgets has become severe, 
while new federal investigative standards that mandate a 
periodic reinvestigation every 5 years could increase the cost 
of personnel security dramatically in coming years.
    In addition, DOD and DNI have been eager to modernize the 
security investigation process, believing that doing so would 
actually improve security, reduce the time needed for 
investigations, and reduce costs. OPM has been slow to address 
these cost and reform issues.
    The Army and the National Reconnaissance Office 
successfully demonstrated, through a pilot program, the gains 
that can be achieved in efficiency, time, security, and cost by 
applying modern information technology and exploiting non-
traditional information sources.
    Some intelligence agencies have effectively stopped 
performing periodic reinvestigations, which has led to a huge 
new investigatory backlog, and because the government and 
contract employees of these agencies are past due for 
reinvestigations, other agencies may refuse to accept their 
clearances, limiting their employment opportunities through no 
fault of their own. Finally, industry has expressed concerns 
about a thicket of bureaucratic obstacles that still make the 
transfer of clearances between government agencies and 
departments, and from one contract to another, difficult and 
time-consuming, ultimately costing taxpayers substantial 
amounts of money as workers are idled, with their time charged 
to overhead.
    The committee believes that the time has come to issue a 
legislative mandate to force an action that all stakeholders 
seem to agree is necessary.

Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 932)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost 
Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and in consultation 
with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), acting 
through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), and the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to assess 
the potential cost savings and effectiveness improvements from 
consolidating clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT) 
collection in the National Clandestine Service managed by the 
CIA. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary and the DNI 
should assume that a consolidated HUMINT organization would 
include a military division supervised by a general or flag 
officer.
    In conducting the assessment, CAPE and CAIG would also be 
required to develop a methodology for comparing the 
effectiveness of the ratios of support personnel to case 
officers utilized by the Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA, 
respectively, and recommend an optimum ratio. The Secretary of 
Defense and the DNI also would be required to assess whether 
institutional and procedural safeguards are available to ensure 
that a consolidated HUMINT organization under the CIA could be 
relied upon to meet the requirements of the Department of 
Defense.
    The provision also would require CAPE separately to assess 
the performance of the military services in providing, and 
managing the careers of, qualified case officers for the 
Defense Clandestine Service (DCS), the effectiveness of DCS in 
providing cover and other support services to its deployed case 
officers, and whether the locations to which DCS case officers 
are deployed provide the opportunity to collect the information 
required by the Department.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to direct the modification of the radar 
system that will be deployed on the Navy's Broad-Area Maritime 
Surveillance (BAMS) Triton aircraft to provide a ground moving 
target indicator (GMTI) capability that is comparable to the 
performance of the Air Force Global Hawk Block 40 Multi-
Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP). The 
provision also would require the Secretary to designate the 
Triton as a joint asset available to support the operational 
requirements of the unified combatant commands for radar and 
signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection.
    The committee understands that the Triton radar could be 
modified through software additions at a very modest cost to 
achieve GMTI performance of the same level of quality and 
capacity as the Block 40 Global Hawk. The Navy plans to 
procure, over the life of the program, approximately 70 Triton 
aircraft. The committee believes it would be a serious mistake 
for the Department of Defense to pass on the opportunity to 
equip this fleet to support, when needed, the ground forces of 
the Marine Corps, the Army, and Special Forces with GMTI radar.
    Similarly, the Navy plans to equip approximately 60 Triton 
aircraft with a very capable SIGINT suite as a replacement for 
the EP-3 towards the end of the decade. The EP-3 is a joint 
asset that is allocated under the Global Force Management 
Allocation Plan process. The committee believes this capability 
should be available to support joint requirements.
    The budget request included $375.2 million in PE 35220N for 
development of the Triton program. To support the development 
of the software modifications to the Triton radar mandated in 
the committee provision, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million.

Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, 
        and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out a plan to conduct 
the orderly transfer of the Air Force C-12 Liberty 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft 
to the Army and to the U.S. Special Operations Command or one 
of its components. The plan will ensure there is no impact to 
ongoing ISR operations in Afghanistan and around the world. The 
provision would also prohibit the Army from acquiring 
additional versions of its C-12 ISR system, the Enhanced Medium 
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) in 
fiscal year 2014.
    In another section of this report, the committee recommends 
no authorization for the procurement of four EMARSS aircraft, 
but authorizes the same amount to convert transferred Air Force 
C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration.
    The Air Force currently possesses 41 C-12 Liberty ISR 
aircraft. These aircraft are currently assigned to Air Combat 
Command and provide ISR and direct support to ground forces, 
including Special Operations Forces. The Army has been pursuing 
an Aerial ISR Strategy 2020 which includes a fleet of 24 manned 
aerial ISR aircraft based on the C-12 (Beechcraft 350)--
procuring 12 new EMARSS aircraft and recapitalizing 12 existing 
Medium Altitude Multi-Intelligence aircraft. These aircraft 
will replace the legacy Guardrail systems resulting in the 
elimination or retirement of 58 manned ISR platforms.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81), this committee recommended 
transferring Air Force C-12 Liberty ISR aircraft to the Army 
but relented at the insistence of the Vice Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, 
and the leadership of the Air Force that the Air Force was 
committed to the mission of providing ISR support for ground 
forces. However, the attempted transfer of these aircraft by 
the Air Force to the National Guard prompted the Army to 
restart the EMARSS program.
    The committee remains convinced that the Department of 
Defense requires only one fleet of C-12-based ISR aircraft to 
provide tactical support to ground forces in a permissive air 
defense environment and looks forward to reviewing the 
Secretary of Defense's plan on transfer and use of its C-12 ISR 
aircraft.

                 Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to determine whether U.S. Cyber Command 
(CYBERCOM) requires signals intelligence (SIGINT) operational 
tasking authority (SOTA) as an inherent and essential aspect of 
its operational missions. If the Secretary determines that 
CYBERCOM needs SOTA to perform its missions, including military 
cyber operations such as maneuvering outside of national U.S. 
networks, operational preparation of the environment, 
development of targeting packages, and accessing databases held 
by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary would 
delegate such authority to CYBERCOM in the Secretary's role as 
the President's Executive Agent for SIGINT under Executive 
Order 12333.
    CYBERCOM, like elements of the intelligence community, 
requires the ability to access the global Internet for 
operational purposes without necessarily exposing those 
accesses to potential adversaries. In conflict situations, 
CYBERCOM may be called upon to take actions where it is not 
possible or necessary to act with stealth, and remain unnoticed 
and untraced. CYBERCOM, as a military organization, sometimes 
may be required to rapidly overwhelm military targets by massed 
action--the very antithesis of non-disruptive activity.
    Similarly, CYBERCOM's offensive military forces may need to 
train and exercise capabilities to defeat targets not only by 
stealthy infiltration but by ensuring that they make use of a 
broad range of strategies, including by employing the cyber 
equivalent of sudden and overwhelming force. CYBERCOM's 
personnel and units may need capabilities, and training, to 
rapidly plan and execute potentially large-scale operations 
against new or unexpected targets where disruption or 
destruction is paramount, not stealth. Test ranges may be 
necessary, since CYBERCOM's forces cannot prepare for this type 
of operation out on the global Internet. The committee expects 
the Secretary to take these unique CYBERCOM requirements--many 
of which differ from the requirements of the intelligence 
community--into consideration in making the determination 
required by this section.
    The provision recommended by the committee would require 
the Secretary to designate a Senate-confirmed official within 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with the 
responsibility for oversight, and resource management of 
offensive cyber forces, including the national mission teams 
that will defend the nation by operating external to U.S. 
networks.
    The committee is concerned that oversight of CYBERCOM and 
the cyber mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is 
fragmented and weak. In part, this is unavoidable, inasmuch as 
cyber operations affect every segment of the Department, making 
clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibility impossible to 
draw. One organization is in charge of defensive cybersecurity, 
another for cyber intelligence missions, others for technology, 
architectures, and acquisition, and another for policy and 
operational considerations.
    Oversight is further complicated by the varied 
organizational structures that the military services apply to 
cyber missions. In responding to the Secretary of Defense's 
direction to create a large number of cyber mission teams to 
conduct national cyber defense, support the combatant commands, 
and defend DOD networks, the services are struggling to 
classify the personnel who will man these teams. Some of the 
services are building offensive forces within existing service 
cryptologic organizations and commands, and intend to fund all 
such personnel under the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), 
while others fund and manage such personnel as they would any 
other warfighter. Personnel that will be assigned to teams that 
will ``hunt'' for adversaries in the defense of DOD networks 
are likely to be funded under the Information Systems Security 
Program.
    Finally, the provision would require that the Secretary 
initiate the process of creating sophisticated training 
facilities and capabilities for cyber personnel in the military 
services and at CYBERCOM, independently of the intelligence 
community. The committee does not believe that offensive 
military cyber forces should be funded under the MIP. The 
committee is also concerned that the culture and outlook of 
signals intelligence collection, which is already overly 
dominant in this mission area, may be inappropriate to many 
cyber missions.

Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec. 
        942)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a joint software assurance 
center to serve as a resource for securing the software 
acquired, developed, maintained, and used in the Department of 
Defense (DOD). The provision would require the Secretary to 
consider whether an existing center could fulfill the purposes 
of the required center.
    The provision would require the Secretary, within 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, to issue a charter for 
the center that lays out: (1) the center's role in supporting 
program offices in implementing DOD's supply chain risk 
management strategy and policies; (2) the center's expertise 
and capabilities; (3) the center's management, in coordination 
with the Center for Assured Software (CAS) of the National 
Security Agency, of a research and development program to 
improve the capability of automated software analysis tools; 
and (4) the center's management of the procurement and 
distribution of enterprise licenses for such analysis tools.
    The provision also would require the Secretary to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees, coincident with 
the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2016, on 
funding and management of the center, including a 
recommendation for the placement of the center organizationally 
within the Department.
    A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of 
Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software 
and software-based applications indicated that a software 
assurance center would be useful to implement DOD's Trusted 
Systems and Networks strategy. The report further stated that 
an internal DOD study concluded that software vulnerability 
detection should be ``organized centrally'' to assure ``a 
consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive 
coverage'' at least until software assurance expertise and 
resources are developed and diffused across the Department. The 
committee believes that a software assurance center would best 
serve as the anchor point for that ``centrally organized'' 
effort, and the implementation of section 933 of the National 
Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
    The mission of the center would be to educate, train, 
equip, and assist program management offices to achieve 
security in software developments and acquisitions. These 
services would require expertise in software assurance 
requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and 
tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, system 
certifications, and vulnerability remediation.
    Section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 mandated the use of automated vulnerability 
analysis tools during the entire lifecycle of critical DOD 
systems. A software assurance center would be a logical choice 
for managing the purchase and distribution of licenses for 
commercial automated code analysis tools, and for managing the 
development of improvements to code analysis tools.

Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for 
        intelligence analysis (sec. 943)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Intelligence, the Chief Information Officer of 
the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Chairman of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council, to supervise the development 
and implementation of plans for the acquisition of cloud 
computing capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) data analysis in the military services and 
defense agencies.
    The provision would specifically require plans for meeting 
requirements for interoperability and attribute-based access 
controls across the ISR cloud systems of DOD components, as 
well as for cross-domain enterprise-wide discovery and 
correlation of data stored in cloud and non-cloud databases, 
relational and non-relational databases, and any future hybrid 
or consolidated databases that have features and capabilities 
of both relational and non-relational databases. In addition, 
the provision would require these plans to be integrated with 
the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E), the 
Joint Information Environment (JIE), and the Intelligence 
Community Information Technology Enterprise (ICITE).
    This provision is based in part on recommendations from the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report required by the 
House Report which accompanied H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). 
That report documented that DOD lacks guidance and standards 
governing the development of the services' cloud initiatives 
for analyzing ISR data and for integrating these activities 
with the DI2E, JIE, and ICITE. GAO also noted that, with the 
exception of the Army, the services have not yet developed 
strategies and implementation plans for their ISR clouds.

Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons systems and 
        tactical communications systems (sec. 944)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of the enactment of this 
Act, to report to the congressional defense and intelligence 
committees on the capability of each military service to 
operate in a hostile cyber environment. The report would be 
required to provide an assessment of the cyber threats to major 
weapons systems and tactical communications systems that could 
emerge within the next 5 years; an assessment of the cyber 
vulnerabilities of major weapons systems and tactical 
communications systems; a description of the current strategy 
to defend against battlefield cyber attacks; and an estimate of 
the costs to correct the vulnerabilities in the future.
    The Department of Defense (DOD) has layered defenses for 
its desktop computers, laptops, servers, data centers, and 
backbone networks, including endpoint or host-based defensive 
systems, such as the Host-Based Security System (HBSS). 
Tactical networks, and the software elements of battlefield 
weapons systems, lack such protections. Such tactical systems 
are less readily accessible than the main DOD networks and 
computing equipment, and utilize more custom software, but in 
principle, they can be accessed and subverted through wireless 
communications means or through other wireless apertures, test 
equipment or other removable media, and through supply chain 
compromise. In important respects, battlefield cyber warfare is 
closely related to traditional electronic warfare. It is 
critically important for DOD to prepare for this type of 
conflict.
    As highlighted in a January 2013 report by the Defense 
Science Board, DOD's dependence upon networked systems and 
components serves as ``a magnet to U.S. opponents'' and if left 
unaddressed, threatens our core warfighting capabilities. Every 
critical system from ground vehicle electronic systems and next 
generation aircraft to satellites and missile defense systems 
must be assessed to ensure that critical warfighting 
capabilities are not undermined and that the same level of 
emphasis placed on developmental and operational security in 
the physical domain be adequately addressed and applied in the 
cyber domain.

Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to 
        support Department of Defense cyber missions (sec. 945)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for using the 
reserve components of the armed forces to support the cyber 
missions of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including in support 
of civil authorities, and to report to the congressional 
defense committees on this strategy within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act.
    CYBERCOM was established in 2009. While it has had large 
numbers of personnel assigned to execute its defensive mission 
to protect Department of Defense (DOD) networks, the number of 
qualified personnel available for offensive missions, including 
offensive operations in support of defensive missions, has been 
negligible.
    CYBERCOM has now begun defining the numbers of positions 
and their associated specific skills, and the number of units 
into which those positions would be grouped, that are initially 
required to defend the Nation against major cyber attack, 
support the combatant commanders, and actively defend DOD 
networks.
    The Secretary recently issued a directive to the services 
to undertake vigorous action to generate large numbers of such 
skilled cyber operators to meet these CYBERCOM manning 
requirements (over the next 4 years). The services are still in 
the early stages of responding to the Secretary's direction.
    DOD is therefore only at the beginning stages of 
determining how the reserve components can and should be 
integrated into the process for providing a total force 
solution to CYBERCOM's manning requirements.
    In developing the required strategy, the provision would 
require the Secretary to: (1) identify the DOD cyber mission 
requirements that could be discharged by members of the reserve 
components; (2) in consultation with state Governors, provide 
means for the states to provide their evaluation of state 
capabilities and the needs of their states for cyber 
capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by contracting through 
the private sector; (3) identify the existing capabilities of 
the reserve components and the current plans of the military 
services to utilize them to meet total force resource 
requirements; (4) assess whether the National Guard when 
activated in state status can operate under unique and useful 
authorities to support domestic cyber missions and CYBERCOM 
requirements; (5) evaluate the ability of the reserve 
components to attract, retain, manage the careers of, properly 
train, and organize personnel with substantial cyber technical 
expertise from the private sector; (6) develop an estimate of 
the costs of the personnel, infrastructure, training, and 
operations needed to integrate the reserve components into the 
total force solution to CYBERCOM's mission requirements; and 
(7) assess the appropriateness of hiring non-dual status 
technicians on a part-time basis, who possess appropriate 
cybersecurity expertise for purposes of assisting the National 
Guard in protecting critical infrastructure and carrying out 
cybersecurity missions in defense of the United States 
homeland.
    The committee notes that there is a large and diverse array 
of companies and non-profit organizations in the private sector 
that employ people with expertise in cybersecurity. These 
organizations not only can provide services to the states for 
day-to-day cybersecurity and for crisis and recovery support, 
but their employees could potentially provide a wealth of 
talent as members of the reserve components to support 
CYBERCOM's title 10 missions, including support to civil 
authorities. While it is not clear that DOD can attract these 
cyber experts to join the reserve components on a large scale, 
the potential payoff is so significant that it must be fully 
assessed.
    The committee also notes, however, that these private 
sector resources are not evenly distributed across the country. 
Rather, they tend to be geographically concentrated. 
Furthermore, by the inherent virtual nature of cyberspace, the 
lack of physical proximity to a specific cyber event or network 
need not be a major barrier to the provision of support and 
collective effort. These factors may have a significant impact 
on how reserve component cyber personnel should be organized 
and situated.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President to establish an interagency process to develop policy 
to control the proliferation of cyber weapons through 
unilateral and cooperative export controls, law enforcement 
activities, financial means, diplomatic engagement, and other 
means that the President considers appropriate. The process 
should involve subject matter experts from across the 
government, including the Department of Defense, the Department 
of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Department of the 
Treasury, the Department of State, and the intelligence 
community. The provision would require the interagency process 
to produce recommendations within 270 days of the enactment of 
this Act.
    In testimony before the committee and in many other 
settings, executive branch civilian and military leaders have 
continually pointed to cyber threats as some of the most grave 
facing our country. Recent examples of such threats include the 
distributed denial of service attacks directed at U.S. 
financial institutions and the Shamoon malware cited by former 
Secretary of Defense Panetta that rendered 30,000 computers 
useless at Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil 
company. The types of dangerous software used to perpetrate 
these malicious incidents are actively traded on a global black 
market, and they are also available in the so-called gray 
market, through unscrupulous companies. Through these illicit 
channels, it is possible to procure or even rent sophisticated 
tools and large-scale infrastructure (such as compromised 
computers) to subvert computer systems and networks. This 
thriving marketplace is driving research and development of 
more advanced cyber capabilities.
    In order to address these challenges, the provision would 
require the President to determine the types of malicious 
software that can and should be controlled through existing 
export control schemes. This process will require developing 
definitions and categories for controlled cyber technologies 
and determining how to address dual-use, lawful intercept, and 
penetration testing technologies. After determining which types 
of cyber technologies should be controlled, the process should 
identify the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial tools 
that can be applied to control and contain their development, 
proliferation, and use. However, the approaches developed must 
also take into account the needs of legitimate cybersecurity 
professionals to mitigate vulnerabilities, and not stifle 
innovation in tools and technology that are necessary for 
national security and the cybersecurity of the Nation.
    Finally, the provision would require the President to 
develop a statement of principles regarding U.S. positions on 
controlling the proliferation of cyber weapons to create new 
opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to 
address this shared threat. Such principles could be leveraged 
for a multilateral cyber initiative that could build and 
operationalize a shared consensus on limiting the spread of 
malicious software, increasing accountability, and creating a 
foundation for collective action.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President to establish an interagency process to develop an 
integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. The 
provision would require the President to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees on this policy within 270 
days after the enactment of this Act.
    The committee has been pressing for a strategy and doctrine 
for deterring adversaries from attacking the United States and 
our allies for years. The administration has made some progress 
in this area, producing some elements of such a strategy, but 
the depth and breadth of the analysis and explanation of the 
U.S. posture needs to be significantly improved.

Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance matters (sec. 
        948)

    The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that 
Centers of Academic Excellence (CAEs) in Information Assurance 
do not lose their certification as CAEs in fiscal year 2014 as 
a result of recent changes in the certification criteria 
developed by the National Security Agency (NSA). The provision 
also would require the President, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Education and with the advice of the National 
Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, to: 
(1) determine whether information assurance has matured to the 
point where the Federal Government should no longer serve as 
the accrediting authority for information assurance programs at 
institutions of higher education; and (2) based on that 
determination, reform the current practice of NSA developing 
the criteria to guide the curricula and certifying the status 
of the CAEs.
    The first CAEs for Information Assurance were established 
more than a decade ago under the direction of officials on the 
National Security Council staff. There are now approximately 
165 CAEs across the country, with partnerships extending to 
many community colleges. The Department of Defense funds a 
scholarship-for-service program at these CAEs, as does the 
National Science Foundation.
    The guidelines for the curriculum and the criteria for 
certifying these CAEs were first developed by NSA under the 
direction of the Committee on National Security Systems. These 
guidelines and criteria have not been updated since.
    In 2010, the administration established the National 
Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), pursuant to 
which they assigned responsibility for Formal Cybersecurity 
Education to the Secretary of Education and the National 
Science Foundation. The widely held expectation was that 
modernization of the CAE guidelines and criteria would issue 
from the NICE initiative consistent with a Cybersecurity 
Workforce Framework developed by the National Institute for 
Standards and Technology.
    Instead, NSA unilaterally revised the certification 
criteria by issuing new draft knowledge units and other 
criteria to which the CAEs would be required to align their 
curricula. Universities and colleges that were up for renewal 
of their certifications would have to realign their programs 
immediately.
    Many of the CAEs are very concerned about NSA's actions, 
and perceive that the new knowledge units are unduly focused on 
the highly technical aspects of information assurance, which, 
while perhaps appropriate for the specific needs of NSA and the 
Department of Homeland Security for government employees, are 
not suited for the broad needs of government (at all levels) 
and the private sector for cybersecurity professionals. NSA 
officials maintain that almost all current CAEs will be able to 
qualify under the new guidelines without hardship or 
significant expense if they choose to do so. However, a 
significant number of the CAEs do not agree.
    The committee's provision would provide time to step back 
and address fundamental issues. It would also require a 
determination whether information assurance programs are now 
sufficiently mature to be accredited in the same manner as 
other established academic disciplines. Accreditation is 
normally managed by the private sector in a peer-driven process 
involving institutions and constituencies that serve and are 
served by the discipline being taught. Since the CAEs were 
created over a decade ago, reliance on the Internet has become 
universal and the cyber threat is ubiquitous, affecting the 
entire Nation. There are now strong constituencies throughout 
government and industry, and peer institutions in academia and 
the private sector that have vital interests in the curriculum 
and educational capabilities in information assurance in the 
Nation's institutes of higher education. They not only deserve 
a seat at the table, but they have valuable knowledge and 
experience to impart.
    The committee notes that a large number of federal 
departments have significant cybersecurity education 
initiatives underway, and all of government has a vital 
interest in cybersecurity. NSA has unique expertise, to be 
sure, but no longer a monopoly. At a minimum, a government-
wide, coordinated process should be used to establish curricula 
and criteria for designation for the CAEs. It is also possible 
that, after reviewing the matter, the President and academia 
itself could decide that the time has come for information 
assurance to become a recognized academic discipline with an 
independent accreditation body and process.
    While the President is making these decisions and 
establishing a broader and more peer- and constituency-driven 
accreditation process, the committee believes that the status 
quo for the CAEs should be maintained.

                       Items of Special Interest


Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites

    In an effort to reduce acquisition costs, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of multi-year procurement of the 
GPS III satellite system under existing authorities. The 
assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014.

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

    For affordability and to ensure manufacturing and 
production lines are optimized, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
generally buys satellites in block quantities. However, over 
the last few decades, data shows that satellites are generally 
outliving their expected lifetimes. This often times means that 
fully produced satellites sit in storage for extended periods 
of time, sometimes more than 5 years. More importantly, it is 
not fully known to DOD or the development contractor what 
effect storage will have on the eventual operational lifetime 
of a satellite. In addition to risk, there are costs associated 
with extended storage to include battery replacement, 
additional functional testing, and the need to maintain 
standing armies of engineers to be on call in the event an 
anomaly may occur. Stored satellites have also been launched at 
longer intervals to strategically address the late deliveries 
of follow on satellite acquisitions. The committee directs the 
Comptroller General to assess the costs, risks, and benefits of 
storage on produced satellites. The assessment shall include:
          (1) an assessment of DOD and contractor data, if any, 
        on the effects that storage has on the operational 
        lifetimes of satellites, to include correlations 
        between years in storage and expected and eventual 
        satellite lifetimes;
          (2) an identification of the costs associated with 
        satellite storage over the past 5 years as well as 
        anticipated storage costs over the next 5 years;
          (3) an explanation of the steps DOD has taken, if 
        any, to strategically extend the lifetimes of satellite 
        constellations, while incurring unanticipated storage 
        costs; and
          (4) the steps that DOD is taking to better understand 
        storage and its overall effects on satellite 
        operational lifetimes; and
          (5) the strategic benefit of being able to rapidly 
        reconstitute certain satellites, and if storage is the 
        most cost effective means for doing so.
    The assessment shall be due by April 30, 2014.

Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office

    The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), while a 
Department of Defense (DOD) agency, has long been considered a 
loose cadre of experts loaned from various defense and 
intelligence agencies. This loaning of experts has positive and 
negative aspects. The positive aspect of this personnel 
rotation is the ability to bring new talent with fresh ideas to 
tackle some of the most challenging problems related to space 
systems. In fact, DOD personnel who return from a tour at NRO 
have developed synergies between these two organizations 
leading to a cadre of space professionals, which this committee 
believes should be sustained and nurtured by the DOD. Section 
912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) shows the committee's long-standing 
interest in maintaining a space cadre by requiring biennial 
reports on the Department's space professionals. The negative 
aspect of the personnel rotation program is a constantly 
changing workforce that is loaned to a large agency with no 
long-term core knowledge base of scientists, engineers, 
contracting specialists, and legal staff. Such a core group 
within the NRO can carry forward the corporate knowledge as the 
majority of the NRO staff rotates to and from their home 
agencies. Given that a significant portion of staff at the NRO 
is from DOD, the committee looks forward to exploring the 
parameters of such a core group of individuals within the NRO 
in the upcoming fiscal year.

Estimated cost to relocate spectrum

    Testimony before this committee has suggested moving the 
Department of Defense (DOD) off spectrum below 3 GHz. The 
committee remains skeptical and concerned with the technical 
feasibility and risk in such a move. The committee directs DOD 
to assess the impact on mission and cost of such a proposed 
move and provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees no later than February 28, 2014.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

    The Secretary of the Air Force has announced an acquisition 
strategy that involves the procurement of 36 rocket cores over 
the next 5 years with the availability of an additional 14 
cores to be competed for by the incumbent as well as any launch 
providers that qualify under Air Force new entrant guidelines. 
The committee understands that as a result of the acquisition 
strategy, approximately $1.1 billion in cost savings will be 
achieved with the block buy of 36 cores and the Air Force is to 
be commended for these cost savings. Further, the committee 
understands that while the Air Force has completed its New 
Entrant Strategy, the other major user of the Evolved 
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), the National Reconnaissance 
Office (NRO), has not. The committee will want to compare the 
Air Force and the NRO strategies and to understand what 
differences there are and why, since both the Air Force and the 
NRO will use these 14 cores. Furthermore, the committee expects 
the Director of the NRO to consult with the Air Force on any 
differences in strategy that significantly deviate from the Air 
Force approach.
    The committee's understanding from new entrants is that 
while they are generally pleased with the strategy, there are 
still concerns with the EELV Launch Capability (ELC) funding 
and whether it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. The 
committee will want to understand the nature of the ELC during 
competition for the 14 cores in addition to the 36 core block 
buy. The committee will look carefully in the out-years as to 
the structure of future acquisition strategies and in 
particular how the ELC will be structured, assuming there are 
multiple launch providers.
    Likewise, the committee expects that once a new entrant is 
certified it will have to establish the acquisition rigor that 
the current incumbent undergoes--business systems that 
substantially comply with Department of Defense data 
requirements and cost accounting standards, including certified 
cost or price data to protect taxpayers' interest that it is 
paying a reasonable and appropriate price and Defense 
Contracting Audit Agency audits to verify and validate 
contractors' systems and data. Certification by the Air Force 
must also be closely monitored to ensure technical standards 
are consistent with the risk level of the mission prior to 
contract award.

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program

    The committee continues to believe that improvements to the 
space situational awareness and space command and control 
capabilities of the United States are critical, and the 
Department of Defense has the opportunity to achieve efficiency 
and cost effectiveness by utilizing, to the maximum extent 
possible, readily available commercial and government-developed 
capabilities. The committee fully expects the Air Force to 
pursue a tailored incremental information technology approach 
with priority given to transition from the legacy Space Defense 
Operations Center system by 2014.
    The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to, 
when appropriate, fully incorporate existing, mature, 
commercial technology products in order to replace the legacy 
system on an accelerated basis and utilize efficient testing 
and validation methods. In addition, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the 
congressional defense committees no later than August 1, 2013, 
assessing the Air Force's plan of execution for the Increment 2 
schedule, based upon available funding.

Mainframe computer security

    The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) operates a 
large number of mainframe computers to process and store 
critical Department of Defense (DOD) information. These 
mainframes are protected by some elements of DOD's layered 
cybersecurity defenses, but other layers are absent, in part 
because mainframes have unique features and attack vectors for 
which standard defense systems and architectures do not apply. 
However, DISA's position is that these mainframes do not 
require the same level of attention because they have 
inherently elevated security, achieved through the rigorous 
architecture, engineering, access procedures, and programming 
languages applied to mainframe computing.
    The committee agrees that mainframe computers have better 
built-in security, but disagrees that these enhanced security 
features alone are sufficient to provide the level of 
protection needed. In addition, the importance of mainframes to 
DOD's information enterprise makes them an attractive target. 
According to General Keith Alexander, the Commander of U.S. 
Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the Director of the National 
Security Agency (NSA), in testimony before the committee, 
``there's more work that needs to be done in protecting the 
mainframe computers and that portion of the total information 
infrastructure.''
    The committee directs that CYBERCOM and NSA jointly conduct 
a vulnerability assessment of DOD mainframe computers, and make 
recommendations to the Chief Information Officer and the 
Director of DISA for addressing vulnerabilities that may exist, 
within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act.

Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System

    The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the 
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the 
Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System for integration 
into the Space Based Infrared System. The report shall be due 
to the congressional defense committees no later than February 
28, 2014.

Payload processing services

    The committee understands that the Air Force has taken 
steps that may undermine competition for payload processing for 
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Given the 
Air Force's initiatives to instill competition in the EELV 
program, the committee is concerned that the Air Force has not 
taken all appropriate steps to encourage competition for 
payload processing services. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force within 90 days of the enactment of 
this Act to provide a plan to the congressional defense 
committees on how the Air Force intends to ensure competition 
in payload processing services.

Report on disaggregation and payload hosting

    Much has been stated by the Department of Defense on the 
attributes of disaggregating sensors and hosting these payloads 
on other satellite systems to potentially reduce cost and 
increase survivability. The Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) is directed to assess the potential benefits and 
drawbacks of disaggregating key military space systems and 
examine whether disaggregation and payload hosting offers 
either decreased acquisition and life cycle cost and increased 
survivability of a constellation compared to more traditional 
approaches such as incremental technological improvements of 
the existing satellite architecture and the use of block buy or 
fixed price acquisition strategy. In particular, the GAO is 
directed to examine these concepts on three systems, the Space 
Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS), the Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency satellite system, and the follow-on defense weather 
satellite system. There is precedent with the use of SBIRS 
Highly Elliptical Orbit 1 and 2 on hosted payloads. The report 
for this effort shall be due by March 31, 2014.

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

    There has been much re-scoping of the Family of Advanced 
Line of Sight Command Terminals (FAB-T). Originally intended 
for ground, command post (air and ground), as well as the B-2 
and B-52 aircraft, the committee understands that the Air Force 
is now considering only the ground and command post versions of 
the terminal. If a version of the terminal is proven feasible 
for the B-2 and B-52 aircraft, the committee directs the Air 
Force in coordination with U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) 
to provide an assessment of whether the requirement for 
integrating these terminals into the airframes is still valid 
and if the Air Force intends to provide a follow-on FAB-T 
capability for these aircraft and by what timeframe. The 
assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014 and shall include 
the views of the Commander of USSTRATCOM.

Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional nuclear-armed 
        long-range ballistic missile

    In April 2012, North Korea first displayed what appeared to 
be a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), referred 
to as the KN-08, which has not yet been flight tested. In 
December 2012, after more than a decade of efforts to launch a 
satellite with the Taepo Dong space-launch vehicle (SLV), North 
Korea succeeded for the first time in placing a satellite in 
orbit with the Taepo Dong-2 SLV, thus demonstrating success 
with the development of ballistic missile technology. On 
February 12, 2013, North Korea announced that it had 
successfully conducted its third nuclear test. As Madelyn 
Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic 
Affairs, testified to the committee, ``North Korea's long-range 
ballistic missile capabilities have advanced rapidly during the 
last year. The increased pace of this emerging threat required 
the United States to adapt its homeland defense capabilities . 
. . . These programs demonstrate North Korea's commitment to 
develop long-range missile technology that could pose a direct 
threat to the United States.''
    These developments have caused concern that North Korea may 
be capable of deploying a nuclear-armed long-range ballistic 
missile. However, to the best of our knowledge, North Korea has 
never flight tested a full production representative long-range 
ballistic missile, and has not flight tested the reentry 
vehicle or associated nuclear warhead technologies. The 
Department of Defense issued a statement in April 2013 that, 
``it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean 
regime has fully developed and tested'' nuclear weapons capable 
of being delivered by ballistic missiles. According to the 
Director of National Intelligence, ``North Korea has not yet 
demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a 
nuclear-armed missile.''
    North Korea has clearly made substantial progress on long-
range ballistic missile technology and on developing nuclear 
weapons. These are topics of intense interest to the U.S. 
Intelligence Community, elements of which have been assessing 
these two aspects of North Korea's capabilities separately. 
However, there has not yet been an assessment looking at both 
North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear warhead 
capabilities to provide an integrated assessment of its ability 
to produce a working nuclear-armed ICBM.
    Consequently, the Director of National Intelligence is 
directed to assess the ability and time frame for North Korea 
to produce a fully functional long-range ballistic missile 
armed with a working nuclear warhead. The assessment shall 
consider the challenges of successfully designing, engineering, 
and producing a nuclear explosives package that can fit into a 
re-entry body, capable of withstanding the full flight 
trajectory of a ballistic missile, with fusing that can arm and 
detonate the warhead on a target. The assessment should also 
identify what, if any, capabilities North Korea may have 
achieved.
    As part of this assessment, the Director of National 
Intelligence is to consult with the Department of Energy on the 
physics and engineering of such a nuclear explosives package 
that can fit in the reentry body, survive flight trajectory, 
and the necessary fusing to arm the warhead. The Director's 
assessment shall reflect the views of the Department of Energy.
    In the assessment, the Director of National Intelligence 
shall provide an estimate of North Korea's status on the 
critical technologies to be developed in the nuclear explosives 
package, the reentry body, the fuse system, and the estimated 
timeframe to assemble a complete and fully functional warhead 
on a long-range ballistic missile system. The assessment shall 
include any dissenting or minority intelligence community 
determinations and shall be completed and provided to the 
congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence 
committees no later than February 28, 2014.

Report on space situational awareness

    The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to conduct a Gap 
Analysis on the systems of sensors used for space situational 
awareness (SSA), evaluating those: currently employed; in 
procurement; and not yet procured, or in the case of the Space 
Based Surveillance System, what a future replacement would be 
to deliver similar capability at a lower cost. For sensors not 
procured, the Secretary is directed to provide the estimated 
cost of procurement and the incremental improvement to the SSA 
architecture. The Secretary is directed to consider non-
traditional sensors such as sea-based X-band radar integrated 
in a net-centric fashion to the Joint Space Operations Center 
Mission System. The report for this effort shall be due by 
February 28, 2014.

Satellite communications strategy

    The Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a report 
detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year strategy for using an 
appropriate mix of Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial 
satellite bandwidth. The committee believes considerable 
savings can be achieved by purchasing commercial bandwidth in 
larger block quantities. However, to date, DOD has been unable 
to define the appropriate mix between government provided and 
commercially purchased satellite communications and has relied 
on more expensive spot market buys. For procuring commercial 
satellite bandwidth, the Secretary must recognize that long-
term or capital leasing of commercial bandwidth typically 
results in the cost over the life of the lease being net-
present valued by the Congressional Budget Office in year one 
of the lease. For multi-year procurement of satellite 
bandwidth, issues associated with termination liability will 
also present up-front costing challenges in year 1. 
Accordingly, as part of the strategy, the Secretary is directed 
to consider the use of a capital working fund or other 
mechanisms for leasing or multi-year procurement of commercial 
bandwidth. These alternative procurement arrangements should 
only be used where the use of DOD or other government 
satellites are not available or is more costly than in the 
private sector. The report shall be due February 28, 2014.
    The Government Accountability Office is directed to review 
the acquisition strategy of the report no later than 90 days 
after submittal of the report.

Satellite control system modernization plan

    The committee directs the Air Force to develop a long-term 
plan for modernizing its Satellite Control Network and any 
future shared satellite control services and capabilities 
consistent with the second recommendation found on page 28 of 
the Government Accountability Office report ``Satellite Control 
Operations'', GAO-13-315. The plan shall be due by April 30, 
2014.

Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6

    The committee understands that the Air Force intends to 
procure Space Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), GEO 5 and 6 
using a block buy, fixed price strategy to reduce costs. Such 
an acquisition strategy is admirable. However, the committee 
understands that SBIRS GEO 5 and 6 is to use much the same 
technology as in earlier versions found in GEO 1 and 2. If such 
an approach is used, that means that GEO 5 and 6 when launched 
in the 2020 timeframe will be using, for instance, focal plane 
technology developed in the 1990s, which is 30 years old. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the 
technology insertion path for GEO 5 and 6 and whether it is 
feasible to insert newer focal plane and other technologies 
into GEO 5 and 6 within a block buy acquisition strategy and 
the estimated cost. If not feasible, how does the Air force 
intend to break the ongoing cycle of technology insertion 
maturity versus risk where the cost to develop next generation 
satellites becomes cost prohibitive and high risk with long 
periods of non-recurring engineering. The assessment shall be 
due by February 28, 2014. The committee directs the Government 
Accountability Office to review the assessment performed by the 
Air Force within 90 days of submission to the committee.

Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base

    The committee believes that a healthy industrial base for 
strategic solid rocket motors, including multiple providers, 
promotes competition, improves vendor performance, and reduces 
costs. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to 
promote and maintain the health and competitiveness of this 
crucial sector of the industrial base and to make its viability 
a key consideration in future acquisition decisions involving 
Minuteman III sustainment and the post 2030 Ground Based 
Strategic Deterrent.

Trusted agent for spectrum

    An important element of working with the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory 
Committee (CSMAC) is the use of trusted agents; technically 
trained individuals from industry with appropriate security 
clearances that can work as an interface between industry and 
DOD in assessing the ability to share or clear spectrum that is 
currently in use by the Department. The committee understands 
that the Department has been reviewing the procedures for using 
trusted agents. However, the review process has taken an 
exceedingly long time, causing delays in the ability of DOD to 
effectively work with industry. The committee directs the 
Department to report back on the status of implementing 
procedures for using trusted agents as part of the CSMAC 
process by July 31, 2013.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $4.0 billion of funds authorized in 
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in 
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of 
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be 
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 1002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
Department of Defense (DOD) Readiness Restoration Fund in order 
to provide the DOD with increased flexibility to transfer funds 
that may be available to high priority readiness accounts, 
where necessary to address significant shortfalls in funding 
otherwise available for the training activities of the armed 
forces (including flying hours and steaming days) and the 
maintenance of military equipment.
    The committee directs the Department to notify Congress 
regarding the use of this authority using guidelines similar to 
that of notifications to Congress for the use of general 
transfer authorities.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

Extension of authority to support the unified counter-drug and 
        counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 
2 fiscal years, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 
provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and 
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia. The 
provision would also incorporate an updated notification to 
Congress to improve transparency of the Department of Defense's 
use of this authority.
    The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has 
made and continues to make progress combating narcotics 
trafficking and designated foreign terrorist organizations. 
This type of flexible authority is still required to assist the 
Government of Colombia consolidate its hard-fought gains, but 
the committee expects to see reductions in the level of 
assistance provided to Colombia, as has been agreed to in our 
bilateral engagements with the Colombians.
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law 
        enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 
        (sec. 1012)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 
2 fiscal years, the support by joint task forces under section 
1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended by 
section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
    While the committee continues to be pleased with the 
Department's judicious use of this authority, the committee 
also believes there are additional activities that could 
potentially be conducted, most notably in additional 
investments in developing intelligence and supporting other 
departments' and agencies' efforts to develop additional 
intelligence on the nexus that exists between transnational 
criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations. The 
committee urges the Department to look closely at these matters 
in North Africa.
Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for 
        counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 
        1013)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 
5 years, the authority to provide support for counterdrug 
activities of certain foreign governments under subsection 
(a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently 
amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The provision 
would also expand the list of countries eligible to receive 
support to include the Governments of Chad, Libya, Mali, and 
Niger.

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for the 
        construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 231 of title 10, Unites Sates Code, to include a 
requirement to report on the total cost of construction for 
each vessel used to determine estimated levels of annual 
funding in the report, and an assessment of the extent of the 
strategic and operational risk to national security whenever 
the number or capabilities of the naval vessels in the plan do 
not meet requirements.
Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment (sec. 1022)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 
2014, that would assess the current fleet capabilities compared 
to the threat and the likely situation over the next 30 years. 
The CNO should produce an unclassified report, and a classified 
annex to that report.
    Section 1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of 
the Navy to provide a comprehensive description of the current 
requirements for combatant vessels of the Navy, including 
submarines. The Navy submitted that report which reflected 
that, while the previous requirement was for a fleet of 313 
ships, originally identified in a 2005 Force Structure 
Assessment (FSA) and revalidated in 2010, the new requirements 
have declined to a total of 306 ships.
    Within this seven-ship net decrease to 306 ships, actual 
combat power is reduced by six large surface combatants, three 
small surface combatants, and four cruise missile submarines, 
for a total reduction of 13 combatant ships, offset by an 
increase of six command and support ships. The reduction in 
cruise missile submarines reflects a Navy plan not to replace 
these ships when they retire in the late 2020s.
    In congressional testimony this year about the 2012 FSA, 
representatives of the Department of the Navy asserted that the 
revised fleet size goal considered various factors, including 
the revised Defense Strategic Guidance in 2012, changed Navy 
mission requirements, different individual ship capabilities, 
fleet networking capabilities, and ship basing arrangements and 
operational cycles, as opposed to just platforms or numbers of 
ships.
    The committee notes that the current fleet of 283 battle 
force ships provides combatant commanders (COCOM) with a 
greater array of fire power than did the Navy fleets of 500 or 
more ships of the Cold War era, with precision-guided air-
delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the 
sophistication of command, control, communications, and 
computer systems; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) systems; and networking capabilities that 
did not exist during the Cold War.
    The President's 2012 revised U.S. defense strategy calls 
for a rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region, a 
predominantly maritime and aerospace domain. This will most 
likely increase demands for Navy fleet resources and 
deployments in that region in competition with global demand. 
Regarding global demands for naval forces, Navy officials 
testified last year that fully satisfying COCOM requests for 
forward-deployed Navy forces in various regions would require 
more than 500 ships.
    The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for 
Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2014, dated May 10, 2013, 
proposes near-term retirements of cruisers and amphibious 
ships, resulting in 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. 
The committee is concerned that the plan will not meet the goal 
of a 306-ship battle force inventory until 2037 and assumes 
risk over the 30-year period, with periodic shortages of 
aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines, and 
amphibious ships. The committee notes that the Navy possesses 
only 28 amphibious ships, with an average of only 22 ships 
available for surge deployment, despite a Marine Corps 
requirement for 38 amphibious ships. As such, the committee is 
also concerned that the Navy's shortfall in amphibious ships 
adds risk to the Marine Corps' ability to meet current and 
future COCOM requests.
    There are also risks with the Navy's plan beyond mere 
numbers of ships:
          (1) within the plan, the Navy intends that the 
        Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will comprise over one third 
        of the Navy's total surface combatant fleet by 2028. 
        This fact compounds risk, since the LCS to date has not 
        completed operational testing or demonstrated adequate 
        performance of assigned missions in critical areas of 
        mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, or anti-
        submarine operations;
          (2) with its decision in the fiscal year 2013 budget 
        to delay the procurement of the first Ohio-class 
        replacement ballistic missile submarine by 2 years, to 
        fiscal year 2021, the Navy has consumed all schedule 
        margin for replacing the existing Ohio-class boats on a 
        timely basis, and increased the risk that an unforeseen 
        event affecting a strategic missile submarine's 
        operational availability would prevent the Navy from 
        being able to fully satisfy U.S. Strategic Command 
        (STRATCOM) requirements; and
          (3) the 2012 FSA and the shipbuilding plan do not 
        account for the possible effects of further budget cuts 
        under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Various 
        representatives of the Navy have testified that, if 
        Department of Defense budgets are reduced below levels 
        shown in the President's budget request for fiscal year 
        2014, the Navy will have to reduce the size and 
        capabilities of the fleet to reflect further changes in 
        U.S. defense strategy and available Navy resources.
    Given the risks inherent in the planned size of the Navy, 
the capabilities of the ships planned, the rate of Navy ship 
procurement, and the potential affordability of the Navy's 
shipbuilding plans at a time of significant uncertainty in 
defense budgets, the committee agrees that in order to 
adequately assess the ability of the fleet proposed by the 2012 
FSA to meet national security requirements, there needs to be 
an objective set of standards to assess the ability of the Navy 
to meet national security objectives, as opposed to simply 
relying on numbers and types of platforms.
    The committee also believes that a failure to recapitalize 
our sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent on time would have 
devastating impacts on deterrence and strategic stability. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the CNO to pay particular 
attention in producing the report to the Navy's ability to 
fully meet STRATCOM requirements.
Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new class of 
        major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United 
        States Navy (sec. 1023)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). That section requires 
that the Navy build any new class of major surface combatant 
and amphibious assault ship with an integrated nuclear power 
system, unless the Secretary of the Navy notifies the 
congressional defense committees that, as a result of a cost-
benefit analysis, it would not be practical for the Navy to 
design the class of ships with an integrated nuclear power 
system.
    As a matter of acquisition management laws and regulations, 
the Navy must conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for all 
such vessels to determine the ship characteristics, including 
the required propulsion and power generation mechanism. The AoA 
outcome for each surface combatant and amphibious assault ship 
should be based on an independent and objective systems 
engineering and business case analysis. Within that analysis, 
the Navy can evaluate the advisability of using an integrated 
nuclear propulsion system to determine the best value for the 
Federal Government.
Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no 
        cost to the Navy (sec. 1024)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (a) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code. 
Section 7306, which governs disposition of vessels stricken 
from the Naval Vessel Register, authorizes the Department of 
the Navy to donate any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel 
Register. The provision requires that, as a condition of a 
donation, donated naval vessels be maintained in a condition 
satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy has found 
that this statutory requirement presents numerous problems 
associated with ownership, maintenance costs, and historic 
preservation. The provision would eliminate the statutory 
requirement with regard to future donations, but would not 
affect prior donation contracts.
    The provision clarifies the purpose of any such transfer 
would be to operate the vessel as a museum or memorial for 
public display in the United States. This additional language 
would provide the Navy with the flexibility to oversee a vessel 
donee's actions, without any implication that the Navy retains 
ownership of the vessel.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at United States 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to transfer or release Guantanamo 
detainees to their country of origin or another country other 
than the United States if: (1) the Secretary of Defense has 
determined, based on the findings of the Periodic Review Board 
process, that the detainee no longer constitutes a threat to 
U.S. national security; (2) the transfer or release is required 
to effectuate a court order; or (3) the detainee has been tried 
in a court or competent tribunal on charges based on the same 
conduct that served as the basis for his designation as an 
enemy combatant and the detainee has been acquitted of such 
charges or has been convicted and served the sentence pursuant 
to the conviction.
    The provision would also require that for other transfers 
of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the United 
States, the Secretary of Defense must determine prior to any 
such transfer that actions have been or will be taken that will 
substantially mitigate the risk of the detainee re-engaging in 
terrorist or other hostile activity against the United States, 
and that the transfer is in the U.S. national security 
interest. The Secretary would be required to submit a 
notification to the appropriate congressional committees not 
less than 30 days in advance of the transfer or release, 
including a statement of the basis for the transfer or release.
    The committee notes that the administration has raised 
concerns that the certification requirements Congress has 
enacted on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign 
countries have made it difficult, if not impossible, to carry 
out such transfers. At the same time, the administration has 
yet to attempt to transfer any Guantanamo detainee under the 
certification requirements or to use the national security 
waiver granted under section 1028 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and 
section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee emphasizes 
that the certification requirements for such transfers were 
never intended to constitute an absolute prohibition on the 
transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the 
United States, and believes the provisions of this section 
should help clarify the requirements applicable to such 
transfers.
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for 
        emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1032)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to authorize the temporary transfer of 
detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility (GTMO) to a 
Department of Defense (DOD) medical facility for the sole 
purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment 
that is not available at GTMO and is necessary to prevent death 
or imminent significant injury or harm to the individual's 
health. The detainee would not be admitted into the United 
States during the period of the medical treatment and must be 
returned to GTMO as soon as medically feasible.
    The committee notes that the United States is obligated 
under domestic law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva 
Conventions to provide for the humane treatment of detainees in 
its custody. The authority granted the Secretary of Defense 
under this section would address concerns that have arisen 
regarding the standard of medical care for GTMO detainees, 
particularly as that population ages, and U.S. compliance with 
its obligations to provide humane treatment.
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United 
        States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2014 the prohibition under section 1027 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1911) on the transfer or release 
of detainees held at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba (GTMO) to or within the United States, its 
territories, or possessions. The provision would also authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition for the 
transfer of GTMO detainees to the United States for detention 
and trial if: (1) the Secretary determines that such a transfer 
is in the national security interest of the United States; (2) 
steps have been taken to address any risk to public safety; and 
(3) the appropriate congressional committees are notified not 
later than 30 days in advance of any such transfer to the 
United States.
Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on military 
        commissions (sec. 1034)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, on military 
commissions to clarify the authority and procedures by which 
the convening authority may detail alternate members to a 
military commission. The provision would also clarify the 
military judge's discretion to grant both parties additional 
peremptory challenges as may be required in the interests of 
justice.

                       Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces

Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements of Nuclear 
        Weapons Council (sec. 1041)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 179 of title 10, United States Code, by striking the 
responsibilities for nuclear command, control, and 
communications since other sections of this Act establishes a 
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, 
Control, and Communications System. The provision adds a new 
responsibility to report on joint activities between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on nuclear 
security.
Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear weapons 
        stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 1042)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), which provides for a 
report to the congressional defense committees with a 10-year 
funding profile for the Department of Energy's (DOE) and the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) strategic deterrent modernization 
program. Specifically, the provision would give both 
departments 60 days after budget submission to deliver the 
section 1043 report. If a delay is anticipated that is greater 
than 60 days, DOE and DOD must notify the congressional defense 
committees before the President's budget submission and provide 
a briefing no later than 30 days after budget submission. The 
committee expects the briefing to be detailed enough and 
consistent with section 1043 to enable the congressional 
defense committees to conduct their oversight duties.
    Last year, the section 1043 report was submitted to the 
congressional defense committees on May 7, 2012, more than 60 
days past the fiscal year 2013 budget submission and without 
the 10-year projection by DOE which Congress never received. 
This year, Congress received the 10-year DOE projection but has 
not received the 10-year DOD budget projection nor the section 
1043 report.
    The revised requirements recommended by the committee 
should be sufficient to accommodate the interagency 
coordination process between DOD and DOE. If DOD and DOE fail 
to meet the standard of reasonableness laid out in this 
provision the committee will legislate with stronger measures.
Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable warhead (sec. 
        1043)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Director of the Department of Defense Cost Analysis and Program 
Evaluation to estimate life extensions of the W-78 and W-88 
warheads and compare that to the interoperable warhead that is 
to replace both systems. In addition the provision would direct 
a cost estimation of the W-87 warhead. No funds may be spent 
past phase 6.2A for the interoperable warhead until the cost 
comparison with straight life extensions of the W-88 and W-78 
warheads has been completed and submitted to the congressional 
defense committees, which is to be no later than April 1, 2014.
Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United States 
        nuclear forces (sec. 1044)
    The committee recommends a provision that states it is the 
policy of the United States to modernize or replace the nuclear 
triad and sustain the nuclear stockpile, its production 
facilities, and science base.
Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile force 
        (sec. 1045)
    The committee recommends a provision that states the 
Secretary of Defense may in a manner consistent with 
international obligations, retain missile launch facilities 
currently supporting up to 800 deployed and non-deployed 
strategic launchers, maintain intercontinental ballistic 
missiles (ICBM) on alert or operationally deployed status, and 
preserve ICBM silos in operational or warm status. A report is 
required not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act on the feasibility and advisability of 
preserving ICBM silos in operational or warm status.

         Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
national security spectrum strategy to be performed at least 
once every 5 years. The strategy is to provide near-term (5 
years), mid-term (10 years), and long-term (30 years) 
assessments of the need for national security spectrum.
Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding 
        surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic 
        frequencies (sec. 1052)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65) to require that the 
Department of Defense be adequately represented to convey its 
views with the interagency process for spectrum allocation.
Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed Forces in 
        child custody determinations (sec. 1053)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that State courts should not consider 
military deployment as the sole factor in determining child 
custody in a State court proceeding involving a parent who is a 
member of the armed forces. The best interest of the child 
should always prevail in custody cases, but members of the 
armed forces should not lose custody of their children based 
solely upon service to our country.

                    Subtitle G--Studies and Reports

Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or 
modify a number of reporting requirements that have been 
included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for 
repeal or modification in this provision are requirements 
identified by the committee as being no longer relevant or 
necessary and that can be repealed or modified without 
adversely affecting the committee's oversight responsibilities.
Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant Ambush 
        Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the Department's 
analysis and plans for the disposition and sustainment of its 
fleet of mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. The 
committee is aware that long-term plans for the distribution 
and sustainment of the fleet have been studied by the 
Department of Defense and each of the military departments. 
Given the significant investment in MRAP vehicles over the last 
10 years, the committee wants to understand the Department's 
management and funding plans for MRAP disposal, retention, 
integration, and sustainment including modernization or 
upgrades, if any, necessary to meet current or future 
survivability and mobility requirements.
Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 1063)
    The committee recognizes that Department of Defense (DOD) 
operations require personnel with a range of foreign language 
skills and regional expertise, such as translation and 
interpretation capabilities. As evidenced in recent operational 
experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, these capabilities can be 
critical factors to mission success. Further, the committee 
believes that changes to the size and location of DOD's 
overseas presence, such as forward-stationed or deployed 
military forces, and a renewed emphasis on developing 
partnerships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and 
Africa, indicate that DOD will likely need to continue its 
significant investments in acquiring foreign language-related 
support for the foreseeable future. However, in the face of 
current fiscal pressures and budgetary constraints, the 
committee also believes that DOD has a heightened need to 
maximize efficiencies and that one way to achieve greater 
efficiencies is through more coordinated acquisition 
approaches.
    Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
identified opportunities for DOD to improve its approach to 
contracting from a broad perspective as well as in areas 
related to foreign language support. For example, DOD contract 
management remains on the GAO's list of high-risk areas in the 
Federal Government and, in its 2013 annual report to Congress 
highlighting areas in the Federal Government where duplication, 
overlap, and fragmentation exist, and where programs may be 
able to achieve greater efficiencies in providing government 
services, GAO identified DOD's management of foreign language 
support contracts as one of 31 areas in the Federal Government 
where greater efficiencies might be achieved.
    At that time, GAO reported that DOD had obligated over $6.8 
billion from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 on contracts to 
acquire foreign language-related services and products for its 
forces. GAO also noted that DOD had centralized the contracting 
for certain foreign language-related services and products 
under an executive agent and had realized some efficiencies, 
but that the executive agent's focus had been exclusively on 
translation and interpretation services and that DOD had not 
taken steps to comprehensively assess whether additional 
opportunities existed to gain efficiencies in fragmented 
contracts for other types of foreign language support which are 
estimated to cost more than $1.0 billion annually. Other GAO 
work has found that agencies, including DOD, reported savings 
ranging between 5 and 20 percent by implementing more 
coordinated acquisition approaches rather than fragmented 
contracting. Therefore, on the basis of the level of DOD's 
considerable investment in contracts for foreign language 
support both now and in the future, the committee believes DOD 
may be able to achieve significant cost savings by 
comprehensively assessing whether additional opportunities 
exist to gain efficiencies in fragmented contracts for all 
types of foreign language support.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that 
would direct the Secretary of Defense to assess the 
Department's current approach for managing foreign language 
support contracts. At a minimum, such an assessment should 
include an analysis of spending for all the types foreign 
language support services and products that have been acquired 
by DOD components and a reevaluation, based on the results of 
the analysis of spending, of the scope of the DOD executive 
agent's management of foreign language support contracts to 
determine whether any adjustments are needed.
Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to produce a report on the Civil Air 
Patrol (CAP) that would assess certain aspects of the current 
CAP aircraft program, including: (1) what is the requirement 
for the total fleet of CAP aircraft; (2) how are those 
requirements for CAP aircraft derived; and (3) how are CAP 
aircraft allocated among that various operating locations. The 
Secretary should submit this report with the fiscal year 2015 
budget request. The committee understands that the Secretary of 
the Air Force is considering options to reduce the size of the 
CAP, but believes that the Secretary should conduct a more 
thorough assessment of requirements before making any final 
decision on these options.

Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense 
committees and intelligence committees a report on the Eagle 
Vision imagery ground station. The report elements would 
include a description and assessment of the Department of 
Defense organizations to which the Eagle Vision system could be 
transferred, as well as the actions that would need to be taken 
prior to a transfer, the potential schedule for a transfer, and 
the possible effects of a transfer on the capabilities or use 
of the system. The provision would prohibit the Air Force from 
making changes to the organization and management of the 
program until 90 days after the submission of the report to 
Congress.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to extend the authority of 
the Secretary of Defense for 5 fiscal years, to advise foreign 
defense ministries. The provision would also extend the 
requirement of the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, and would provide the Comptroller 
General of the United States an additional year to conduct the 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the program under the 
original authority.
    The committee supports the request of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to extend this authority in order to ensure that 
they can effectively attract personnel to the program and 
determine whether this program and its associated activities 
could prove successful in implementing the priorities of the 
Secretary of Defense in high priority countries around the 
world. However, the committee is aware of concerns and 
recommendations raised by the DOD Inspector General about the 
financial management of a nearly identical program being 
conducted in Afghanistan pursuant to a different authority. The 
committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to 
ensure that the matters raised by the DOD Inspector General 
about the similar program in Afghanistan are addressed promptly 
and that those modifications are incorporated into the 
management processes of the program conducted pursuant to 
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
    Further, the committee notes that to date, DOD has not 
deployed any personnel under this authority and that the first 
planned deployment will be to Montenegro. The committee hopes 
the Department will review the prospective deployment of 
officials under this authority to ensure that each deployment 
will be to a nation where the United States and the prospective 
partner have significant mutual security interests.

                       Items of Special Interest


Airborne Nuclear Command Post

    The Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force are directed to 
report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to 
modernize the Airborne Nuclear Command Post and the Airborne 
Launch Control System, including system electronics and 
trainers. The report shall also outline how a modernization 
plan will provide for battle staff training. The report shall 
be due to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 28, 2014.

Air Force weapons storage areas

    The committee strongly supports the Air Force decision to 
move forward with reconstituting nuclear Air Force bases with 
weapons storage areas (WSA). Reconstituting WSA will provide a 
second nuclear weapons storage capability for Air Force Global 
Strike Command and provide necessary survivability of the 
Nation's enduring strategic nuclear deterrents. Given the Air 
Force's 15-year proposal, the committee requests the Secretary 
of the Air Force to provide an up-to-date report detailing the 
reexamined plans, including requirements and costs, for 
reconstituting a second nuclear weapons storage capability for 
nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, as well as the 
potential benefits of such a reconstitution and potential 
savings or benefits achieved through shortening the timeframe.

Army force structure and installation alignment

    The committee is aware that beginning in January 2007, in 
response to the demands for the support of operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, the active duty Army grew by 65,000 soldiers 
and five combat brigades. To accommodate this growth the Army 
initiated a variety of programs, including facilities 
improvements and military construction, necessary to house and 
train these additional forces.
    As force requirements for Iraq have concluded and for 
Afghanistan have declined, in January 2012 the President 
announced the Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) in which the 
active duty Army would decrease by 80,000 soldiers and 
inactivate up to eight combat brigades by the end fiscal year 
2017. At the same time the Army is reducing end strength and 
combat brigade force structure, it is likely to change the 
structure of the remaining infantry and armor combat brigades 
by adding to some a third maneuver battalion.
    The committee is concerned that end strength and force 
structure reductions and changes so soon after efforts to 
accommodate growth may result in the misalignment of remaining 
forces with installations and facilities to maximize the 
readiness and the quality of life of soldiers and their 
families. In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a 
March 2013 letter, requested a Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) assessment of the Army's analysis and decision-making 
processes associated with planned force structure reductions 
and their alignment with installations.
    As a supplement to this work by the GAO, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the 
congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 
2013, explaining how the Army is maximizing existing 
installation capacities and capabilities, including facilities 
related to combat brigade training and readiness, to meet 
future force requirements.

Counter threat finance efforts

    Counter threat finance (CTF) leverages the capabilities of 
the interagency to help detect, deter, disrupt, and destroy 
terrorist organizations and those supporting terrorism by 
targeting the foundation of their operations, their financial 
resources. CTF is a critical component of the United States 
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, which was 
released on July 25, 2011. The Department of Defense (DOD) has 
played a significant role in interagency CTF efforts in both 
Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues to develop and expand its 
ability to disrupt our adversaries both on and off the 
battlefield. Pursuant to the DOD CTF Directive (DODD 5205.14) 
issued in August 2010, DOD has recognized the CTF discipline as 
an essential tool in combating criminal networks and terrorist 
organizations worldwide, and has outlined a plan to integrate 
this capability into its doctrine, strategy, and operational 
planning.
    The committee recognizes DODD 5205.14 as a welcome step 
towards institutionalizing the successful efforts of the joint 
interagency CTF cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq Threat 
Finance Cell (ITFC) under joint DOD-Department of Treasury 
leadership and the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) under Drug 
Enforcement Agency leadership both led efforts to identify and 
disrupt funding sources supporting insurgent and terrorist 
organizations, aided in the identification of key insurgency 
members and enablers, and supported threat finance intelligence 
(TFI) collection and analysis. It is important for DOD to 
ensure that lessons learned from these initiatives are captured 
and institutionalized to build upon successes and mature DOD's 
capability to apply the CTF discipline to new problem sets. DOD 
must be able to integrate with, support, and enable other law 
enforcement and government agencies' CTF activities. Moreover, 
it is important that DOD, in accordance with DODD 5205.14, 
operationalize TFI and CTF efforts in a way that prevents 
duplication and maximizes effectiveness.
    As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
180 days after enactment of this Act, a report outlining each 
CTF and TFI activity currently being planned or conducted by 
DOD. Each summary should include a detailed description of the 
activity, identification of lead and supporting agencies, both 
within and outside DOD, a description of each agency's role, 
the level and source of funding associated with each activity, 
a description of the desired outcomes from each activity, and a 
description of how this activity aligns with the goals of 
existing interagency strategies to find terrorism, corruption, 
crimes, narcotics, and other transnational threats, including 
United States Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. 
The report should also include a summary of operational 
lessons, best practices, and tools employed in ITFC and ATFC 
efforts and how they can be replicated to advance other DOD CTF 
missions, as well as a description of the efforts, both within 
DOD and between DOD and other relevant agencies, to foster 
communication and ensure integrated support to interagency 
partners. Further, the report should contain the Secretary's 
assessment of the progress made to date in the implementation 
of DODD 5205.14, any current gaps in DOD's CTF capabilities and 
authorities, and any other information the Secretary deems 
appropriate. The report shall be in unclassified form, but may 
include a classified annex, if warranted.

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

    While the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have primary 
responsibility for the security of American diplomatic 
facilities around the globe, it does provide the State 
Department and other departments and agencies--on an as-
requested basis--support to ensure they can fulfill its varying 
security requirements. The committee recognizes the value of 
these facilities--including facilities in high-risk/high-threat 
locations--in establishing a U.S. presence in such areas, not 
only for diplomatic objectives but also for essential national 
defense missions. For this reason, it is critical that DOD be 
both funded and postured to fulfill its commitments as a 
supporting agency.
    One element of this support is the United States Marine 
Security Guard Program. Section 404 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of 
the mission of the Marine Security Guard Program, and to report 
to Congress by October 1, 2013, on the results of this review. 
The provision also required the Secretary to develop a plan to 
increase the number of Marines in the Marine Security Guard 
Program by up to 1,000 personnel to improve security at our 
embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities. The 
budget request for fiscal year 2014 begins implementation of 
that requirement.
    In addition, the State Department's Accountability Review 
Board (ARB) recommended that the State Department and DOD 
identify additional flexible Marine Corps Security Guard 
structures and provide more capabilities and capacities at 
higher risk posts. DOD has already started to address this 
recommendation by: (1) forward deploying and adjusting the 
alert posture of security augmentation forces in the most 
volatile areas; (2) supporting the State Department's efforts 
to look at hardening facilities and reassessing diplomatic 
security; and (3) enhancing intelligence collection and 
ensuring that military forces in critical areas are prepared to 
respond to crisis, if necessary. The committee endorses these 
improvements and directs the Secretary to submit a report to 
the committee by no later than August 1, 2013, on DOD's 
implementation of these measures, as well as any additional 
steps that should be taken to ensure we are doing everything 
possible to protect our personnel and facilities abroad.

Fiscal priorities

    The committee notes that on May 17, 2013 the Department of 
Defense (DOD) submitted two reprogramming actions to the 
congressional defense committees totaling $9.6 billion. Of 
this, $7.3 billion of the transfers seek to offset shortfalls 
in fiscal year 2013 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 
funding. These shortfalls have occurred because operating tempo 
exceeds the level anticipated in the fiscal year 2013 budget; 
transportation costs are higher due to unanticipated problems 
with the Ground Lines of Communication; and fuel costs are 
higher. The Department has informed the committee that even if 
the congressional defense committees approve all the items in 
these reprogramming actions that the services will still face a 
fiscal year 2013 OCO shortfall totaling $3.7 billion.
    The committee notes that the pending reprogramming actions 
include $3.4 billion in DOD base budget to OCO transfers and 
will exhaust nearly all of the transfer authority available to 
the Department. The Department will not leave troops in combat 
without fuel or ammunition or any needed item. Without relief 
to these shortfalls, the Department will have to implement 
additional reductions to base operation and maintenance 
accounts to ensure the warfighter will have what they need on 
the front lines. The result will be to further exacerbate the 
already serious problems that face DOD as a result of 
sequestration.
    DOD faces serious problems due to sequestration, affecting 
every individual in the Department. The Department has issued 
furlough notices to nearly 700,000 civilian employees--roughly 
85 percent of its workforce--to begin furlough for one day per 
week beginning on July 8, 2013, and lasting through the end of 
the fiscal year. Civilian furloughs impact everything from DOD 
schools to military medical facilities to military family 
support programs.
    Active duty, Reserve, and National Guard members are also 
feeling the brunt of sequestration. As we have heard from 
senior leader testimony this spring, the Army has already 
cancelled two-thirds of its training. As a result of 
sequestration cuts to flying hours, civilian furlough actions, 
and facilities sustainment, the Army will feel readiness 
impacts into fiscal year 2014 with many active component units 
untrained for immediate deployment, a backlog of aviation 
training, deferred reset of equipment, and cancelled training 
courses.
    In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force has a $4.4 billion 
shortfall in its operations and maintenance accounts, impacting 
flying hours and readiness. As a result, the Air Force has 
already grounded one-third of fighter and bomber squadrons, and 
warns that it will be in a state of ``tiered readiness,'' 
diminishing combat readiness to be able to respond to 
contingencies. As a result of shortfalls in its operation and 
maintenance accounts, the Navy had to make decisions to 
maintain its readiness, by deferring the deployment of the USS 
Truman to the Middle East, and deferring critical ship 
maintenance and repair in the third and fourth quarter. As a 
result, by the end fiscal year 2013, two-thirds of Navy non-
deployed ships and aviation squadrons will be less than fully 
mission capable and not certified for combat operations. 
Sequestration impacts the DOD's ability to respond to 
contingencies, resource its defense strategy, and plan for the 
future. It threatens stability in the defense industrial base, 
threatening a lost investment in a skilled workforce that is 
critical to national security.
    Domestic agencies also face serious problems due to 
sequestration, including severe cuts to Head Start programs, 
both on the side of educators and children enrolled in the 
program. Head Start serves over a million disadvantaged 
children and their families each year. Crippling cuts in other 
domestic agencies are extremely counterproductive, at a time 
when the economy is still recovering. All domestic agencies are 
harmed by sequestration, and there are counterproductive 
impacts on students, our education system, small businesses, 
infrastructure, homeland security, and the general economy. 
These are all also fundamental underpinnings to our national 
security. Sequester threatens harm to all.
    Therefore, the committee strongly encourages Congress and 
the Administration to work together to repeal sequestration and 
replace it with strategic and credible deficit reduction.

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

    The committee supports the Air Force's evaluation of 
possibilities for Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to 
follow the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile 
(ICBM), but shares the concerns expressed by the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Madelyn R. 
Creedon, when she testified at a Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces hearing on April 17, 2013, that: ``I know this has taken 
a lot longer than we anticipated. But, one of the things that 
we want to make sure that we fully examined is all the 
options,'' as well as the concerns expressed by Lieutenant 
General James M. Kowalski, USAF, Commander of the Air Force 
Global Strike Command, when he testified at the same hearing 
that: ``we had some bureaucratic delays as the study plan went 
back and forth. The study is about to begin.'' The 
administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that: 
``studies to inform that decision [on a follow-on ICBM] are 
needed now.''
    The committee believes it is important that the Air Force 
complete its review in 2014 and expeditiously brief the 
congressional defense committees on its results.
    In the interim, the committee directs the Air Force to 
brief the congressional defense committees no later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the Analysis of 
Alternatives for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, 
including its terms of reference.

Impact of B-61 program delay

    Testimony before this committee by the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) stated that the first production 
unit of the B-61 Mod 12 will be in 2019. However testimony this 
year to the committee by the Sandia Laboratory Director Paul 
Hommert has stated ``From what I can tell now, as a result of 
sequestration in '13, and what we have seen in the '14 budget, 
we are going to slip off that plan . . . not dramatically . . . 
but in my view we will see schedule impact.''
    Given the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing 
resolutions and their possible impact on the 2019 date, the 
committee directs the Department of Defense in consultation 
with the NNSA to develop a joint plan to mitigate the impact to 
the existing stockpile of fielded B-61 weapons in the event 
that the first production units fail to meet the 2019 date. The 
mitigation plan shall include technical mitigation details and 
estimated costs for each year of delay. The mitigation plan 
shall be due no later than February 28, 2014.

Reforming the security classification system

    Multiple independent commissions over the last two decades 
have stressed the need for reform of the security 
classification system, noting that the system that has evolved 
since World War II is overly complex, and leads to over-
classification, depriving citizens unnecessarily of information 
about their government's operations. In 2000, Congress 
established the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), 
with distinguished members appointed by the President and the 
leadership of both parties in the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
    In 2009, in his Implementing Memorandum for Executive Order 
13526, the President directed the PIDB to work with the 
National Security Advisor to design a transformation of the 
security classification system. After a long period of study, 
in November 2012, the PIDB submitted its report to the 
President, which included a recommendation for the White House 
to establish a steering committee to implement the recommended 
reforms.
    The PIDB report, titled ``Transforming the Security 
Classification System,'' states that the current system, 
designed for manual processing in the pre-digital era, is 
breaking under the increasing pace and volume of data generated 
today. According to the PIDB report, a single intelligence 
agency classifies a petabyte of information every 18 months. 
One petabyte is equivalent to approximately 20 million filing 
cabinets filled with text or about 13.3 years of high 
definition video. The cost of managing and securing these 
records government-wide has doubled over the past decade from 
$4.7 billion in 2001 to $11.4 billion in 2011.
    Reforming current practices will require active 
participation from stakeholders across the national security 
community. The committee expects the Department of Defense to 
be a meaningful participant in any future interagency effort to 
overhaul security classification processes and systems. The 
committee also directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to 
review the PIDB report and provide an assessment of the PIDB 
recommendations to the congressional defense committees and the 
congressional intelligence committees within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act.

Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget to meet the 
        savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act

    The fiscal year 2014 budget request and the fiscal year 
2014 budget resolutions passed by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives all assume that sequestration currently 
required by the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25) will be 
avoided in fiscal year 2014. To date, there has been virtually 
no sign of movement toward a bipartisan agreement that would 
vitiate sequestration in fiscal year 2014. In the absence of 
such an agreement the Department of Defense (DOD) will face an 
across-the-board reduction of $52.0 billion early next year.
    Virtually every DOD witness who has come before the 
Committee on Armed Services this year has testified that an 
additional round of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 would be 
devastating for the Department. Despite this testimony many 
members of Congress and the public seem to believe that 
sequestration is an effective way to cut government spending 
and can be made workable by providing the Department with 
additional flexibility of making minor adjustments.
    The committee believes that there is an increasing risk 
that DOD and other federal agencies will face sequestration 
again in fiscal year 2014. Understanding the consequences of 
another sequestration is important to avoiding it. For this 
reason, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than July 1, 2013, that describes in detail a package of 
reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget that the 
Secretary believes to be the most workable approach for meeting 
the $52.0 billion savings requirement established by the Budget 
Control Act. The report should also discuss the impact on the 
Department of Defense and on military readiness if the 
Secretary is required to implement sequestration cuts in fiscal 
year 2014.

Strategic Automated Command and Control System Modernization Plan

    The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the 
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the 
Strategic Automated Command and Control System, including 
system electronics and trainers as well as integration into the 
new United States Strategic Command Headquarters. The report 
shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later 
than February 28, 2014.
                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian 
        employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to extend 
through September 30, 2018 the authority of the Secretary of 
Defense or the secretary of a military department to allow 
certain civilian employees to volunteer for reduction-in-force 
separations.
Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to 
        Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend 
until October 1, 2018 the authority for the Secretary of 
Defense or the secretary of a military department to pay the 
total amount of severance pay to an eligible civilian employee 
in one lump sum.
Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated fund 
        instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1587(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align 
protections from reprisals for employees of nonappropriated 
fund instrumentalities with protections from reprisals for 
other Department of Defense civilian personnel.

Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for 
        civilian personnel for care and treatment of wounded and 
        injured members of the Armed Forces (sec. 1104)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1599c of title 10, United States Code, to extend 
through December 31, 2020, the existing authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to exercise any authority for the 
appointment and pay of health care personnel under chapter 74 
of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of recruitment, 
employment, and retention of civilian health care professionals 
for the Department of Defense. The provision would repeal the 
now-obsolete section 1599c requirement for the service 
secretaries to develop and implement a strategy to disseminate 
the authorities and best practices for the recruitment of 
medical and health professionals.

Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and 
        Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec. 
        1105)

    The committee recommends a provision, based upon a 
Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal, that would 
increase the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to 
determine the amount of the financial assistance delivered by 
the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation 
(SMART) program.
    The committee acknowledges the DOD's request to also allow 
this program to accept non-U.S. citizens, as SMART scholarship 
recipients. While the committee recognizes that DOD needs the 
flexibilities to attract the best and brightest scientists and 
engineers, it notes that DOD does not appear to have a strategy 
to hire these students into DOD laboratories--given that the 
SMART program requires one year of DOD employment for each year 
of financial assistance. Hence, the committee directs the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, 
working with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, to develop a strategy that would address how it 
would hire those non-U.S. citizens that would be funded by the 
SMART program and provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. With 
such a strategy in place, the committee would give additional 
consideration of this proposed authority.

Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at 
        certain additional Department of Defense schools (sec. 1106)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to add the 
Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management and the 
Joint Special Operations University to the list of Department 
of Defense schools at which the Secretary of Defense may employ 
and compensate civilian faculty as the Secretary considers 
necessary.

Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at 
        Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec. 
        1107)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
Department of Defense laboratories direct hire authority for 
qualified candidates possessing a bachelor's degree as well as 
qualified veteran candidates. This authority would sunset on 
December 31, 2019.

Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for 
        purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 1108)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, to remove the 
reference to Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and Navy 
Ship's Stores Ashore and replace it with the Navy Ships Stores 
Program in order to provide a more accurate and current 
definition of nonappropriated fund instrumentality employees.

                        Item of Special Interest


Department of Defense civilian leadership programs

    The committee notes that section 1112 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Department 
of Defense (DOD) Civilian Leadership Program in order to 
recruit individuals with the academic merit, work experience, 
and demonstrated leadership skills needed for the Department's 
civilian employee workforce. The statute further mandates that 
program participants must include both entry-level and 
midcareer individuals.
    The committee understands that DOD currently provides three 
programs for civilian leadership development: (1) the Defense 
Civilian Emerging Leader Program (DCELP) for entry-level 
employees; (2) the Executive Leadership Development Program 
(ELDP) for midcareer employees; and (3) the Defense Senior 
Leader Development Program for senior employees. The committee 
has learned that DOD has cancelled the remainder of the 
scheduled training for the ELDP as a result of implementing 
sequestration guidance on training and travel restrictions, and 
that DOD does not believe the ELDP is a leader development 
program required by law.
    The committee believes that all three of these leadership 
development programs are important and that the ELDP fulfills 
the statutory mandate set forth by section 1112 in the same way 
as the DCELP. Therefore, the committee expects the Department 
to robustly pursue all three of these civilian leadership 
development programs in future years.
             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build 
        the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through September 30, 2018, the authority under section 1206 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for the 
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
State, to carry out a program to build the capacity of foreign 
military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations or to 
participate in or support military and stability operations in 
which the United States is a participant. The provision would 
require a report by the Secretary of Defense in consultation 
with the Secretary of State that delineates the scope of 
counterterrorism operations for which assistance is authorized 
to be provided under section 1206 of Public Law 109-163, to 
include purpose, activities, and measures of effectiveness. The 
report also requires a prioritized list of threats to be 
addressed in order to ensure that assistance is focused on the 
highest priority threats within a regional and global strategic 
framework.
Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
certain technical amendments to the authority for the Global 
Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) under section 1207 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1625).
    The GSCF is intended to provide the Department of State and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) a flexible authority to enable 
a timely response to security challenges that may arise outside 
the normal budget planning process. The committee is concerned, 
therefore, about the lengthy delays in standing up this program 
due to a range of bureaucratic issues, such as legal 
interpretations of GSCF authorities, which have contributed to 
the program's failure to date to initiate any projects under 
GSCF. The committee understands that concerns have arisen about 
how broadly to interpret the types of assistance authorized 
under the program. It is the committee's view that the GSCF's 
authority to provide training should be understood broadly to 
include educational activities, professional guidance, and 
ministerial-level institutional advice.
    The committee understands that another issue that has 
contributed to delays in standing up the GSCF program is the 
need for further clarification of the appropriate level of 
programmatic detail required in the congressional notification 
process. The committee believes that the notification processes 
that have been developed under other similar security 
assistance authorities, such as the Global Train and Equip 
program under section 1206 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 
Stat. 3456), as amended, have provided an appropriate level of 
congressional notification and should serve as a guide for the 
notification process under the GSCF program. The committee 
hopes that the Department of State and DOD will continue to 
consult closely with this committee should issues relating to 
the GSCF arise in the future.
Training of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces 
        with military and other security forces of friendly foreign 
        countries (sec. 1203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Secretary of Defense to authorize training with the military 
forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign country 
in order to prepare the United States armed forces to train the 
military forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign 
country and enhance interoperability. Training with foreign 
military forces under this authority must be in the U.S. 
national interest and consistent with U.S. national security 
strategy as well as the recent Presidential guidance on 
security sector assistance.

United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North 
        Africa (sec. 1204)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic framework for U.S. 
counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa, 
including but not limited to programs conducted under the 
Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, Operation Enduring 
Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), and other related security 
assistance activities. The provision would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the 
details of this framework, as well as on lessons-learned from 
recent developments in Mali and the region.
    The committee notes that the military-led coup against 
Mali's democratically elected government in 2012, the ensuing 
expansion of violent extremist organizations in Northern Mali, 
and the collapse of the Malian military raise concerns 
regarding the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism 
cooperation and assistance programs in the Sahel region. Most 
prominently, concerns were highlighted concerning the Trans-
Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) and OEF-TS which 
were intended to be of benefit to Mali. In particular, units 
and individuals who had been targeted for U.S. training and 
assistance figured prominently in both the collapse of Mali's 
military in the North and in the coup in Bamako. 
Unquestionably, these developments constitute a setback for 
U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region and they also lead 
to questions about the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in 
recent years, though some participating nations, most notably 
Chad, have played key roles in mounting a response to events in 
Mali. Unfortunately, the Mali experience is not unique. U.S. 
efforts to develop regional counterterrorism partnerships are 
being undertaken in a context in which coups, instability, and 
concerns about human rights abuses constitute historical and 
often ongoing risks.
    Recent events on the ground underscore issues raised by 
outside evaluators regarding TSCTP, OEF-TS, and related 
programs. For example, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) in 2008 identified concerns about a lack of clearly 
identified objectives, challenges in interagency coordination 
at the regional level, and inadequate program evaluation. GAO 
recommended that the agencies involved develop a comprehensive 
strategy designed to clarify objectives, priorities, and 
milestones for use in program evaluation. While the Departments 
of Defense and State agreed with GAO's recommendations, 5 years 
have passed without strategy articulation.
    Events in Mali have underscored the importance of continued 
focus on developing long-term regional counterterrorism 
capabilities instead of short-term tactical operations focused 
primarily on individual country conditions and outcomes. The 
committee is concerned that existing efforts, when assessed 
from a regional perspective, have been compromised by lack of 
clarity about objectives and priorities, incoherent planning, 
poor interagency coordination, and unclear metrics for 
evaluating success.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the 
President that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States--to use up to $75.0 million of amounts authorized 
for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 
2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian 
Armed Forces.

 Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of foreign 
countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction 
                              (sec. 1206)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide assistance to the 
military and civilian first responders of a foreign country to 
enhance the capability of that country to respond effectively 
to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
    The committee notes that the U.S. strategy and policy for 
reducing the risks from WMD includes the participation and 
cooperation of foreign countries. The provision would permit 
the Defense Department to enhance the ability of foreign 
countries to respond to and reduce the consequences of WMD 
incidents, thus assisting in meeting the goals of U.S. strategy 
and policy to reduce the risks of WMD.

Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the 
        Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207)

    Pursuant to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and 
Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), the 
committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 
Department of Defense to obligate not more than $50.0 million 
in each fiscal year in operation and maintenance funding to 
provide logistical support, services and supplies, and 
intelligence support to: (1) the national military forces of 
Uganda participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the 
threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA); and (2) the 
national military forces of any other countries determined by 
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State, to be participating in operations to mitigate or 
eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. The Secretary's 
authority would expire upon the termination of Operation 
Observant Compass.

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


Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1211)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 
$60.0 million available during fiscal year 2014 for the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) under section 
1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1619), as amended by section 
1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1992). The provision would 
also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 
report on the lessons learned and best practices regarding the 
implementation of the CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report 
would include a review of: training requirements for CERP 
managers; project planning, management, sustainability, and 
transfer; the project approval process; CERP oversight by the 
Department of Defense and Congress; and recommendations for the 
use of CERP in future contingency operations.
    The committee notes that with the drawdown of U.S. forces 
in Afghanistan, responsibility for reconstruction efforts 
conducted by the U.S. military must continue to shift to other 
U.S. Government departments and agencies and to the Government 
of Afghanistan, which has a critical need to improve its 
governance capacity and delivery of services to the Afghan 
people. In addition, since one of the purposes of CERP is to 
provide force protection for U.S. combat forces by winning the 
support of local communities, the requirement for CERP should 
continue to decline as U.S. combat forces withdraw from 
Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee believes continuing 
reductions in CERP spending are appropriate and necessary as 
the December 2014 date nears for the end of combat operations 
in Afghanistan.

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 
        activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 
        1212)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1215 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1631; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), as 
amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), for the 
Secretary of Defense to support transition activities in Iraq 
by supporting the operations and activities of the Office of 
Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would 
authorize the use of up to $209.0 million in fiscal year 2014 
to support OSC-I operations and activities.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional 
authority for the OSC-I to conduct non-operational training of 
Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Counter Terrorism Service 
personnel in an institutional environment to address capability 
gaps and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security 
forces. The provision would add a requirement that such 
training include elements to promote respect for human rights, 
military professionalism, and respect for legitimate civilian 
authority in Iraq.
    The provision would also extend and modify the requirement 
to update the report required under section 1211 of Public Law 
112-239 to provide additional information and evaluations of 
the activities of the OSC-I.
    The committee encourages OSC-I to further reduce 
unnecessary overhead and support-function staffing in order to 
maximize the use of authorized funds for ensuring adequate 
force protection and supporting efforts to address capability 
gaps of the Iraqi security forces. The committee anticipates 
that colocation of OSC-I personnel within embassy facilities 
will improve interagency cooperation of this vital function.

One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for 
        reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
1-year extension of the authority under section 1216 of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4392), as amended, to use 
Department of Defense funds to support the reintegration of 
former insurgent fighters into Afghanistan society. For fiscal 
year 2014, up to $25.0 million may be used to support 
reintegration activities under this section.
    The committee is concerned about the adequacy of procedures 
under the Afghanistan Reintegration Program for ensuring 
accountability of individuals who have reintegrated, due to the 
potential impact on the ability to track rates of recidivism 
and the integrity and viability of the reintegration program. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 
strategy and mechanisms used by the Government of Afghanistan 
and the Department of Defense to ensure accountability of 
reintegrees, including through such means as documenting the 
pledge process, collecting the biometric data of reintegrating 
individuals, and other identification procedures. The Secretary 
is further directed to report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on 
the findings of this review not later than 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop 
        and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 
        1214)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383; 124 Stat. 4393) for the Secretary of Defense to use 
Department of Defense (DOD) funds to support the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Program (AIP) which carries out large-scale 
infrastructure projects in support of the counterinsurgency 
strategy in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize up to 
$250.0 million for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF) to 
support the AIP. In addition, the provision would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
International Development, to report to the congressional 
defense committees within 90 days of the enactment of this Act 
on a plan for transitioning responsibility for the management 
of the AIP projects that are funded with AIF amounts authorized 
by this Act to the Government of Afghanistan by no later than 
December 31, 2014.
    The committee believes that the AIP has made important 
contributions to the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan. 
By expanding the delivery of such key services as electricity, 
irrigation, and roads, the AIP provides local communities a 
powerful incentive to work with the Government of Afghanistan 
and coalition forces. At the same time, with the drawdown of 
U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the transition of responsibility 
to the Afghan National Security Forces for security throughout 
Afghanistan by no later than the end of 2014, DOD's role in 
funding these large infrastructure projects becomes hard to 
justify. The committee expects that, with the possible 
exception of unanticipated project management costs, no 
additional AIF amounts will be required after fiscal year 2014. 
Responsible transition of program management to Afghan 
authorities will maintain the viability of AIP-funded efforts 
as a component of the counterinsurgency campaign of Afghan 
security forces. In addition, the committee urges DOD to 
undertake the necessary planning to expeditiously and 
responsibly transition project management of AIP projects to 
the Government of Afghanistan or the Afghan utility Da 
Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat.

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations 
        for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 
        1215)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1233 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393), as amended, for the Secretary of 
Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds (``Coalition 
Support Funds'') to reimburse key nations for support they have 
provided to or in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom 
(OEF), or to use such funds to provide specialized training or 
loan specialized equipment to key nations participating in OEF. 
The provision would limit the amount of Coalition Support Funds 
that could be provided in fiscal year 2014 to $1.5 billion.
    The provision would also extend for one year two 
requirements related to Coalition Support Funds for Pakistan.
    The first would be the requirement under section 1232(b)(6) 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181), as amended, to provide as part of the 15-
day prior notification of a reimbursement to Pakistan, a 
detailed description of the logistical and other support being 
reimbursed.
    The second would be the requirement under section 1227(d) 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) to make certain certifications regarding 
Pakistan's cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism and other 
efforts prior to any payment of Coalition Support Funds to 
Pakistan. The provision includes a national security waiver.

Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain 
        United States military operations (sec. 1216)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to provide logistical support to coalition 
forces under section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently 
amended by section 1216(a) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for 
1 fiscal year--and modify the Iraq Special Immigrant Visa 
program.

Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa program 
        (sec. 1218)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for 
1 fiscal year--and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
program.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek 
not to commence any new long-term nation-building or large-
scale infrastructure-development projects in Afghanistan after 
2014.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, 
and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) 
capabilities for 2 additional years.
    The committee appreciates the Department's efforts to 
improve its reporting on activities conducted under the NAR 
authority, but believes additional details are necessary in the 
notifications and quarterly reports submitted to Congress. 
Specifically, the report should include more detailed 
descriptions of the requirement for NAR capabilities in a 
particular region or country, the number and types of NAR 
capabilities developed under the authority, and the extent to 
which established NAR capabilities are exercised to ensure they 
remain reliable. The report should also, where applicable, 
describe how NAR networks are augmented by other authorities 
available to combatant commanders. The committee also believes 
that, given the potential sensitivity of the presence of NAR 
capabilities in a particular region or country, the 
establishment of such capabilities should be limited to those 
countries and regions where U.S. personnel are at greatest 
risk.

Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report on military 
        and security developments involving the People's Republic of 
        China (sec. 1232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a 
requirement for the Department of Defense to include 
information on China's 5th generation fighter programs in the 
congressionally-mandated Annual Report on Military and Security 
Developments involving the People's Republic of China. Although 
recent versions of the report include information about China's 
5th generation fighters, this provision make this aspect of 
China's military development a permanent part of the annual 
report.

Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with 
        Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Department of Defense from entering into a contract or 
providing a loan to the Russian state corporation, 
Rosoboronexport, after fiscal year 2013. The provision would 
allow the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition if he 
determines that doing so is in the U.S. national security 
interest. Should the Secretary of Defense invoke the waiver, 
the Secretary would be required to notify Congress of the 
obligation of funds pursuant to the waiver not later than 30 
days before the funds are obligated.
    The provision would also require, not later than 15 days 
after submitting the notification specified above, that the 
Secretary provide Congress certain information on 
Rosoboronexport's activities with Syria.

Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec. 
        1234)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical amendments to title 10 and title 22, United States 
Code, to replace certain statutory references to North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) organizations or agreements with 
appropriate references to successor organizations or agreements 
resulting from recent organizational reforms within the NATO 
structure. The technical amendments would facilitate completion 
of the NATO reform process by ensuring that the amended 
authorities under title 10 and title 22, United States Code, 
apply to the new NATO agencies.

Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special Operations 
        Headquarters (sec. 1235)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical modifications to section 1244 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), as 
amended, that authorized the Secretary of Defense to use up to 
$50.0 million from Operation and Maintenance, Army, in any 
fiscal year to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The technical 
modification is consistent with an agreement between the Army 
and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the April 
2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing 
responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM. The recommended 
provision would allow for the Secretary of Defense to provide 
up to $50.0 million in support to the NSHQ in any fiscal year 
from any Operation and Maintenance funds available to the 
Department of Defense.

Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
        and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa 
        Region (sec. 1236)

    The committee recommends a provision that directs the 
President to prepare a strategy and implementation plan for 
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
related materials in the Middle East and North Africa not later 
than March 31, 2014.
    The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region represents a 
new generation of immediate and growing WMD-related 
proliferation challenges. Factors lending urgency to regional 
threat dynamics in this region include Syria's chemical weapons 
program, Iran's nuclear program and the influence of terrorist 
groups operating in the region. The Committee believes that it 
is critical that the United States develop a comprehensive, 
effective and efficient cooperative threat reduction (CTR) and 
nonproliferation strategy to address the challenge of WMD-
related proliferation in the MENA region.

                       Items of Special Interest


Inter-American Defense College

    The committee notes that the Inter-American Defense College 
(IADC) is an international educational institution operating 
under the sponsorship and funding of the Organization of 
American States and the Inter-American Defense Board. IADC 
serves as a senior-service, international, joint academic 
institution center for security and defense studies of 
military, national police, and government civilians from 
nations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since it was 
established in 1962, the IADC has had over 2,500 graduates, 
including general and flag officers, ministers, and heads of 
state. The committee supports IADC's mission and mandate and is 
pleased that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to serve 
as the host to this important international academic 
institution, which in addition to providing a comprehensive 
education for civilian and military officials across the 
Western Hemisphere, provides officials with a better 
understanding of the importance of respect for human rights, 
rule of law, and civilian control of the military.
    The committee is aware that the IADC Council of Delegates 
has directed its leadership to seek the authority to award 
advanced level degrees and the committee is also aware that DOD 
submitted a legislative proposal that would fulfill one element 
of a series of requirements established by the Department of 
Education for IADC to meet from its Council of Delegates. 
However, the committee is concerned that enacting just one 
element at this time will only serve to confuse IADC's 
authorities as an academic institution. As such, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the 
Secretary of Education, to conduct a review of IADC to 
determine what, if any, steps must be taken for the IADC to be 
considered a fully accredited degree granting institution in 
the United States. Should the Secretary find that legislative 
action is required, the committee expects the Secretary of 
Defense to submit any legislative proposals with the budget 
request for fiscal year 2015.

Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia

    The establishment of the National Government of Somalia in 
August 2012 brings the promise of a new era for the people of 
Somalia, and follows the considerable and hard-fought successes 
of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and Somali 
National Security Forces efforts to secure the country over the 
past 2 years. Recognizing the significance of Somalia's newly 
established government and improved but tenuous security 
environment, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2093 
suspends the 21-year-old arms embargo to allow for ``deliveries 
of weapons or military equipment or the provision of advice, 
assistance or training, intended solely for the development of 
the National Security Forces of the Federal Government of 
Somalia,'' and calls for the training, equipping, and capacity-
building of Somalia National Security Forces, including both 
its armed forces and police.
    The committee believes that U.S. national security 
interests in the region would be well-served by Somali National 
Security Forces that are capable of maintaining and expanding 
security within Somalia, confronting international security 
threats such as piracy and terrorism, and preventing human 
rights abuses. U.S. military-to-military cooperation offers an 
important opportunity to build critical capacities that are 
accountable to civilian authorities and adhere to the tenets of 
human rights within the Somali National Security Forces and to 
build relationships in order to promote a strong future 
partnership. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of 
Defense to pursue military-to-military cooperation with the 
Somali National Security Forces through existing authorities as 
soon as practicable.
    In pursuit of that objective, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to formulate a strategy for military-to-
military cooperation, including security assistance, 
professional military education, information sharing, and 
training between the U.S. armed forces and the Somali National 
Security Forces. The strategy should include, but not be 
limited to, the following elements:
          (1) identification of specific U.S. national security 
        objectives addressed through military-to-military 
        cooperation activities;
          (2) identification of mechanisms for coordinating 
        U.S. security cooperation with other international 
        donors, notably the European Union Training Mission;
          (3) a strategy for ensuring that military-to-military 
        cooperation serves to enhance integration and coherence 
        of the Somali National Security Services, including 
        improving multi-ethnic representation, strengthening 
        unit coherence and chain of command, and bolstering 
        civilian control of the Somali armed forces;
          (4) an evaluation of unmet equipment and weaponry 
        needs of the Somali armed forces, as well as an 
        assessment of the ability of the Somali Armed Forces to 
        maintain custody and accountability of its weapons 
        inventory and of the benefits and risks of the 
        provision of weaponry to the Somali armed forces by the 
        United States;
          (5) an assessment of the security risks to U.S. 
        personnel conducting security cooperation activities 
        within Somalia;
          (6) an assessment of the ability of the Somali 
        National Security Forces to maintain control of any 
        equipment and deny violent extremists access to it;
          (7) plans for integrating training to prevent human 
        rights abuses into military-to-military cooperation 
        activities;
          (8) plans to assist the Somali National Security 
        Forces in preventing infiltration and insider attacks, 
        including through the application of lessons learned in 
        U.S. military training efforts in Afghanistan; and
          (9) any other matters the Secretary deems 
        appropriate.
    Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall submit the report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
The report may take the form of a briefing, unclassified 
report, or unclassified report with a classified annex, as the 
Secretary deems appropriate.

Status of United States military engagements with Burma

    The committee notes the developments in Burma over the past 
year or so that indicate the commitment by the Government of 
Burma toward democratization and to address human rights 
abuses, including abuses by the Burmese military. As a result 
of these developments, the Department of Defense has begun 
modest and measured military-to-military interactions with the 
Burmese military. While such military engagement activities can 
be positive reinforcement for meaningful reforms, the committee 
remains mindful of the history of human rights abuses within 
the Burmese military, concerns regarding continuing abuses, and 
the possibility that any well-intended U.S. military engagement 
could be misdirected toward a negative result.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to 
provide written updates to the relevant congressional 
committees on the status of military-to-military engagement 
between the United States armed forces and the Burmese 
military. The first such update shall be provided by September 
30, 2013, and the next update by March 31, 2014. These updates, 
which may be in the form of a written report or in the form of 
a briefing that includes a written description of activities, 
shall include at a minimum: (1) a written list of ongoing 
military-to-military activities with a description of each; (2) 
a written update on activities that were listed in previous 
reporting; (3) a written list of activities that are planned to 
occur over the upcoming months with a written description of 
each; and (4) the status of the Burmese military's cooperation 
with civilian authorities to investigate and resolve cases of 
military human rights violations.
    For purposes of this requirement, the relevant 
congressional committees include the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

Taiwan air power assessment

    Section 1281 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) expressed the sense of 
Congress that the President should take steps to address 
Taiwan's shortfall in fighters, whether through the sale of F-
16C/D fighters or the procurement of other aircraft. The 
conference report accompanying Public Law 112-239 also requires 
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 
State, to ensure that a briefing is prepared and made available 
to congressional defense committees that sets forth the 
administration's plan for meeting the statutory requirements of 
the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8) as they relate to 
how the Taiwan Air Force can contribute appropriately to 
Taiwan's defense. This briefing has yet to be presented to the 
Congress. Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to 
brief the congressional defense committees no later than July 
15, 2013.
    In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a classified report assessing the capabilities and 
readiness of the Taiwanese Air Force no later than December 1, 
2013. The classified report shall include: a qualitative 
assessment of the capabilities of each type of fixed wing 
tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory; an assessment of 
the readiness of each type of fixed wing tactical aircraft in 
the Taiwanese inventory; and the expected timeframe of 
obsolescence of each category of aircraft in the Taiwanese 
inventory compared to the People's Liberation Army Air Force 
fixed-wing aircraft in both quantity and quality.
                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 
        1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds 
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, 
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$528.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. The provision 
accounts for the change in the umbrella agreement with Russia 
ending June 17, 2013, in which the following programs will be 
terminated (as compared to being funded as proposed in the 
fiscal year 2014 budget request): (1) SS-24 Missile Disassembly 
and storage, $4.3 million, (2) Chemical Weapons Technical 
Support--Russia, $21.3 million, (3) Nuclear Security 
Enhancements--Russia, $4.0 million, and (4) Nuclear Weapons 
Transportation--Russia, $49.7 million.
    The resulting cancellation of funds ($79.3 million) 
transfers $62.3 million to the Proliferation Prevention Program 
for Middle East cooperative threat reduction activities to 
prevent and detect acquisition, proliferation, and use of 
Syria's chemical weapons, weapons-usable and related materials, 
equipment or means of delivery, and knowledge. This activity 
will continue partnerships with Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and 
Lebanon. $13.0 million is transferred to Chemical Weapons 
Eliminations--Libya/Middle East to prepare for potential 
requirements in Syria if the U.S. Government has a Syrian 
partner with whom to work to potentially secure and destroy 
Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. $4.0 million is transferred 
to the Threat Reduction Engagement Program for exercises and 
bilateral workshops with Russia that does not require the 
expiring CTR umbrella agreement to carry out.
    This provision authorizes specific amounts for each CTR 
program element, requires notification to Congress 30 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2014 funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in 
the provision, and requires notification to Congress 15 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2014 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for 
each CTR program element.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, 
defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 
of this Act.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1404)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug 
activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 
of division D of this Act.

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels 
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters


Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
        1421)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$67.8 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 from the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
        Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
        Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois 
        (sec. 1422)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $143.1 million from the 
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for 
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
Care Center.

                              Budget Items


Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan

    The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of 
the Inspector General (DOD IG) included $311.1 million in 
Operation and Maintenance (O&M).
    The committee recognizes that the independent audit and 
investigative functions of the DOD IG continues to play a 
valuable role in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in 
Department of Defense programs and operations. In fiscal year 
2012, DOD IG audits and investigations resulted in a $3.6 
billion return on investment, which is an increase of $1.0 
billion in returns compared to fiscal year 2011. A $3.6 billion 
return on investment equates to a return of $2.3 million per 
employee and $10.81 for every dollar appropriated. The 147 
reports issued in fiscal year 2012 led to 149 arrests, 247 
convictions, 126 suspensions, and 207 debarments.
    The committee continues to believe that the DOD IG should 
focus on conducting oversight related to military operations in 
Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and 
support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. 
The committee also believes that contractor oversight by the 
DOD IG should include detailed accounting of the number of 
personnel used and the capabilities provided by contractors. 
The committee notes that in the language of Senate Report 112-
173, to accompany S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) the committee directed 
the DOD IG to reevaluate the 2008 growth plan and establish 
future staffing objectives on the basis of audit and 
investigation need and current budgetary realities. The 
committee received an updated growth plan on May 15, 2013, 
which calls for a fiscal year 2018 end state of 1,900 versus 
2,061 full-time equivalents (FTE), 161 less than originally 
planned; a 7.8 percent downward adjustment. The committee notes 
this end state still represents an increase of 286 FTEs over 
the fiscal year 2013 authorized FTE level of 1,614, and will 
allow for substantive increases in the DOD IG's oversight 
capabilities. The committee also notes that the DOD IG budget 
request for fiscal year 2014 still falls $35.9 million short of 
their requirements for increased oversight capabilities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.9 
million in O&M for the DOD IG.

Defense Health Program funding

    The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 
Health Program includes the following change from the budget 
request. This addition would replace savings assumed by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) for proposed establishment of 
enrollment fees and increases to certain other TRICARE fees, 
which the committee did not adopt.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

Restore DOD assumed savings for TRICARE proposals................. 218.0
    Total......................................................... 218.0

Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities

    The budget request included $816.0 million to support the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter 
Drug Activities. Of those amounts, $19.9 million supported the 
Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W, project code 3309); 
$1.6 million supported the United States European Command's 
(EUCOM) headquarters (project code 2346); and $1.2 million for 
special operations forces counternarcotics (CN) support to 
EUCOM (project code 6505).
    The committee recommends a decrease of $5.8 million to 
DOD's Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, which will 
decrease by $3.0 million funding for the JIATF-W, and provide 
no funding for the two aforementioned programs at EUCOM.
    The committee understands the importance of interagency 
cooperation, particularly as it relates to CN and efforts to 
combat the related threats posed by transnational organized 
criminal organizations. However, the committee is concerned the 
JIATF-W and its associated activities are not fully integrated 
into the intelligence, and policy and planning directorates of 
United States Pacific Command (PACOM). As result, the committee 
believes that there is duplication in these two important 
areas. The committee urges the Commander of PACOM to review 
JIATF-W's activities and eliminate unnecessary duplication of 
effort within the PACOM's CN, intelligence, and capacity-
building activities.
    On the reductions to EUCOM, the committee has noted since 
2012 its concern with DOD's efforts to maintain CN programs at 
EUCOM. The committee believes partner nations within the EUCOM 
area of responsibility are best positioned to fund both 
intelligence activities and capacity building on their own. As 
such, the committee is eliminating funding for EUCOM's CN 
programs and urges the Secretary to approve no funding for 
these programs in the next fiscal year.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army industrial operations activity group

    The committee notes that recent analysis on the Army 
industrial operations activity group conducted by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that the Army 
needs to improve the budgeting and management of carryover. The 
committee remains concerned that the Army underestimated 
industrial operations new orders every year during a 7-year 
period of review by the GAO, from a low of 11 percent to a high 
of 70 percent. For orders funded with procurement 
appropriations, the Army underestimated new orders by 118 
percent for the 7-year period. The committee is also concerned 
that the carryover grew to $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2011. 
The three primary causes for the carryover were: (1) the scope 
of work was not well defined, (2) parts needed to perform the 
work were not available, and (3) some orders were received late 
in the fiscal year which provided little time to resolve any 
scope of work or parts issues. The committee notes that the 
arrival of direct appropriation funding late in a fiscal year 
only exacerbates the ability to effectively manage carryover.
    The committee has learned that the Army has recently formed 
a working group to resolve these budgeting and management 
issues. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Army to 
promptly finalize the working group results and implement the 
actions identified to improve the budgeting and management of 
carryover. The committee directs the Army to prepare a briefing 
or a report to the committee on their progress no later than 
September 15, 2013.

Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel rate pricing

    The committee remains concerned that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) continues to struggle with the management of cash 
balances and carryover in working capital funds (WCF), 
resulting in increased risk and unnecessary negative impacts to 
Operation and Maintenance funding due to inadequate fuel rate 
determinations. For several years now the Government 
Accountability Office has documented the DOD's significant cash 
fluctuation in multiple reports. The committee notes that the 
effect of sequestration as a result of the Budget Control Act 
of 2011, the recent string of late-arriving annual 
appropriations, and the volatile global price of fossil fuels 
only exacerbate the issue.
    The committee remains concerned that while the function of 
the WCF is designed to protect customer programs in the year of 
execution, the reality of the last several years is that 
frequently changing WCF rates and reprogramming requests have 
evolved from exceptions to common practice. For example, in 
2009 the standard composite fuel price charged to DOD customers 
changed five times, and at least once per year since 2005. 
Additionally, in fiscal year 2012 the committee received a 
reprogramming request for $1.0 billion to offset a change in 
fuel rates. A similar reprogramming request occurred in fiscal 
year 2013 for $1.4 billion. The committee notes that the DOD 
bases its fuel rate charged to the services from the Office of 
Management and Budget's set price for a refined barrel of fuel 
based on an estimated future market price projection. 
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 7-10 day 
window has not been effective in enabling the services to adapt 
and absorb WCF rate changes in fuel and transportation costs in 
the budget year of execution, resulting in negative impacts to 
readiness, specifically in the Operation and Maintenance 
accounts.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 1, 2014 with recommendations as to how the DOD can better 
determine and manage their WCF and fuel rates in the budget 
year of execution.

Joint Interagency Task Force--South

    Sequestration and budget restrictions are having a negative 
impact not only on readiness and modernization accounts, but 
also on the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to carry 
out ongoing missions. While DOD's decision to allocate scarce 
budgetary resources to forces engaged with the enemy in 
Afghanistan is both understandable and justifiable, that 
decision has had a significant impact on the operations of 
other combatant commands.
    For example, budgetary restrictions have drastically 
reduced the ability of DOD and partner agencies to allocate 
assets--particularly surface vessels and personnel to the Joint 
Interagency Task Force South (JIATF--South) mission of 
countering illicit drug trafficking and disruption of 
transnational criminal organizations in the United States 
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, thereby 
increasing the supply of narcotics hitting U.S. streets at the 
same time that state and local law enforcement are also seeing 
funding reductions. During his March 2013 testimony before the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services, General John F. Kelly, 
Commander of SOUTHCOM, warned that sequestration could hinder 
the ability of SOUTHCOM to detect and monitor the flow of drugs 
to the United States, support the counterdrug efforts of 
partner nations, and curtail counternarcotics air and surface 
operations. He said, ``[t]aken together, these limitations 
would undermine the significant gains we have made through the 
highly successful and ongoing Operation Martillo; the 152 
metric tons of cocaine seized to date represents over $3.0 
billion in revenue that will not go to fund powerful criminal 
groups, violence in Mexico, and the destabilization of our 
Central American partners. These 152 metric tons will also not 
reach the streets of America nor fuel costly crime and drug 
addiction.''
    The committee believes that the across-the-board 
sequestration cuts to the DOD budget are arbitrary and 
irrational and undermine the national security of the United 
States. In the absence of legislation removing the threat of 
continued sequestration, the committee encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to do as much as practicable to continue key 
operations of the geographic combatant commands, such as the 
counternarcotics mission of SOUTHCOM and JIATF--South.

National Guard Counterdrug Program

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense requests 
funding annually to support the National Guard Counterdrug 
Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP plays an 
important role in providing military-specific capabilities and 
expertise resident within the National Guard to support the 
counterdrug activities of federal, state, and local 
authorities. This support includes the provision of linguists, 
intelligence, transportation, logistics, reconnaissance, 
training, education, and prevention outreach. The committee 
believes this support has proven effective in helping to meet 
national counterdrug objectives. The committee notes that over 
the last 2 fiscal years, budgetary pressures have led the 
Department to decrease the budget request for the CDP. The 
committee understands that these cuts have caused a disruption 
or curtailment of CDP operations, including the activities of 
the five regional Counterdrug Training Centers. As such, the 
committee encourages the Department to continue its support for 
the CDP and provide adequate funding to ensure the 
sustainability of the program.
    Additionally, the committee notes that beginning in 2008, 
the National Guard Bureau began development of a threat-based 
approach to its counterdrug activities. The committee supported 
this initiative and, in fiscal year 2011, DOD approved the 
Threat-Based Resource Model (TBRM) and began implementation of 
the new construct in fiscal year 2012, with plans to achieve 
full implementation by fiscal year 2015. The basis of the TBRM 
construct is to align funding in support of state counterdrug 
plans based on an analytical assessment of security threats 
associated with narcotics trafficking.
    In prepared testimony submitted to Congress in 2012, the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau stated: ``the implementation 
of the [TBRM] budget will strengthen the National Guard's 
national security capability by allocating resources to all 
states and territories based on the severity of the narcotics 
threat faced by each state.'' As implementation of the TBRM 
continues, the committee urges the National Guard Bureau to 
ensure that the data, metrics, and analyses associated with the 
TBRM are reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and 
reflect the changing nature of narcotics trafficking 
activities. In addition, the committee urges the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau to cooperate and share information 
associated with the TBRM in a routine, systemic manner with 
relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency.
   TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
                         CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
this title and make authorization of appropriations available 
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to 
provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency 
operations.
Procurement (sec. 1502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for procurement at the levels 
identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for research, development, test, and 
evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division 
D of this Act.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the 
levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels 
identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at 
the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this 
Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund 
at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this 
Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for chemical agents and munitions 
destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4502 
of division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities, defense-wide, at the level identified in 
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified 
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health program (sec. 1511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the 
levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act.

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would state that 
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related 
funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this 
title.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2014, the authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to use funds to investigate, develop, and provide 
equipment, supplies, services, personnel, and funds to assist 
efforts to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED).
    The committee continues to maintain that the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is a 
temporary organization created by the Department of Defense 
(DOD), with the support of Congress, to respond rapidly to IED 
threats against our deployed forces. The committee believes it 
is now the appropriate time for DOD to assess the roles and 
missions of JIEDDO and DOD in maintaining a capability to 
counter the IED threat. The committee believes the military 
departments can absorb into their operations and doctrine the 
appropriate capabilities and training required to counter the 
threat posed by IED in current and future operations. JIEDDO, 
in its various iterations, has now been in existence for nearly 
a decade, and the military departments have had ample time to 
plan accordingly. As such, the committee has extended this 
authority until the end of calendar year 2014--when operations 
in Afghanistan will reach an inflection point. The committee 
expects the Secretary of Defense to develop a clear strategy to 
ensure the military departments absorb the enduring 
capabilities and associated funding that JIEDDO has benefitted 
from over the past decade. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, 
on the disposition of JIEDDO as an organization and a strategy 
that identifies and transitions those enduring capabilities and 
associated funding to the military departments. Further, the 
report will also address what mechanisms will be put in place 
to ensure adequate coordination across the military departments 
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in their 
science and technology activities related to defeating IEDs in 
order to focus on priority areas and avoid unnecessary 
duplication of effort.

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that funds available for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 
for fiscal year 2014 be used subject to the conditions 
specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 428), as amended by section 1531(b) of 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4424). The provision 
would also allow for equipment previously transferred to the 
Afghanistan security forces to be returned to the stocks of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) with congressional notification. 
The Secretary of Defense would be required to report to the 
congressional defense committees semi-annually on the equipment 
transferred to DOD stocks under this authority.

Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability 
        Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business 
and Stability Operations (TFBSO) in Afghanistan to promote 
strategic business and economic development in support of the 
civil-military campaign in Afghanistan. For fiscal year 2014, 
up to $63.8 million would be authorized to fund TFBSO projects, 
which include mining sector development, industrial 
development, and facilitating private investment. The provision 
would restrict the availability of the fiscal year 2014 funds 
for developing the mining and oil and gas sectors until after 
the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Government of 
Afghanistan has agreed to reimburse the Government of the 
United States for the amount of any such funds, from royalties 
received from mining or oil and gas contracts awarded by the 
Government of Afghanistan. The amendment would also revise the 
period for providing an update on the implementation of the 
TFBSO Transition Action Plan that was submitted to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives in May 2012 from every 90 days to every 180 
days.
    The TFBSO has contributed to the stability of Afghanistan's 
economy, particularly the development of its mining sector. 
However, the committee strongly believes that TFBSO funds for 
the development of Afghanistan's mining should not go towards 
subsidizing the ability of foreign companies, in particular the 
Chinese mineral extraction industry, to exploit the estimated 
$1.0 trillion worth of Afghanistan resources. The committee 
believes that companies who mine Afghanistan's rare earth 
minerals should be the ones investing in the mining 
infrastructure of Afghanistan.
    Further, the committee expects that with the transition of 
full security responsibility to the Government of Afghanistan 
by the end of 2014, the activities of the TFBSO will 
transition, either to another U.S. Government department or 
agency or to the Government of Afghanistan, or be promptly 
concluded.

                              Budget Items


NATO Special Operations Headquarters

    The budget request for overseas contingency operations 
included $7.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for 
support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). As requested by the 
Department of Defense and consistent with the agreement between 
the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the 
April 2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing 
responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM, the committee 
recommends a transfer of this funding to Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide.

BuckEye

    The budget request included $29.2 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for Overseas Contingency Operations, of 
which $1.3 billion was for forces readiness operations support.
    The committee understands that the Army's funding request 
for the BuckEye system that provides high-resolution 3-
dimensional terrain data (10 centimeter electro-optical color 
imagery, combined with 1-meter post spacing elevation data) was 
eliminated during budget reviews due to a misunderstanding 
about the enduring requirement for this data or about the 
availability of alternative sources of such data. The 
Department of Defense has assured the committee that U.S. 
Central Command's Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement for 
five systems remains in effect through fiscal year 2014, and 
that no other available system can provide this data.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.3 
million in OMA (subactivity 121) for BuckEye terrain data.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization

    The budget request included $1.0 billion for the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, of which funding is 
distributed to four lines of operation (LOO): (1) $417.0 
million for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization's (JIEDDO) operations attacking the network; (2) 
$248.9 million for JIEDDO's operations to develop and procure 
capabilities to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED); (3) 
$106.0 million to fund efforts to train service members prior 
to deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and 
procedures; and (4) $227.4 million for JIEDDO's staff and 
infrastructure expenses.
    The committee recommends the following modification's to 
JIEDDO's budget: (1) a decrease of $106.0 million for JIEDDO's 
training activities; (2) a decrease $45.0 million for JIEDDO's 
staff and infrastructure expenses; (3) an increase of $80.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance, Army within the Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO) account to train soldiers prior to 
deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and procedures 
(TTPs); and (4) an increase of $26.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps within the OCO account to train 
marines prior to deployment on counter-IED TTPs.
    It is the committee's view that JIEDDO's train-the-force 
activities should be terminated. These activities are the 
responsibilities of the military departments and JIEDDO should 
no longer support them. As such, the committee's recommendation 
would eliminate funding for JIEDDO's train-the-force operations 
and redistribute the funding to Army and Marine Corps operation 
and maintenance accounts for counter-IED training activities.
    The committee's second reduction to JIEDDO's budget would 
require the Director of JIEDDO to reduce the size of its 
overhead. As such, the committee recommendation would make a 20 
percent reduction to JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure LOO. 
Many of JIEDDO's headquarters activities duplicate identical or 
similar processes that already exist within the various 
military departments or the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
As such, the committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to 
identify elements of those organizations to assume these tasks.

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund

    The budget request included $62.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of 
which $279.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure 
Fund (AIF) in fiscal year 2014 to support a program to develop 
and construct large-scale infrastructure projects that support 
the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee's 
concerns about the need to transition responsibility for large-
scale infrastructure project management from the Department of 
Defense to the Government of Afghanistan or an Afghan 
Government-owned utility company are discussed in another title 
of this Act. In this regard, the committee understands that the 
Afghan power utility company, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat 
(DABS), has begun planning to assume responsibility for the 
operation of the diesel generators supplying electricity to the 
Kandahar City area. The committee expects DABS to assume a 
portion of the costs of operating the Kandahar diesel 
generators in fiscal year 2014 and to assume the full costs 
associated with the operation of the generators in fiscal years 
2015 and beyond.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0 
million for OM, OCO, for AIF, to a level of $250.0 million.

                        Item of Special Interest


Counter improvised explosive device training

    The Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2000.19E 
establishing the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO) requires the Director of JIEDDO to 
``[d]evelop and manage, within the military service combat 
training centers, a distributed Joint Center of Excellence 
(CoE) for the development of new operational techniques and 
tactical procedures, and provide a venue for training, 
experimentation, and testing of new equipment and concepts.'' 
As the committee awaits the reports required pursuant to 
section 1535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), the committee directs 
the Secretary to undertake as part of that assessment a review 
of DOD Directive 2000.19E to ensure that the synchronizing 
function across the military departments and defense agencies 
is preserved so that lessons-learned from the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are not lost and that the investments made by DOD 
over the past decade, where appropriate, are preserved and 
maintained.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It 
includes funding authorizations for the construction and 
operation of military family housing as well as military 
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, 
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure 
accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by 
account. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in 
title XXVII of this report and is explained in additional 
detail in the table included in title XLVI of this report.
    The fiscal year 2014 budget requested $11.01 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$8.65 billion was requested for military construction, $1.54 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $451.4 million for base closure activities.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure 
activities totaling $9.67 billion. The total amount authorized 
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing 
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities 
and infrastructure.

Short title (sec. 2001)

    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014''.

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization infrastructure program as of October 1, 2016, or 
the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
                 TITLE XXI-- ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.1 billion for military construction and $556.9 million 
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2014.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.1 billion for military construction and $540.3 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense is 
currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation 
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities 
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission 
requirements. The budget requests $16.6 million for 
construction of 29 new family housing units at Camp Vilseck, 
Germany. The committee believes authorization of this project 
would presume the outcome of the Department's European 
Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends 
no funding for this project.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the active component of the 
Army for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on 
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Army for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Army. The state list contained in 
this report is the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project 
        (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B 
of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4437) for construction of a 
Regional Logistic Support Complex at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 
        (sec. 2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(b) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B 
of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2629) for construction of APS 
Warehouses at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project 
        (sec. 2106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B 
of Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1697) for construction of an 
Explosives Research and Development Loading Facility at 
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec. 
        2107)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for four projects until October 
1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever 
is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 
        2108)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October 
1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever 
is later.
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military 
        Academy, New York (sec. 2109)
    The budget request includes $42.0 million to fund the 
second increment of the cadet barracks at the U.S. Military 
Academy (USMA), New York. The committee remains concerned about 
the condition of the existing barracks at the USMA and believes 
that renovation of those barracks should be a high priority for 
the Secretary of the Army.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for the second 
increment of USMA barracks construction, as requested, until 
the Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional 
defense committees that the Secretary has entered into a 
contract for the renovation of MacArthur Short Barracks at the 
USMA, consistent with the plan provided to the congressional 
defense committees in March 2013.

                       Items of Special Interest

Access Control Point Equipment Program
    The committee notes that the Army has requested $30.3 
million for its Access Control Point Equipment Program (ACPEP) 
which would be installed at five Army installations. The 
committee further notes that Recommendation 3.9 of the Fort 
Hood commission report states that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) needs to improve its ability to screen contractors coming 
onto military installations. Specifically, the report 
recommended that DOD ``accelerate efforts to automate access 
control that will authenticate various identification media 
against authoritative databases'' and ``obtain sufficient 
access to appropriate threat databases and disseminate 
information to local commanders to enable screening at 
continental United States and overseas installation access 
control points.''
    The committee notes that the Navy has used U.S. General 
Services Administration (GSA) and DOD approved solutions to 
implement its access control requirements to military 
installations that provide electronic verification for enhanced 
security for contractors requiring access to military 
installations by sharing the cost of implementation with the 
contractors. The committee notes that the Army may save 
resources by adopting existing GSA-approved solutions for base 
access control.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review existing GSA-approved access control programs in 
use at DOD installations and report to the committee with a 
cost-benefit analysis of using current installation force 
protection practices versus further deployment of the ACPEP.
Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by the Military 
        Housing Privatization Initiative
    The committee notes that over the past 12 years, the 
Department of the Army has entered into a series of 
transactions with various partners to construct, renovate, 
maintain, and operate most of the Army's military family 
housing unit inventory in the United States.
    While this military family housing privatization initiative 
(MHPI) has resulted in successful partnerships between the Army 
and the private sector to significantly improve the quality of 
housing offered to military members and their families over a 
relatively short period of time, the long-term success of this 
program depends on maintaining the quality of those homes in 
order to continue to attract and retain military occupants. The 
Army and their partners jointly manage a series of operations 
and investment accounts to fund maintenance, repairs, and the 
recapitalization of housing units for this purpose.
    Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) was intended to 
strengthen the oversight of MHPI by implementing a series of 
financial integrity and accountability measures. The provision 
also required the Secretary of Defense to submit expanded 
reports to Congress on expenditures and receipts related to 
MHPI.
    It is the committee's expectation that funds generated from 
the original transactions are being appropriately reinvested in 
activities that directly benefit military members and their 
families living in the privatized housing. The committee notes 
that the provision described above was also written to provide 
a greater degree of transparency on those withdrawals and 
expenditures that do not have a direct benefit to military 
families. The committee believes that the use of funds to pay 
for internal litigation costs associated with lawsuits between 
private entities involved with MHPI should be among those 
withdrawals and expenditures reported to Congress.
    In addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States, not later than October 30, 2013, to carry 
out a complete review of the costs incurred to the various Army 
MHPI accounts as a result of unique litigation activities. The 
review should include, at a minimum, the following:
          (1) a description of actions taken by the Department 
        of the Army to minimize the use of MHPI funds for 
        unique litigation;
          (2) a description of documentation provided to the 
        Army by its partners to justify legal expenses;
          (3) a review of the internal Army and partner 
        processes used to approve major withdrawals and 
        expenses for litigation;
          (4) an assessment of the applicable Army guidance or 
        transactional documentation governing potential 
        withdrawals or expenditures for litigation expenses;
          (5) an assessment of the impact of litigation 
        expenses associated with specific projects on the 
        availability of funding for purposes directly 
        beneficial to such projects;
          (6) an estimate of the total costs to Army MHPI 
        projects that have been incurred to date and the extent 
        to which the Army has estimated any future litigation 
        expenses;
          (7) a review of plans to replenish MHPI asset 
        management accounts impacted by withdrawals and 
        expenses for litigation; and
          (8) any other subject matter that the Comptroller 
        General may deem appropriate on this subject.
                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.7 billion for military construction and $463.2 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2014.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.61 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
    The budget requested $85.7 million for an Aircraft 
Maintenance Hangar at the North Ramp of Andersen Air Force 
Base, Guam. Because of continuing concerns with the realignment 
of United States Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later 
in a recommended provision in this title, the committee 
recommends no funding for this project.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-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 2014. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Navy family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. 
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the 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 project 
        (sec. 2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666) for construction of 
Explosives Handling Wharf No. 2 at Kitsap, Washington.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project 
        (sec. 2206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201(b) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B 
of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4441), for construction of 
Navy Central Command ammunition magazines in Bahrain.
One-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
        project (sec. 2207)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is 
later.
Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 
        project (sec. 2208)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2015, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is 
later.

                        Item of Special Interest

Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition
    The committee notes that the budget request includes $61.7 
million to acquire real estate interests as the first phase of 
an expansion of the Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia in order 
to support the training of Navy and Marine Corps aviators in 
air-to-ground employment of precision guided munitions. 
Considering the fact that the first phase of the expansion will 
require the purchase of approximately 20,000 acres, the 
committee commends the Department of the Navy for its efforts 
to engage community representatives from Long County, Georgia 
and McIntosh County, Georgia and supports efforts for a 
mutually acceptable agreement regarding use of the real 
property to be acquired for the expansion of the Townsend 
Bombing Range that protects and supports the mission of the 
range.
              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.2 billion for military construction and $464.9 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2014.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$964.2 million for military construction and $464.9 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
    The budget requested $132.6 million for a hardened tanker 
aircraft maintenance hangar and $20.0 million for the 
construction of hardened structures around existing and new 
fuel systems buildings at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The 
committee believes that the authorization of these projects 
would presume the outcome of U.S. Pacific Command's completion 
of a comprehensive operational resiliency study and, therefore, 
recommends no funding for these projects.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense is 
currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation 
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities 
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission 
requirements. The budget requested $22.0 million for Guardian 
Angel Operations Facilities at Royal Air Force Station 
Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and $12.0 million for a Main Gate 
Complex at Royal Air Force Station Croughton, United Kingdom. 
The committee believes that the authorization of these projects 
would presume the outcome of the Department's European 
Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends 
no funding for these projects.
    The budget requested $192.7 million for KC-46A Main 
Operating Base (MOB) #1 facilities and $63.0 million for KC-46A 
Formal Training Unit (FTU) facilities at unspecified locations. 
On May 22, 2013, the Air Force announced McConnell Air Force 
Base, Kansas, as its preferred alternative for the KC-46A MOB 
#1 and Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as its preferred 
alternative for the KC-46A FTU. Concurrent with this 
announcement, the Air Force also requested an amendment to its 
budget request specifying location-specific requirements for 
KC-46A bed down, including $219.1 million for eight military 
construction projects at McConnell Air Force Base and $30.9 
million for five military construction projects at Altus Air 
Force Base. The committee recommends these amounts.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2014. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction and planning and design of family housing 
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2014. This provision 
would also authorize funds for facilities that support family 
housing, including housing management offices, housing 
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Air Force 
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Air Force. The state list 
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is 
later.
           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $4.0 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects, 
$122.5 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and 
$55.8 million for family housing for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2014.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$2.9 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for 
energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for chemical 
demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family 
housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2014.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense (DOD) 
is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation 
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities 
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission 
requirements. The budget requested $17.7 million to replace 
fuel storage systems, $11.6 million for a squadron operations 
facility, $24.4 million for a hangar, $24.0 million for 
airfield improvements, and $6.8 million for storage facilities 
at Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, United Kingdom. The 
budget also requested: $49.9 million for an elementary school 
at Kaiserslautern Military Community, Germany; $98.8 million 
for a high school at Ramstein Air Base, Germany; $58.9 million 
for an elementary school and $50.7 million for a middle school 
at Wiesbaden, Germany; and $69.6 million for a high school at 
Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath. The committee believes that 
the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome 
of the Department's European Infrastructure Consolidation 
Review and, therefore, recommends no funding for these 
projects.
    The budget requested $431.0 million for the third increment 
of the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade, 
Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to 
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, 
therefore, recommends a $50.0 million reduction.
    The budget requested $265.0 million for an Ambulatory 
Health Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The committee understands 
DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of 
the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $190.0 million 
reduction.
    The budget requested $210.0 million for replacement of the 
Public Health Command Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, 
Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to 
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, 
therefore, recommends a $135.0 million reduction.
    The budget requested $76.2 million for the second increment 
of the Ambulatory Care Center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. 
The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and 
expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore, 
recommends a $38.1 million reduction.
    The budget requested $251.2 million for the fifth increment 
of the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee 
understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full 
amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a 
$152.1 million reduction.
    The budget requested $151.5 million for the third increment 
of the Medical Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, 
Germany. The committee understands DOD would be unable to 
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and, 
therefore, recommends a $75.0 million reduction.
    The budget requested $1.8 million for a Tour Bus Drop Off 
at the Pentagon Reservation, Virginia. The committee believes 
this project is unjustified given the current fiscal pressures 
facing DOD and does little to improve the safety of visitors to 
the Pentagon and, therefore, recommends no funding for this 
project.

               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-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.

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military construction and family housing 
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction 
for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the defense 
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the chemical 
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2014. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $239.7 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2014 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
facilities.
    The committee recommends a total of $239.7 million for 
military construction for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization facilities.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an 
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized 
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due 
to the United States for construction previously financed by 
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $239.7 million for the U.S. contribution to 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program for fiscal year 2014.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $693.3 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2014 for facilities for the guard and reserve 
components. The committee recommends this amount. The detailed 
funding recommendations are contained in the state list table 
included in this report.

 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are 
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 
        (sec. 2611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 2135), for construction of a 
Joint Reserve Center at Fort Des Moines, Iowa.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is 
later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec. 
        2613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1, 
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is 
later.
          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $451.4 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The 
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the state list table included 
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account (sec. 2701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Precondition for any future base realignment and closure round (sec. 
        2702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish, 
as a precondition for the authorization of a future Base 
Realignment and Closure round, a requirement for the Department 
of Defense to submit to Congress a formal review of overseas 
military facility structure.

Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing initiative 
        (sec. 2703)

    The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round created 
12 joint bases from 26 service installations that were in close 
proximity or shared a boundary. While the Department of Defense 
(DOD) originally planned to save $2.3 billion over 20 years 
through these consolidations, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has found that the 20-year savings estimate has 
fallen by nearly 90 percent to approximately $249.0 million. 
GAO has further noted that: ``it is unclear whether DOD has 
achieved any significant cost savings to date, in part due to 
its adoption of more costly common support standards, higher 
projected administrative costs, and weaknesses in its approach 
to tracking costs and estimated savings.'' However, GAO has 
suggested that DOD may still be able to achieve significant 
savings through the adoption of ``a more rigorous and 
comprehensive department-wide approach to managing this 
initiative.''
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees, not later than 180 days after enactment of this 
Act, on the 2005 BRAC joint basing initiative. At a minimum, 
the report should include: (1) an analysis and explanation of 
the costs necessary to implement the joint basing initiative; 
(2) an analysis and explanation of any savings achieved to date 
and planned in future years, including quantifiable goals and a 
timeline for meeting such goals; (3) a description of 
implementation challenges and other lessons learned; (4) an 
assessment of any additional savings that could be achieved 
through more rigorous management and streamlined administration 
of joint bases; and (5) any other matters the Under Secretary 
considers appropriate.
         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

Modification of authorities to fund military construction through 
        payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind 
        (sec. 2801)
    The committee released a report on April 15, 2013, titled 
``Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support 
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas.'' Among other things, the 
committee's inquiry found that in-kind payments from partner 
nations to support the overseas presence of U.S. military 
forces in Germany, South Korea, and Japan, have been used to 
fund questionable military construction projects. Given the 
current fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense 
(DOD), it is critical that in-kind payments be utilized for 
identified U.S. priorities to offset costs that DOD would 
otherwise pay with appropriated funds.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
require that all future military construction projects funded 
using in-kind payments pursuant to bilateral agreements with 
partner nations be submitted for congressional authorization in 
the Military Construction Authorization Act. This provision 
would exclude projects funded using in-kind payments under the 
Facility Improvement Program in Japan, since it is a voluntary 
program, not a program conducted pursuant to a bilateral 
agreement. The provision would also exclude from the 
requirement for congressional authorization particular military 
construction projects identified in bilateral agreements 
entered into before the date of enactment. However, that 
exclusion would not extend to general references to replacement 
facilities such as those contained in the U.S.-Korea Land 
Partnership Plan.
    Furthermore, the committee strongly encourages DOD, when 
using any future in-kind payments from partner nations, to 
first consider and prioritize operational expenses and 
facilities restoration, sustainment, and modernization 
improvements ahead of military construction. The recommended 
provision would also require that DOD include operational 
expenses funded through residual value payments in-kind in the 
budget justification documents submitted to Congress in 
connection with the annual budget request.
Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority to use 
        operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in 
        certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 
United States for an additional year and revise the list of 
countries in which such authority may be used in the United 
States Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR). 
If the Secretary of Defense determines that expansion of this 
authority to additional countries in the AFRICOM AOR is 
necessary, the committee asks that the Department submit a 
formal legislative proposal and justification to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses 
        associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow for the 
use of proceeds from leases and easements to be used to offset 
administrative costs incurred by the military departments in 
entering into and managing such leases and easements.
Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec. 
        2812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretaries of the military departments, beginning in 
fiscal year 2014, to credit cash payments received as 
compensation for utilities or services provided to eligible 
entities that operate family or military unaccompanied housing 
projects to the appropriation or working capital account 
currently available for the purpose of furnishing such 
utilities or services. This provision was requested by the 
Department of Defense to ensure that such reimbursements remain 
available in current appropriations to meet the requirements of 
the Department of Defense rather than being credited to an 
expired account, making them unusable.
Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts for receipt 
        of utility services as consideration for utility systems 
        conveyances (sec. 2813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2688(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, by 
requiring the Secretary of a military department, prior to 
conveying a utility system under this section, to obtain an 
independent estimate of the level of investment that should be 
required to maintain adequate operation of the utility system 
over the term of the conveyance.
Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, California 
        (sec. 2814)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to acquire 300 units of military 
family housing constructed under section 801 of the Military 
Construction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-115) at Naval Base 
Ventura County, California. The committee understands this 
housing would be acquired for the purposes of converting it to 
meet an enduring need for transient and unaccompanied housing.

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

Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region (sec. 2821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend a 
prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement 
the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan, 
with certain exceptions.
Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment 
        (sec. 2822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
reporting period for the annual Guam realignment report from 
calendar year to fiscal year.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 2831)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 11 acres of 
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Hale Keiki 
School in return for a cash payment, in-kind consideration, or 
a combination thereof, in an amount that is not less than the 
fair market value of the conveyed property, as determined 
pursuant to an appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.

Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to sell or exchange the Mt. Soledad 
Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, to an eligible 
entity on the condition that it continues to be maintained as a 
veterans' memorial.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the 
        Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec. 
        2841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would name the 
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, 
as the ``Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 
Studies'' and make other conforming changes.

                       Items of Special Interest


Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
commitment to promote a policy for sensible and cost-effective 
sustainable designs for DOD facilities to reduce life cycle 
costs and provide for efficient and effective support of 
military missions.
    However, the committee is concerned that the Department's 
revision of the Unified Facilities Code (UFC) issued in March 
2013 regarding High Performance and Sustainable Building 
Requirements included direction to DOD components to design all 
new construction and major renovation projects to meet a 
specific third party certification. The committee is concerned 
that the UFC exclusively references a single certification to 
the exclusion of other green building certification systems.
    The committee recommends that the Department's revised 
policy should provide for an equal consideration of other 
sustainable building certification systems which provide design 
standards for cost-effective facilities, incorporate life cycle 
assessments, and are created through a voluntary consensus 
process or through international sustainable building codes.

Homeowners Assistance Program

    The committee notes that the Homeowners Assistance Program 
(HAP) was created in 1966 to provide monetary relief to 
eligible service members and federal employee homeowners who 
suffered financial loss on the sale of their primary residences 
when a base closure or realignment announcement created a 
decline in the residential real estate market and owners were 
not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms or 
conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-5) expanded the HAP to provide assistance to: 
(1) wounded members of the Armed Forces, surviving spouses of 
fallen warriors, and wounded Department of Defense (DOD) 
civilian homeowners reassigned in furtherance of medical 
treatment or rehabilitation or due to medical retirement in 
connection with their disability; (2) Base Realignment and 
Closure (BRAC) 2005 impacted homeowners relocating during the 
mortgage crisis; and (3) service member homeowners given 
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders by the Federal 
Government during the mortgage crisis.
    The committee notes that as of June 2013, HAP benefits 
totaling $1.6 billion have been paid to 9,940 applicants. 
However, the committee also understands that payments were made 
in error to at least 240 applicants totaling more than $4.5 
million in improperly paid HAP benefits. The DOD, as required 
by law, is currently in the process of recovering these 
improperly paid benefits.
    The committee is concerned by the significant number of 
documented improper payments under HAP and questions the 
adequacy of the Department's process to vet and approve 
applications for such benefits. The committee is also concerned 
about the financial hardship for service members who received 
HAP payments in error and were subsequently directed to repay 
the Federal Government. In many cases, service members have 
made significant decisions with regard to selling a home based 
on their receipt of HAP benefits only to find out later that 
such benefits were provided in error and must be repaid.
    The committee notes that the Department has established a 
multi-phase review process for service members to challenge a 
determination by the Department that HAP benefits were provided 
improperly. The committee also notes that the Department may, 
in some cases, waive its right to collect repayment if the debt 
is a result of an erroneous payment and collection would be 
against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest 
of the United States. The committee expects the Department, 
when it deems appropriate, to exercise this waiver.

Military Construction Project Data Sheets

    The committee notes that the President's budget request is 
accompanied by Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also 
known as DD Form 1391 forms, containing the justification, 
scope, and cost of each requested military construction 
project. The congressional defense committees use each DD Form 
1391 as the basis for reviewing the Department's military 
construction requirements, proposed new construction to meet 
each requirement, and limits of cost and scope of the project. 
The committee is aware that the Department considers the 
authorization of the proposed military construction project to 
be contract authority and the DD Form 1391 is used by the 
contracting officer to define the limits of that contract 
authority.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense prepares 
DD Form 1391s with the intent of establishing flexibility 
within each congressional authorization of a military 
construction project in order for design agents, construction 
agents, and contracting officers to be able to make decisions 
about site adaptations, final scope, proposed methods of 
construction, and consideration of emerging requirements 
without the need for additional authorization from Congress. 
While the committee is aware of the need for some degree of 
flexibility in order to make efficient use of resources and to 
respond to unforeseen requirements that could not feasibly be 
discovered during preparation of the defense budget request, 
each military construction project should have a clearly 
defined primary scope and costs, an identified and 
characterized site, a clear estimate of the supporting utility 
and infrastructure scope and costs, and a mature plan for other 
considerations such as ancillary facilities and real property 
necessary to meet the requirement. To ensure this degree of 
certainty, Congress each year authorizes and appropriates funds 
to carry out planning and design activities without a 
congressional authorization for the construction of a project.
    The committee is concerned that the justification data 
provided for many projects in the budget request and 
accompanying DD Form 1391s does not contain information that is 
critical to its oversight of the scope and construction of such 
projects. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that each DD Form 1391 clearly and concisely 
defines the proposed scope of both the primary and supporting 
facilities and infrastructure that will result in a complete 
and useable facility without the need for a congressional 
authorization of additional construction. The Secretary shall 
also ensure that the proposed use of each facility, as 
represented by a five or six digit category code, is included 
in each DD Form 1391 and is not allowed to be changed during 
construction or immediately following construction. Each DD 
Form 1391 shall also include a proposed method of construction 
and a specification of the proposed design life of the 
construction method in order for Congress to be able to assess 
the Department's justification for the investment in comparison 
to the military requirement. Each DD Form 1391 shall also 
include information regarding the need for future phases, 
related construction, land acquisitions or leases, and other 
activities that will be required to be carried out as part of 
the military construction project.
    The committee strongly believes that clear, complete, and 
concise DD Form 1391s are critical to both the Department of 
Defense's effort to manage resources effectively and the 
integrity of the congressional authorization of military 
construction projects.

Scope of work variations for military construction projects

    A February 27, 2012, report by the Department of Defense 
Inspector General (DOD IG), titled ``Guidance Needed to Prevent 
Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved 
Scope of Work,'' found several instances where military 
construction projects in Afghanistan significantly exceeded the 
scope authorized by Congress. According to the DOD IG, ``DOD 
[Department of Defense] officials do not have assurance that 
military construction projects are built consistent with 
congressional intent and in accordance with legislative 
requirements.'' The DOD IG recommended: (1) the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment 
(DUSD(I&E)) issue clarification guidance to define the scope of 
work outlined in section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, 
that may not be exceeded; and (2) the Commanding General of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Director of the Air Force 
Center for Engineering and the Environment develop and 
implement procedures to perform scope verifications to ensure 
compliance with the law. Therefore, the committee directs the 
DUSD(I&E), not later than September 30, 2013, to provide the 
congressional defense committees a report describing actions 
taken in response to the February 2012 DOD IG report.

Traffic safety

    The committee has seen anecdotal evidence that the 
frequency and severity of traffic accidents at some military 
installations have increased significantly in recent years. For 
example, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, traffic accidents have 
increased by more than 400 percent and injuries resulting from 
traffic accidents have increased by more than 200 percent since 
2005. The committee is concerned that the increase in traffic 
accidents may be, at least partly, attributed to on-base 
transportation infrastructure projects not keeping pace with 
base population growth.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 
September 30, 2013, regarding traffic accidents at 
installations with 25,000 or more permanently assigned service 
members, including: (1) an analysis of trends in on-base 
traffic accident data; (2) an assessment of whether 
transportation infrastructure projects have kept pace with 
growth in base populations at such installations; (3) an 
analysis of the factors contributing to traffic accidents on 
large military installations; (4) any recommendations for 
reducing the number of traffic accidents on large military 
installations; and (5) any other matters the Secretary 
considers appropriate.

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

    The committee remains interested in the posture of U.S. 
forces in the Asia-Pacific region and the implications of the 
strategic rebalance announced as part of the Defense Strategic 
Guidance in January 2012. While this rebalance toward the Asia-
Pacific encompasses more than just U.S. military presence and 
posture, the current and future U.S. military force posture in 
the Asia-Pacific region is a critical element of the overall 
geo-political security strategy in Asia.
    The committee understands that U.S. Pacific Command is 
currently conducting a study of resiliency and developing an 
associated resiliency plan as one element of the force posture 
and supporting infrastructure. The committee is reluctant to 
support new investments in infrastructure until it has reviewed 
the study and the plan and better understands both the linkage 
between resiliency and strategy and the long term affordability 
and sustainability of the plan.
    Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense 
to provide the results of the U.S. Pacific Command's study of 
resiliency, with an explanation of how the resiliency plan 
supports the overall theater strategic plan, to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal 
year 2014, including: the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment; research and 
development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; 
environmental restoration and waste management; operating 
expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry out the 
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public 
Law 95-91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 
categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA); (2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other 
defense activities.
    The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at 
the Department (rounded up to the first significant decimal 
point) totaled $17.8 billion, a 3.2 percent increase above the 
fiscal year 2013 appropriated level. Of the total amount 
requested:
          (1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which:
                  (a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities;
                  (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities;
                  (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and
                  (d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator;
          (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental 
        cleanup;
          (3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities;
          (4) $94.0 million for Idaho site-wide security; and
          (5) $16.0 million for grid security in the Office of 
        Electricity and Transmission.
    The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy 
defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee 
recommends:
          (1) $11.7 billion for NNSA, of which:
                  (a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities;
                  (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities;
                  (c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors, the 
                amount of the budget request; and
                  (d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator, the amount of the budget 
                request;
          (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup 
        activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium 
        Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning fund);
          (3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities, 
        the amount of the budget request;
          (4) $95.0 million is for Idaho site-wide security; 
        and
          (5) $0 is provided for grid reliability as this is a 
        homeland security function.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $11.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in 
fiscal year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to 
national security.
Weapons activities
    The committee recommends $7.9 billion for weapons 
activities, the amount of the budget request.
    The committee recommends funding for these programs as 
follows: $2.4 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion 
for campaigns; $1.7 billion for site stewardship; $744.5 
million for nuclear operations; $219.2 million for the secure 
transportation assets, the amount of the budget request; $256.0 
million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the 
amount of the budget request; and $827.4 million for defense 
nuclear security and the Chief Information Officer.
    The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional 
support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons 
complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the 
committee urges the NNSA to find efficiencies where and 
whenever possible. The ability to sustain these increases 
during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be 
increasingly difficult as time goes on. Good stewardship of the 
funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons 
complex, is critical to the long-term support for and 
sustainment of the projected increases.
Directed stockpile work
    The committee recommends $2.4 billion for directed 
stockpile work. The directed stockpile account supports work 
directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-
day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, 
and certification activities to support planned life extension 
programs. This account also includes fabrication and assembly 
of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons 
dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment.
    The committee understands that for fiscal year 2014, the W-
76 program has been corrected to meet the Navy's need by 2019 
and has a proposed budget of $235.4 million. The B-61 is 
undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one variant 
reducing the number overall needed for the air leg of the 
triad.
    The funding for B-61 life extension program is proposed at 
$537.0 million. The committee understands the importance of the 
Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 2019 
deadline for the version deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization allies and needs to know what backup plan, if any, 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have to 
provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons if 
the Mod 12 schedule slips, as it most likely will.
    The committee remains concerned about overall workflow 
coordination between the design laboratories and the production 
facilities, Pantex, Y-12, and Kansas City. There could be up to 
five life extension programs underway; the B-61, the long-range 
stand off weapon, the W-88 fuse program, an interoperable 
warhead to replace the W-88 and W-87 systems, and the ongoing 
W-76 program. Concurrency, funding delays, or program slips in 
any one of these programs can impact the others given they all 
use the three production facilities. Elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee has asked the Government Accountability Office to 
examine this issue.
    Finally, the committee has concern about the overall cost 
growth of the interoperable warhead which is to replace the W-
88 and W-78 warheads. The total cost profile is not all clear 
nor is the balance of this cost profile with the risk of such a 
system, which will be certified primarily on computer models. 
The Navy's W-88 warhead is in relatively good condition and 
over $1.0 billion is being spent on a new fuse system for the 
warhead. Certain common-sense questions must be asked why this 
W-88 is being replaced by the interoperable system that is 
proposed.
Campaigns
    The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns. The 
campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving 
the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada National 
Security Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign 
is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the 
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. 
These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the 
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile 
remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons 
testing.
    The committee remains concerned about the hurdles to 
ignition at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), as it is not 
at all clear what effect not achieving sustained burn or 
ignition will have on the stockpile stewardship program. NNSA 
needs to communicate clearly what the effects of this gap in 
knowledge will have on future computer calculations on the 
stockpile.
    The committee notes that as life extension programs take on 
more importance in the future years, the campaigns, 
particularly those associated with science, must not be put 
under pressure to curtail ongoing work and budget. The 
stockpile stewardship program by all accounts has exceeded all 
expectations compared to what it was envisioned in the 1990s. 
More importantly, it is the seed corn to bring in the best and 
brightest young post-doctorate scientists to work with senior 
scientists. Testimony this year before the committee by the 
three weapons laboratory directors and the National Academy of 
Sciences has supported the success of this program.

Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations

    The committee recommends $2.4 billion for site stewardship 
and nuclear operations. These two programs comprised the former 
readiness in the technical base (RTBF). This account funds 
facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex 
and includes construction funding for new facilities.
    The committee remains concerned about the additional 
increase of over $500.0 million for the main building to 
replace building 9212, while pushing the scope out for the 
other two phases to replace buildings 9215 and 9204-2E. The 
original top line cost estimate of $6.5 billion included all 
three phases. That appears not to be the case. So, in addition 
to the $500.0 million cost increase, the scope has been reduced 
or effectively the total cost has increased to a number that 
will far exceed the $6.5 billion top line. The committee still 
remains concerned about the technology and manufacturing 
readiness levels of the processing equipment that must go into 
the facility while it is still under design, particularly the 
microwave processing equipment. These readiness level issues 
should have been fully resolved before design of the facility 
was undertaken. The committee directs the Government 
Accountability Office to continue quarterly reviews of this 
project to the congressional defense committees.
    With the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Replacement project, the committee continues to be concerned 
about the lack of a long-term strategy for plutonium 
sustainment. Testimony by Dr. Charles F. McMillan before this 
committee indicated that a modular approach to a smaller series 
of buildings holds promise for lower costs and greater 
flexibility. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
and the Nuclear Weapons Council to examine the business case 
for such a concept and if proven feasible, to proceed with 
engineering design and cost estimation. If a detailed cost 
estimate past an initial business case analysis is performed 
for this modular building approach, the committee directs the 
Government Accountability Office to review the detailed cost 
estimate.
    The committee is supportive of the High Explosives Pressing 
Facility at Pantex and encourages the NNSA to make this 
facility a center of excellence in the NNSA for high explosives 
pressing and manufacturing.

Secure transportation asset

    The committee recommends $219.1 million for the secure 
transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The 
secure transportation asset is responsible for the 
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials and 
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure 
transport.

Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer

    The committee recommends $827.4 million for safeguards and 
security and the Chief Information Officer, the amount of the 
budget request.

Naval Reactors

    The committee recommends $1.3 billion for naval reactors, 
the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $2.0 million to the Naval Reactors and 
Infrastructure to $453.7 million and an increase to project 13-
D-904 KS Radiological Work and Storage Building of $2.6 
million. The committee supports the Spent Fuel Handling 
Facility to be constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

    The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $80.0 million 
to the budget request. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight 
responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the 
Department of Energy (DOE).
    The committee recommends funding for these programs as 
follows: $388.3 million for nonproliferation and verification 
research and development; $141.7 million for nonproliferation 
and international security; $369.6 million for international 
nuclear materials production and cooperation, the amount of the 
budget request; $582.6 million for fissile materials 
disposition; and $424.5 million for the global threat reduction 
initiative, the amount of the budget request.
    The committee notes that this year the NNSA moved the 
nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ($256.0 
million) to the Nonproliferation Account, which artificially 
inflates the top line for nonproliferation as compared to prior 
years. The result is that the nonproliferation account, 
excluding the counterterrorism line, decreases by $400.0 
million, 17.2 percent compared to fiscal year 2013.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee directs the 
Administrator of the NNSA to enter into an agreement with the 
National Academy of Sciences to critically review the status of 
the NNSA nonproliferation program and provide long-term 
direction to help stem any future possible decreases to the 
nonproliferation account, as there is clearly no shortage of 
nuclear nonproliferation work around the world.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

    The committee recommends $388.8 million for 
nonproliferation and verification research and development. The 
committee requests a 5-year road map for the nuclear detonation 
detection mission as integrated with the Department of Defense 
(DOD) no later than January 31, 2014.
    The committee continues to support the valuable research 
and development work that is conducted under this program. The 
additional funding will support high-priority research 
requirements, including work to support the long-term ability 
of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear 
weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, 
improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. 
Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal 
Government and serves as the technical basis for work by many 
other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security 
and DOD.

Nonproliferation and international security

    The committee recommends $150.1 million for 
nonproliferation and international security. The committee 
authorized a program last year for scientific engagement in the 
area of non-proliferation and encourages NNSA to budget for it 
accordingly.

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

    The committee recommends $369.6 million for international 
nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the 
budget request, and awaits a review of the Second-Line-of-
Defense program.

Fissile Materials Disposition program

    The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess 
weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in 
commercial power reactors. The U.S. and Russia have signed the 
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) where 
each country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of 
excess weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility 
that this plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into 
the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so 
that they will not produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium 
in fast reactors. After the U.S. considered more than 40 
different options on how to disposition surplus plutonium, a 
2010 amendment to the agreement eliminated immobilization as an 
option and selected MOX as the disposition path for the U.S. 
share of the plutonium. The U.S. has agreed to assist Russia in 
its effort with a contribution of $400.0 million.
    For fiscal year 2014, the Fissile Materials Disposition 
program, which will blend surplus weapons plutonium with 
depleted uranium to be used as commercial reactor fuel--MOX--
will slow down program and construction activities to conduct a 
strategic review. The committee is concerned that NNSA's 
decision to slow down construction and study alternatives to 
MOX could add considerable costs and uncertainty to the Fissile 
Materials Disposition Program, result in fines due to South 
Carolina of $100 million per year, strand surplus plutonium at 
Pantex and the Savannah River Site, and lead to the 
renegotiation of the PMDA. As such, the committee directs the 
strategic review to include but not be limited to MOX. In 
considering MOX, the strategic review must take account of the 
investments made to date and ways to increase efficiency and to 
reduce the cost of the MOX program. Because the committee added 
$80.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to the program, the committee 
stresses to the Department of Energy, that during the review, 
it minimizes any impact to the progress of the program.
    While the current MOX construction project is over 50 
percent complete, it is approximately $3.0 billion over budget 
(from $4.8 billion to $7.7 billion) and three years late to 
completion (fiscal year 2020 instead of fiscal year 2017) due 
to a range of factors including a lower than planned funding 
profile, poor contractor performance, and poor management by 
NNSA. The Government Accountability Office has testified before 
the committee that the total life cycle cost will exceed $24.2 
billion, including actual costs of $5.2 billion for prior years 
(fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2012). The estimate stretches 
out to fiscal year 2036. Last year, the fiscal year 2013 budget 
request had a proposal of funding the program at $921.0 million 
for fiscal 2013 and $721.0 million for fiscal year 2014, a 
reduction of $200.0 million. In an effort to minimize the 
impacts of the strategic review, the committee recommends 
$582.6 million for fissile materials disposition, an increase 
of $80.0 million above the amount of the budget request.

Global threat reduction initiative

    The committee recommends $424.5 million for the global 
threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request. 
The committee supports this effort to secure within 4 years 
vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb 
or in an improvised nuclear device.

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

    The committee recommends $256.0 million for nuclear 
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget 
request.

Office of the Administrator

    The committee recommends $397.8 million for the Office of 
the Administrator.

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.3 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at 
the DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support 
the cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and 
surface water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive 
and other waste generated through the production of nuclear 
weapons and weapons materials. The Environmental Management 
program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold 
War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials 
including plutonium and highly enriched uranium. The committee 
notes that a legislative assumption accompanies the budget 
request of $463.0 million for the uranium enrichment 
decontamination and decommissioning fund, to reauthorize 
section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42 
U.S.C. 2297g) for industry contributions. As in fiscal year 
2013, this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee 
assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year. 
Accordingly, the committee redistributes the $462.0 million 
associated with this assumption to other higher priority 
cleanup needs in the Department.

Savannah River Site

    The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah 
River Site cleanup, an increase of $150.0 million, to help 
accelerate and meet tank stabilization milestones under the 
consent order with the State of South Carolina. The committee 
commends the NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management 
for continuing operations at the H canyon, which is the only 
large-scale reprocessing line left in the United States. The H 
canyon is the Nation's last full reprocessing line and will 
continue to serve vital missions whether it involves purifying 
plutonium for mixed oxide fuel or down blending waste from 
Canada containing highly enriched uranium. The committee is 
aware of the critical milestones with the State of South 
Carolina for tank close-out by 2028. In that regard, the start-
up of the Salt Waste Processing Facility is a critical element 
to separate high level waste from the low level waste. The 
committee expects to be informed of the final baseline cost 
estimate for the Salt Waste Processing Facility due to the 
delays of the large vessels that are part of the facility.

Waste Treatment Plant

    The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste 
Treatment Plant (WTP) at DOE Hanford Site in Richland, 
Washington. Unlike the Savannah River Site, the composition of 
the waste in the tanks is non-uniform adding complexity to the 
separation and treatment of high and low level waste. The 
Department is encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low 
level waste streams and come to a decision on whether an 
additional pre-treatment plant is needed for the high level 
waste stream. The overall completion cost of the project has 
risen from $5.8 billion to $12.3 billion. The construction of 
an additional pre-treatment plant for high level waste will 
increase the cost further. The committee directs the Department 
to ensure the committee is informed of decisions on directly 
treating the low level waste and whether another pre-treatment 
plant is needed for the high level waste. Elsewhere in this 
Act, the committee has directed the Government Accountability 
Office to give the committee quarterly reviews of the project.

Hanford Site

    The committee recommends $941.8 million for the Hanford 
River Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization 
plant), an increase of $20.0 million for the River Corridor 
cleanup to help accelerate and stabilize the chromium 
groundwater contamination as well as nuclear facility cleanup.

Idaho National Laboratory

    The committee recommends $395.0 million, an increase of 
$30.0 million for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to remove 
the transuranic waste and other buried waste, as applicable, 
for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to continue 
sodium bearing waste treatment operations.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

    The committee recommends $259.8 million for Los Alamos 
National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for 
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and monitor 
groundwater contamination.

Oak Ridge Reservation

    The committee recommends $203.9 million for the Oak Ridge 
Reservation, an increase of $10.0 million to continue 
consolidation of special nuclear material associated with 
uranium 233.

Office of River Protection

    The committee recommends $1.2 billion, an increase of $50.0 
million for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 
disposition to increase surveillance and treat transuranic 
waste applicable to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    The committee recommends $236.4 million, an increase of 
$33.0 million to continue operations and replace aging 
equipment, especially those related to safety. The Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant is an important operation upon which the 
entire cleanup operations relies upon to dispose of defense 
transuranic waste.

Security

    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
security at the Richland/Hanford site to $89.1 million. The 
Department should accelerate efforts at Hanford to remove the 
category I nuclear material from the site to lower security 
costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
security at the Savannah River Site given the large quantity of 
category I nuclear material it must safeguard.

Technology Development

    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
technology development to $34.1 million.

Program Direction

    The committee recommends $300.8 million for program 
direction, an increase of $20.0 million. The Office of 
Environmental Management has a staff of over 1,400 civil 
servants who manage this long and difficult job of honoring the 
cleanup commitment made by the Department to the local 
communities at these former defense sites. The committee notes 
that the recommended level is still some $20.0 million short of 
the levels in fiscal years 2012 and 2103.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$749.1 million for other defense activities, the amount of the 
budget request; the committee recommends $251.9 million for 
health, safety, and security, the amount of the budget request; 
$196.3 million for specialized security, the amount of the 
budget request; $176.9 million for Legacy Management, the 
amount of the budget request; $118.8 million for other defense-
related administrative support, the amount of the budget 
request; and $5.0 million for the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, the amount of the budget request. Legislative 
proposals elsewhere in the Act speak to security at facilities 
containing categories I and II of nuclear material.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401 
et. Seq.) to establish an Office of Cost Analysis and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) whose director is Senate confirmed. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has recently 
established a position in an attempt to control program cost 
escalation, and they should be commended for this action. This 
provision makes the position and office permanent in statue 
given that several such positions and offices have been 
established and then de-established in both the Department of 
Energy and the NNSA. The cost growth of nearly every program in 
the NNSA requires a permanent office and position, but even 
more important is that the position be Senate confirmed so that 
individual answers to Congress on their views and progress in 
controlling cost growth of programs such as the B-61 life 
extension, the Uranium Processing Facility, the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Program, and eventually the Chemistry and Metallurgy 
Research Replacement Facility. The Government Accountability 
Office estimates that through 2031, the NNSA will undertake an 
estimated $200.0 billion in work scope whether it is life 
extension programs or recapitalizing new facilities in the 
complex. While the staff size of the NNSA is relatively small, 
approximately 1,800 federal positions, the committee expects 
the office to phase in its activities in over several years and 
to work jointly with the Department of Defense (DOD) CAPE 
Office, not only to train personnel but to conduct joint cost 
estimates of an entire strategic weapon system consisting of 
the delivery vehicle and the warhead. Currently, these 
estimates are conducted separately; the warhead through the 
Nuclear Weapons Council under the 6.X process, and the delivery 
systems through the DOD acquisition processes.

Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of nuclear 
        security enterprise (sec. 3112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to develop a plan for a common cost structure between 
activities at different sites with the purpose of comparing how 
efficiently different sites within the NNSA complex are 
carrying out similar activities. The Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has commented numerous times that each site in the 
NNSA complex uses a different cost accounting structure for 
direct and indirect costs. While such cost accounting 
structures are compliant with the requirements outlined in 
section 9904.418 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, it 
is virtually impossible to compare how funds are spent at 
different sites. This dilemma has resulted in a degraded 
ability to perform oversight of the NNSA sites and their 
contractors. GAO pointed out this issue with respect to 
accurate costing of facility operations in their report, GAO-
10-582, ``Actions Needed to Identify Total Costs of Weapons 
Complex Infrastructure and Research Production Capabilities,'' 
and earlier across the Department of Energy complex in GAO-05-
897, ``Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist for 
reducing Laboratory Contractors' Support Costs.'' The committee 
recognizes that such a transition will take time and effort 
given the number of different business systems at each site and 
accordingly gives a 4-year implementation date for bringing the 
NNSA complex to a common cost structure.
    Not later than June 15, 2014, the Director of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation shall brief the congressional 
defense committees on an assessment of the plan developed by 
the Administrator in this provision that includes the extent to 
which the plan will result in the improvement and integration 
of the financial management of the nuclear security enterprise 
and whether sufficient resources are available to enable 
implementation of the plan.

Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense facilities 
        (sec. 3113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to certify facilities containing categories 
I and II quantities of special nuclear material as meeting 
Department of Energy (DOE) security standards and regulations 
for physical security of facilities and surrounding 
infrastructure. For facilities that cannot be certified, the 
facility will stop routine operations until they meet the 
applicable standards and regulations. There is a national 
security waiver for continued operations of non-certified 
facilities.
    The security of special nuclear materials in quantities 
that present a threat to national security demand nothing short 
of perfection. There simply is no other acceptable standard. 
Accountability should be clear and direct starting at the 
highest official in the responsible organization. The Atomic 
Energy Act defines that official as the Secretary of Energy.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a 
system that tracks deficiencies in securing special nuclear 
materials at DOE atomic energy defense facilities. The system 
shall meet the auditing standards of the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO).
    The committee directs GAO to perform an audit of the 
tracking system no later than June 30, 2014, to and report the 
findings to the congressional defense committees.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a 
long-term strategy on exascale computing in the stockpile 
stewardship program. The provision would ensure that the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues its 
leadership role, a role held since the Manhattan Project's 
collaboration with John Von Neumann, of developing large-scale 
computing machines. This provision would require the NNSA to 
provide a long-term strategy for achieving exascale levels of 
computing (10 to the 18th floating point operations per second) 
that is necessary to model the full three-dimensional physics 
of a nuclear weapon.

Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a 
long-term plutonium strategy for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) as part of its Stockpile Stewardship and 
Management Plan. Plutonium sustainment is at the core of the 
NNSA stockpile mission. This integrated plan would ensure the 
NNSA remains focused on its plutonium mission.

Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the 
        replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
        Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 
        3116)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3144(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to permit consideration 
of a modular building strategy for engineering and design if it 
meets long term stockpile requirements.

Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117)

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the major capital construction design threshold for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration from $600,000 to $1.2 
million to account for increased construction costs.

Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life extension 
        programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3118)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4217(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 
2537(b)) to require an unclassified version of the cost 
estimate with a classified annex if necessary.

                          Subtitle C--Reports


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to undergo a review of 
their nuclear nonproliferation programs by the National 
Academies of Science. There is concern in the committee that as 
programs finish their near-term goals, there is no thought 
given to future efforts in nuclear non-proliferation. This 
provision seeks to ensure such future missions are considered.

Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of management 
        and operating contracts of the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration (sec. 3122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3121(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to lower the number of 
mandatory reports by the Government Accountability Office.

Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on 
        scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3123)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3122(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require a 30-day 
notice for extending the program on scientific engagement for 
non-proliferation to a new country. The provision gives the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration a 
national security waiver of the requirement as long as there is 
a report filed within 30 days.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3123(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) to change the Government 
Accountability Office reporting requirement from the end of 
project life to 1 year after the date of enactment in 
consultation with the congressional defense committees. The end 
of project life would require reporting for approximately the 
next 23 years with 90 such reports.

Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory Panel on the 
        Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3166(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the date of 
the interim report from 180 days after the date of enactment to 
180 days after the first meeting of the advisory panel.

                   Subtitle D--Technical Corrections


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (41 U.S.C. 2401 
et. seq.) with technical and clarifying corrections.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Atomic Energy Defense Act (42 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) with 
technical and clarifying corrections.

                              Budget Item


Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

    The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal 
year 2014 made an assumption of $463.0 million based on a 
legislative proposal being enacted to reauthorize section 1101 
of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42 USC 2297g). A 
similar legislative assumption was made in the fiscal year 2013 
request, which the committee assumed would not be reauthorized. 
Similar to last fiscal year, the committee assumes again that 
this legislation will not be reauthorized ($463.0 million 
decrease) and increases by $462.0 million the following 
accounts: Mixed Oxide Fuel construction, project 99-D-143, 
$80.0 million; Hanford River Corridor and other clean-up 
operations, $20.0 million; Idaho clean-up and waste 
disposition, $30.0 million; Hanford radioactive waste liquid 
tank stabilization, $50.0 million; Savannah River radioactive 
waste tank stabilization, $150.0 million; Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant, $33.0 million; Program Direction, $20.0 million; 
security at Richland and Hanford, $10.0 million; security at 
Savannah River Site, $10.0 million; and Technology Development, 
$10.0 million.

                       Items of Special Interest


B-61 Mod 12 life extension program

    The National Nuclear Security Agency has now entered phase 
6.3, engineering development, of the B-61 Mod 12 life extension 
program (LEP). The committee has reviewed the Weapons Design 
and Cost Report and is concerned about possible concurrency in 
the overall program, work load scheduling with other programs 
underway at the production sites (Kansas City, Y-12, and 
Pantex), as well as technology and manufacturing maturation. 
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to submit a report that examines key elements of the B-61 
Mod 12 LEP within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. These 
elements shall include: (1) technology readiness and 
manufacturing readiness levels; (2) research and development 
and productions concurrency; (3) work load and scheduling 
between the production sites and the weapons laboratories; (4) 
coordination and integration with other LEP programs such as 
W88 Alt 370, W76, W78/88, and long-range standoff warhead life 
extensions; and (5) ongoing developmental and production work 
by the Air Force for the tail kit guidance assembly. After the 
initial report, GAO shall review the B-61 at key phases of the 
6.X process (production engineering, first production, and 
quantity production) at the direction of the committee.

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital Projects

    Serious questions have been raised about the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) analyses of project 
alternatives associated with critical decision 1 under 
Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3B, ``Program and Project 
Management of Capital Assets'' stemming from NNSA's decisions 
in 2012 to cancel and defer two major nuclear facilities after 
spending more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars 
on the design of each facility. Specifically, NNSA announced in 
January 2012 its decision to cancel the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility (PDCF) after having spent 12 years and $730 
million on the facility design. PDCF was one of two planned 
high-hazard nuclear facilities needed to support NNSA's 
Plutonium Disposition Program. In cancelling PDCF, NNSA 
explained that other alternatives had been identified that 
would better meet the mission need. Also, in February 2012 NNSA 
announced its decision to defer for at least five years another 
planned major nuclear facility needed for plutonium research--
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) 
Nuclear Facility. NNSA spent about 10 years and more than $350 
million on the design of the CMRR Nuclear Facility. In 
cancelling this project, NNSA explained that it has adequate 
alternatives for conducting plutonium research in the near term 
using existing facilities and that it is investigating other 
alternatives to building the CMRR. Other projects that have had 
similar issues include NNSA's Radioactive Liquid Waste 
Treatment Facility (RLWTF) at Los Alamos and the Uranium 233 
Disposition Project managed by the Office of Environmental 
Management (EM). NNSA is currently reaffirming the CD-1 
decision regarding the alternatives analysis for the RLWTF and 
EM cancelled the U-233 project after spending approximately 
$255 million on design and construction.
    Given the amount of time and money spent on designing these 
facilities before they were cancelled and deferred, these 
decisions raise serious questions about how well NNSA 
scrutinizes the analyses of alternatives prior to submitting 
them for review and approval. The committee is also concerned 
about the extent to which other NNSA projects are proceeding 
through design without a rigorous analysis of alternatives and 
the extent to which NNSA projects may languish in the design 
phase without proper oversight to ensure that the need for 
these projects remains viable. As such, the committee directs 
that the Government Accountability Office investigate the 
following questions and report back to the committee with 
initial results no later than February 28, 2014 and a final 
report no later than September 9, 2013 on the following issues:
          (1) What is NNSA's process for conducting analyses of 
        alternatives prior to project starts, and to what 
        extent have projects deviated from the alternatives 
        originally selected for those projects?
          (2) How does NNSA plan for and execute its projects' 
        design phases prior to the establishment of a cost and 
        schedule baseline, and what improvements if any can be 
        made?
          (3) How much has NNSA spent in recent years on 
        capital acquisition projects prior to critical decision 
        2, the point at which 90 percent design maturity is now 
        required for high-hazard nuclear facilities, and how do 
        these costs compare to total project costs?
          (4) What are the roles, responsibilities, and 
        accountability of federal project directors during the 
        design phases of capital acquisition projects?

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project

    The committee notes that the Hanford Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant may change scope for the high level waste 
pre-treatment systems and begin treating only low level waste 
streams. The committee directs the Government Accountability 
Office to monitor the status of this construction and to 
periodically brief the committee on the status of construction 
and operations at the facility through the end of fiscal year 
2014.

Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that will 
        be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of 
        Environmental Management

    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
currently operates in a number of older nuclear facilities that 
will be transferred to the Office of Environmental Management 
(EM) for demolition and decontamination. The committee directs 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the 
inventory of facilities that NNSA plans to transfer to EM, 
which will have the responsibility to remove and remediate the 
surrounding area. GAO shall provide the results of this 
assessment to the committee by June 30, 2014, or at a date 
determined by the committee.

Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences and 
        other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission

    The committee directs the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to assess the impact 
that recent Office of Management and Budget directives have had 
on the ability of federal and national laboratory scientists 
and other technical personnel to travel to professional 
conferences and other venues associated with advancing 
scientific and technical knowledge that is of benefit to the 
NNSA mission. This assessment shall be due to the congressional 
defense committees by February 28, 2014.

Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic Energy 
        Defense Act

    The committee notes that the use of the term ``National 
Security Laboratory'' in the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 
U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) is not meant to preclude the use by the 
Federal Government of other Department of Energy national 
laboratories as defined in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 (Public Law 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801) who perform 
important work in a broad area of national security activities.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.9 million.
                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize 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 2014 budget request and show where the 
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
    SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

     SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY 2014       Senate       Senate
                                    Request       Change     Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
                           SERVICES COMMITTEE

                      National Defense, Base Budget

               Function 051, Department of Defense-Military

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations

Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.....     5,024,387      -19,984     5,004,403
Missile Procurement, Army......     1,334,083                  1,334,083
Procurement of Weapons &            1,597,267     -159,439     1,437,828
 Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army     1,540,437      -84,800     1,455,637
Other Procurement, Army........     6,465,218                  6,465,218
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.....    17,927,651       32,000    17,959,651
Weapons Procurement, Navy......     3,122,193        6,400     3,128,593
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy       589,267                    589,267
 & Marine Corps................
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy    14,077,804      155,300    14,233,104
Other Procurement, Navy........     6,310,257                  6,310,257
Procurement, Marine Corps......     1,343,511                  1,343,511
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force    11,398,901      -17,200    11,381,701
Missile Procurement, Air Force.     5,343,286                  5,343,286
Procurement of Ammunition, Air        759,442                    759,442
 Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force...    16,760,581                 16,760,581
Procurement, Defense-Wide......     4,534,083       11,844     4,545,927
Joint Urgent Operational Needs         98,800                     98,800
 Fund..........................
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement.    98,227,168      -75,879    98,151,289

Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test and     7,989,102       29,578     8,018,680
 Evaluation, Army..............
Research, Development, Test and    15,974,780     -100,875    15,873,905
 Evaluation, Navy..............
Research, Development, Test and    25,702,946      -49,600    25,653,346
 Evaluation, Air Force.........
Research, Development, Test and    17,667,108      142,156    17,809,264
 Evaluation, Defense-Wide......
Operational Test & Evaluation,        186,300                    186,300
 Defense.......................
Subtotal, Title II--Research,      67,520,236       21,259    67,541,495
 Development, Test and
 Evaluation....................

Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army..    35,073,077      616,600    35,689,677
Operation & Maintenance, Army       3,095,036       36,400     3,131,436
 Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Army       7,054,196       74,200     7,128,396
 National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy..    39,945,237      434,768    40,380,005
Operation & Maintenance, Marine     6,254,650       56,000     6,310,650
 Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy       1,197,752       10,800     1,208,552
 Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine       263,317                    263,317
 Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air       37,270,842      512,600    37,783,442
 Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air        3,164,607        8,700     3,173,307
 Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air        6,566,004       28,200     6,594,204
 National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance,           32,997,693     -244,401    32,753,292
 Defense-Wide..................
United States Court of Appeals         13,606                     13,606
 for the Armed Forces..........
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster       109,500                    109,500
 and Civic Aid.................
Cooperative Threat Reduction...       528,455                    528,455
DoD Acquisition Workforce             256,031                    256,031
 Development Fund..............
Environmental Restoration, Army       298,815                    298,815
Environmental Restoration, Navy       316,103                    316,103
Environmental Restoration, Air        439,820                    439,820
 Force.........................
Environmental Restoration,             10,757                     10,757
 Defense-Wide..................
Environmental Restoration,            237,443                    237,443
 Formerly Used Defense Sites...
Overseas Contingency Operations         5,000                      5,000
 Transfer Fund.................
Subtotal, Title III--Operation    175,097,941    1,533,867   176,631,808
 and Maintenance...............

Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel                130,399,881     -270,000   130,129,881
 Appropriations................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree           6,676,750                  6,676,750
 Health Fund Contributions.....
Subtotal, Title IV--Military      137,076,631     -270,000   136,806,631
 Personnel.....................

Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.....        25,158                     25,158
Working Capital Fund, Air Force        61,731                     61,731
Working Capital Fund, Defense-         46,428                     46,428
 Wide..........................
Working Capital Fund, Defense       1,412,510                  1,412,510
 Commissary Agency.............
National Defense Sealift Fund..       730,700     -112,200       618,500
Defense Health Program.........    33,054,528      218,000    33,272,528
Chemical Agents & Munitions         1,057,123                  1,057,123
 Destruction, Defense..........
Drug Interdiction & Counter-          938,545       -5,840       932,705
 Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General       312,131       35,900       348,031
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other         37,638,854      135,860    37,774,714
 Authorizations................

Total, Division A: Department     515,560,830    1,345,107   516,905,937
 of Defense Authorizations.....

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations

Military Construction
Army...........................     1,119,875                  1,119,875
Navy...........................     1,700,269      -85,673     1,614,596
Air Force......................     1,156,573     -192,377       964,196
Defense-Wide...................     3,985,300   -1,054,641     2,930,659
Army National Guard............       320,815                    320,815
Air National Guard.............       119,800                    119,800
Army Reserve...................       174,060                    174,060
Navy Reserve...................        32,976                     32,976
Air Force Reserve..............        45,659                     45,659
Chemical Demilitarization             122,536                    122,536
 Construction..................
NATO Security Investment              239,700                    239,700
 Program.......................
Subtotal, Military Construction     9,017,563   -1,332,691     7,684,872

Family Housing
Construction, Army.............        44,008      -16,600        27,408
Operation and Maintenance, Army       512,871                    512,871
Construction, Navy and Marine          73,407                     73,407
 Corps.........................
Operation and Maintenance, Navy       389,844                    389,844
 and Marine Corps..............
Construction, Air Force........        76,360                     76,360
Operation and Maintenance, Air        388,598                    388,598
 Force.........................
Operation and Maintenance,             55,845                     55,845
 Defense-Wide..................
Family Housing Improvement Fund         1,780                      1,780
Subtotal, Family Housing.......     1,542,713      -16,600     1,526,113

Base Realignment and Closure
Army...........................       180,401                    180,401
Navy...........................       144,580                    144,580
Air Force......................       126,376                    126,376
Subtotal, Base Realignment and        451,357                    451,357
 Closure.......................

Total, Division B: Military        11,011,633   -1,349,291     9,662,342
 Construction Authorizations...

Total 051, Department of          526,572,463       -4,184   526,568,279
 Defense-Military..............

                  Function 053, Atomic Energy Activities

Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent
 Federal Agency Authorizations

                   Department of Energy Authorizations
Energy Programs
Electricity Delivery and Energy        16,000      -16,000
 Reliability...................
Nuclear Energy.................        94,000                     94,000
Subtotal, Energy Programs......       110,000      -16,000        94,000

National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities.............     7,868,409                  7,868,409
Defense Nuclear                     2,140,142       80,000     2,220,142
 Nonproliferation..............
Naval Reactors.................     1,246,134                  1,246,134
Office of the Administrator....       397,784                    397,784
Subtotal, National Nuclear         11,254,685       80,000    11,732,469
 Security Administration.......

Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup..     5,316,909      -80,000     5,236,909
Other Defense Activities.......       749,080                    749,080
Subtotal, Environmental and         6,065,989      -80,000     5,985,989
 Other Defense Activities......
Subtotal, Department of Energy     17,828,458      -16,000    17,812,458
 Authorizations................

Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities             29,915                     29,915
 Safety Board..................
Subtotal, Independent Federal          29,915                     29,915
 Agency Authorization..........

Subtotal, Division C:              17,858,373      -16,000    17,842,373
 Department of Energy National
 Security and Independent
 Federal Agency Authorizations.

Total, 053, Atomic Energy          17,858,373      -16,000    17,842,373
 Defense Activities............

Total, National Defense, Base     544,430,836      -20,184   544,410,652
 Budget........................

      National Defense, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget

               Function 051, Department of Defense-Military

Procurement, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army.....       771,788                    771,788
Missile Procurement, Army......       128,645                    128,645
Procurement of Ammunition, Army       180,900                    180,900
Other Procurement, Army........       603,123                    603,123
Joint Improvised Explosive          1,000,000     -151,000       849,000
 Device Defeat Fund............
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.....       240,696                    240,696
Weapons Procurement, Navy......        86,500                     86,500
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy       206,821                    206,821
 & Marine Corps................
Other Procurement, Navy........        17,968                     17,968
Procurement, Marine Corps......       129,584                    129,584
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force       115,668                    115,668
Missile Procurement, Air Force.        24,200                     24,200
Procurement of Ammunition, Air        159,965                    159,965
 Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force...     2,574,846                  2,574,846
Procurement, Defense-Wide......       111,275                    111,275
Joint Urgent Operational Needs         15,000                     15,000
 Fund..........................
Subtotal, Procurement..........     6,366,979     -151,000     6,215,979

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, OCO
Research, Development, Test and         7,000                      7,000
 Evaluation, Army..............
Research, Development, Test and        34,426                     34,426
 Evaluation, Navy..............
Research, Development, Test and         9,000                      9,000
 Evaluation, Air Force.........
Research, Development, Test and        66,208                     66,208
 Evaluation, Defense-Wide......
Subtotal, Research,                   116,634                    116,634
 Development, Test and
 Evaluation....................

Operation and Maintenance, OCO
Operation & Maintenance, Army..    29,279,633      129,300    29,408,933
Operation & Maintenance, Army          42,935                     42,935
 Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Army         199,371                    199,371
 National Guard................
Afghanistan Security Forces         7,726,720                  7,726,720
 Fund..........................
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund       279,000      -29,000       250,000
Operation & Maintenance, Navy..     6,067,993                  6,067,993
Operation & Maintenance, Marine     2,669,815       26,000     2,695,815
 Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy          55,700                     55,700
 Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine        12,534                     12,534
 Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air       10,005,224                 10,005,224
 Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air           32,849                     32,849
 Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air           22,200                     22,200
 National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance,            6,435,078        7,000     6,442,078
 Defense-Wide..................
Subtotal, Operation and            62,829,052      133,300    62,962,352
 Maintenance...................

Military Personnel, OCO
Military Personnel                  9,689,307                  9,689,307
 Appropriations................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree             164,033                    164,033
 Health Fund Contributions.....
Subtotal, Military Personnel...     9,853,340                  9,853,340

Other Authorizations, OCO
Working Capital Fund, Army.....        44,732                     44,732
Working Capital Fund, Air Force        88,500                     88,500
Working Capital Fund, Defense-        131,678                    131,678
 Wide..........................
Defense Health Program.........       904,201                    904,201
Drug Interdiction & Counter-          376,305                    376,305
 Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General        10,766                     10,766
Subtotal, Other Authorizations.     1,556,182                  1,556,182

Total, National Defense, OCO       80,722,187      -17,700    80,704,487
 Budget........................

MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS
Department of Defense-Military,   526,572,463       -4,184   526,568,279
 Base Budget (051).............
Department of Defense-Military,    80,722,187      -17,700    80,704,487
 OCO Budget (051)..............
Total, Department of Defense-     607,294,650      -21,884   607,272,766
 Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense              17,858,373      -16,000    17,842,373
 activities, Base Budget (053).
Total, National Defense (050)..   625,153,023      -37,884   625,115,139

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces                67,800                     67,800
 Retirement Home (Function 600)

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer         [4,000,000]                [4,000,000]
 Authority (non-add)...........
Title XV--Special Transfer        [4,000,000]                [4,000,000]
 Authority (non-add)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

              NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY 2014       Senate       Senate
                                    Request       Change     Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Defense Discretionary Authorizations
      (Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee)

National Defense (050)
Department of Defense-Military,   526,572,463       -4,184   526,568,279
 Base Budget (051).............
Department of Defense-Military,    80,722,187      -17,700    80,704,487
 OCO Budget (051)..............
Atomic energy defense              17,858,373      -16,000    17,842,373
 activities, Base Budget (053).
Total, National Defense (050)..   625,153,023      -37,884   625,115,139

                Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations
  (Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committees or
                           Already Authorized)

Department of Defense-Military (051)
Defense Production Act                 25,135                     25,135
 Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of        10,000                     10,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of           30,000                     30,000
 DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Department of Defense-       65,135                     65,135
 Military (051)................

Atomic energy defense activites (053)
Formerly Utilized Sites               104,000                    104,000
 Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense       104,000                    104,000
 activities (053)..............

Defense-related activities (054)
Other Discretionary Programs...     7,407,000                  7,407,000
Subtotal, Defense-related           7,407,000                  7,407,000
 activities (054)..............
Total, Other Defense                7,576,135                  7,576,135
 Discretionary Authorizations
 (050).........................

             Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050)

National Defense (050)
Department of Defense--Military   607,359,785      -21,884   607,337,901
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              17,962,373      -16,000    17,946,373
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          7,407,000                  7,407,000
 (054).........................
Total, Discretionary Budget       632,729,158      -37,884   632,691,274
 Authority Implication, 050....

     National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)

Department of Defense-Military (051)
Concurrent receipt accrual          7,126,000                  7,126,000
 payments to the Military
 Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD      1,156,000                  1,156,000
 Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............    -1,752,000                 -1,752,000
Subtotal, Department of Defense-    6,530,000                  6,530,000
 Military (051)................

Atomic energy defense activites (053)
Energy employees occupational       1,281,000                  1,281,000
 illness compensation programs
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense     1,281,000                  1,281,000
 activities (053)..............

Defense-related activities (054)
Radiation exposure compensation        76,000                     76,000
 trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund        514,000                    514,000
 and other.....................
Subtotal, Defense-related             590,000                    590,000
 activities (054)..............
Total, National Defense             8,401,000                  8,401,000
 Mandatory Programs (050)......

      Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)

Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Department of Defense--Military   613,889,785      -21,884   613,867,901
 (051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense              19,243,373      -16,000    19,227,373
 Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities          7,997,000                  7,997,000
 (054).........................
Total, Budget Authority           641,130,158      -37,884   641,092,274
 Implication (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT




SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2014 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
 Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        FIXED WING
   01   UTILITY F/W                   1          19,730                                        1          19,730
         AIRCRAFT..........
   03   AERIAL COMMON                 4         142,050          -4               0            0         142,050
         SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
           Reduction of 4                                      [-4]       [-114,700]
           EMARSS LRIP
           aircraft........
           Modification of                                                 [114,700]
           transferred
           Liberty A/C.....
   04   MQ-1 UAV...........          15         518,460                                       15         518,460
   05   RQ-11 (RAVEN)......                      10,772                                                   10,772
        ROTARY
   06   HELICOPTER, LIGHT            10          96,227                                       10          96,227
         UTILITY (LUH).....
   07   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK           42         608,469                                       42         608,469
         IIIA REMAN........
   08      AH-64 APACHE                         150,931                                                  150,931
           BLOCK IIIA REMAN
           ADV PROC (CY)...
   09   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK                            0                                                        0
         IIIB NEW BUILD....
   10      AH-64 APACHE                               0                                                        0
           BLOCK IIIB NEW
           BUILD ADV PROC
           (CY)............
   12   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M            65       1,046,976                     -19,984           65       1,026,992
         MODEL (MYP).......
           Transfer to PE                                                  [-19,984]
           0203774A at Army
           request.........
   12   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M                       116,001                                                  116,001
         MODEL (MYP).......
   14   CH-47 HELICOPTER...          28         801,650                                       28         801,650
   15      CH-47 HELICOPTER                      98,376                                                   98,376
           ADV PROC (CY)...
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   16   MQ-1 PAYLOAD--UAS..                      97,781                                                   97,781
   17   GUARDRAIL MODS                           10,262                                                   10,262
         (MIP).............
   18   MULTI SENSOR ABN                         12,467                                                   12,467
         RECON (MIP).......
   19   AH-64 MODS.........                      53,559                                                   53,559
   20   CH-47 CARGO                             149,764                                                  149,764
         HELICOPTER MODS
         (MYP).............
   21   UTILITY/CARGO                            17,500                                                   17,500
         AIRPLANE MODS.....
   22   UTILITY HELICOPTER          167          74,095                                      167          74,095
         MODS..............
   23   KIOWA MODS WARRIOR.           3         184,044                                        3         184,044
   24   NETWORK AND MISSION                     152,569                                                  152,569
         PLAN..............
   25   COMMS, NAV                               92,779                                                   92,779
         SURVEILLANCE......
   26   GATM ROLLUP........                      65,613                                                   65,613
   27   RQ-7 UAV MODS......                     121,902                                                  121,902
        GROUND SUPPORT
         AVIONICS
   28   AIRCRAFT                                 47,610                                                   47,610
         SURVIVABILITY
         EQUIPMENT.........
   29   SURVIVABILITY CM...                       5,700                                                    5,700
   30   CMWS...............                     126,869                                                  126,869
        OTHER SUPPORT
   31   AVIONICS SUPPORT            705           6,809                                      705           6,809
         EQUIPMENT.........
   32   COMMON GROUND                            65,397                                                   65,397
         EQUIPMENT.........
   33   AIRCREW INTEGRATED                       45,841                                                   45,841
         SYSTEMS...........
   34   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL                      79,692                                                   79,692
   35   INDUSTRIAL                                1,615                                                    1,615
         FACILITIES........
   36   LAUNCHER, 2.75                            2,877                                                    2,877
         ROCKET............
        AIRCRAFT                              5,024,387                     -19,984                    5,004,403
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
         Total.............

        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        SURFACE-TO-AIR
         MISSILE SYSTEM
   02   MSE MISSILE........          56         540,401                                       56         540,401
        AIR-TO-SURFACE
         MISSILE SYSTEM
   03   HELLFIRE SYS                              4,464                                                    4,464
         SUMMARY...........
        ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
         MISSILE SYS
   04   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)            449         110,510                                      449         110,510
         SYSTEM SUMMARY....
   05   TOW 2 SYSTEM                988          49,354                                      988          49,354
         SUMMARY...........
   06      TOW 2 SYSTEM                          19,965                                                   19,965
           SUMMARY ADV PROC
           (CY)............
   07   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET        1,788         237,216                                    1,788         237,216
         (GMLRS)...........
   08   MLRS REDUCED RANGE        2,412          19,022                                    2,412          19,022
         PRACTICE ROCKETS
         (RRPR)............
        MODIFICATIONS
   11   PATRIOT MODS.......                     256,438                                                  256,438
   12   STINGER MODS.......                      37,252                                                   37,252
   13   ITAS/TOW MODS......                      20,000                                                   20,000
   14   MLRS MODS..........                      11,571                                                   11,571
   15   HIMARS                                    6,105                                                    6,105
         MODIFICATIONS.....
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   16   SPARES AND REPAIR                        11,222                                                   11,222
         PARTS.............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   17   AIR DEFENSE TARGETS                       3,530                                                    3,530
   18   ITEMS LESS THAN                           1,748                                                    1,748
         $5.0M (MISSILES)..
   19   PRODUCTION BASE                           5,285                                                    5,285
         SUPPORT...........
        MISSILE                               1,334,083                           0                    1,334,083
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
         Total.............

        PROCUREMENT OF
         W&TCV, ARMY
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
   01   STRYKER VEHICLE....                     374,100                                                  374,100
        MODIFICATION OF
         TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
   02   STRYKER (MOD)......                      20,522                                                   20,522
   03   FIST VEHICLE (MOD).                      29,965                                                   29,965
   04   BRADLEY PROGRAM                         158,000                                                  158,000
         (MOD).............
   05   HOWITZER, MED SP FT                       4,769                                                    4,769
         155MM M109A6 (MOD)
   06   PALADIN INTEGRATED           18         260,177                     -40,700           18         219,477
         MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
           Transfer to PE                                                  [-40,700]
           0604854A at Army
           Request.........
   07   IMPROVED RECOVERY                       111,031                                                  111,031
         VEHICLE (M88A2
         HERCULES).........
   08   ASSAULT BRIDGE                            2,500                                                    2,500
         (MOD).............
   09   ASSAULT BREACHER             14          62,951                                       14          62,951
         VEHICLE...........
   10   M88 FOV MODS.......                      28,469                                                   28,469
   11   JOINT ASSAULT                             2,002                                                    2,002
         BRIDGE............
   12   M1 ABRAMS TANK                          178,100                                                  178,100
         (MOD).............
   13   ABRAMS UPGRADE                                0                                                        0
         PROGRAM...........
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   14   PRODUCTION BASE                           1,544                                                    1,544
         SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
        WEAPONS & OTHER
         COMBAT VEHICLES
   15   INTEGRATED AIR            1,424          69,147      -1,424         -69,147                            0
         BURST WEAPON
         SYSTEM FAMILY.....
           XM25 Counter                                    [-1,424]        [-69,147]
           Defilade Target
           Engagement......
   18   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....                       5,310                                                    5,310
   19   XM320 GRENADE             5,061          24,049                                    5,061          24,049
         LAUNCHER MODULE
         (GLM).............
   21   CARBINE............      41,897          70,846     -29,897         -49,592       12,000          21,254
           Individual                                     [-29,897]        [-49,592]
           Carbine early to
           need............
   23   COMMON REMOTELY             242          56,580                                      242          56,580
         OPERATED WEAPONS
         STATION...........
   24   HANDGUN............                         300                                                      300
        MOD OF WEAPONS AND
         OTHER COMBAT VEH
   26   M777 MODS..........                      39,300                                                   39,300
   27   M4 CARBINE MODS....                      10,300                                                   10,300
   28   M2 50 CAL MACHINE                        33,691                                                   33,691
         GUN MODS..........
   29   M249 SAW MACHINE                          7,608                                                    7,608
         GUN MODS..........
   30   M240 MEDIUM MACHINE                       2,719                                                    2,719
         GUN MODS..........
   31   SNIPER RIFLES                             7,017                                                    7,017
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   32   M119 MODIFICATIONS.                      18,707                                                   18,707
   33   M16 RIFLE MODS.....                       2,136                                                    2,136
   34   MODIFICATIONS LESS                        1,569                                                    1,569
         THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   35   ITEMS LESS THAN                           2,024                                                    2,024
         $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
   36   PRODUCTION BASE                          10,108                                                   10,108
         SUPPORT (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
   37   INDUSTRIAL                                  459                                                      459
         PREPAREDNESS......
   38   SMALL ARMS                                1,267                                                    1,267
         EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
         ENH PROG).........
        PROCUREMENT OF                        1,597,267                    -159,439                    1,437,828
         W&TCV, ARMY Total.

        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
        SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    2   CTG, 5.56MM, ALL                        112,167                     -25,000                       87,167
         TYPES.............
           Program decrease                                                [-25,000]
    3   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL                         58,571                      -5,000                       53,571
         TYPES.............
           Program decrease                                                 [-5,000]
    4   CTG, HANDGUN, ALL                         9,858                                                    9,858
         TYPES.............
    5   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL                        80,037                     -25,000                       55,037
         TYPES.............
           Program decrease                                                [-25,000]
    7   CTG, 25MM, ALL                           16,496                     -10,300                        6,196
         TYPES.............
           Program decrease                                                [-10,300]
    8   CTG, 30MM, ALL                           69,533                     -19,500                       50,033
         TYPES.............
           Program decrease                                                [-19,500]
    9   CTG, 40MM, ALL                           55,781                                                   55,781
         TYPES.............
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
   10   60MM MORTAR, ALL                         38,029                                                   38,029
         TYPES.............
   11   81MM MORTAR, ALL                         24,656                                                   24,656
         TYPES.............
   12   120MM MORTAR, ALL                        60,781                                                   60,781
         TYPES.............
        TANK AMMUNITION
   13   CARTRIDGES, TANK,                       121,551                                                  121,551
         105MM AND 120MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   14   ARTILLERY                                39,825                                                   39,825
         CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
         105MM, ALL TYPES..
   15   ARTILLERY                                37,902                                                   37,902
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   16   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED         802          67,896                                      802          67,896
         RANGE M982........
   17   ARTILLERY                                71,205                                                   71,205
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
        ROCKETS
   20   SHOULDER LAUNCHED                         1,012                                                    1,012
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   21   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,                       108,476                                                  108,476
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   22   DEMOLITION                               24,074                                                   24,074
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   23   GRENADES, ALL TYPES                      33,242                                                   33,242
   24   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.                       7,609                                                    7,609
   25   SIMULATORS, ALL                           5,228                                                    5,228
         TYPES.............
        MISCELLANEOUS
   26   AMMO COMPONENTS,                         16,700                                                   16,700
         ALL TYPES.........
   27   NON-LETHAL                                7,366                                                    7,366
         AMMUNITION, ALL
         TYPES.............
   28   CAD/PAD ALL TYPES..                       3,614                                                    3,614
   29   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       12,423                                                   12,423
         MILLION (AMMO)....
   30   AMMUNITION PECULIAR                      16,604                                                   16,604
         EQUIPMENT.........
   31   FIRST DESTINATION                        14,328                                                   14,328
         TRANSPORTATION
         (AMMO)............
   32   CLOSEOUT                                    108                                                      108
         LIABILITIES.......
        PRODUCTION BASE
         SUPPORT
   33   PROVISION OF                            242,324                                                  242,324
         INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES........
   34   CONVENTIONAL                            179,605                                                  179,605
         MUNITIONS
         DEMILITARIZATION..
   35   ARMS INITIATIVE....                       3,436                                                    3,436
        PROCUREMENT OF                        1,540,437                     -84,800                    1,455,637
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
         Total.............

        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    1   TACTICAL TRAILERS/           25           4,000                                       25           4,000
         DOLLY SETS........
    2   SEMITRAILERS,                40           6,841                                       40           6,841
         FLATBED:..........
    3   FAMILY OF MEDIUM            837         223,910                                      837         223,910
         TACTICAL VEH
         (FMTV)............
    4   FIRETRUCKS &                             11,880                                                   11,880
         ASSOCIATED
         FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
    5   FAMILY OF HEAVY             220          14,731                                      220          14,731
         TACTICAL VEHICLES
         (FHTV)............
    6   PLS ESP............          74          44,252                                       74          44,252
    9   HVY EXPANDED MOBILE          77          39,525                                       77          39,525
         TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
         SERV..............
   10   HMMWV                                         0                                                        0
         RECAPITALIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   11   TACTICAL WHEELED            746          51,258                                      746          51,258
         VEHICLE PROTECTION
         KITS..............
   12   MODIFICATION OF IN           34          49,904                                       34          49,904
         SVC EQUIP.........
   13   MINE-RESISTANT                            2,200                                                    2,200
         AMBUSH-PROTECTED
         (MRAP) MODS.......
        NON-TACTICAL
         VEHICLES
   14   HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN                         400                                                      400
   15   PASSENGER CARRYING                          716                                                      716
         VEHICLES..........
   16   NONTACTICAL                               5,619                                                    5,619
         VEHICLES, OTHER...
        COMM--JOINT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   18   WIN-T--GROUND             2,139         973,477                                    2,139         973,477
         FORCES TACTICAL
         NETWORK...........
   19   SIGNAL                                   14,120                                                   14,120
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   20   JOINT INCIDENT SITE                       7,869                                                    7,869
         COMMUNICATIONS
         CAPABILITY........
   21   JCSE EQUIPMENT                            5,296                                                    5,296
         (USREDCOM)........
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   22   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE           31         147,212                                       31         147,212
         WIDEBAND SATCOM
         SYSTEMS...........
   23   TRANSPORTABLE                             7,998                                                    7,998
         TACTICAL COMMAND
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   24   SHF TERM...........                       7,232                                                    7,232
   25   NAVSTAR GLOBAL                            3,308                                                    3,308
         POSITIONING SYSTEM
         (SPACE)...........
   26   SMART-T (SPACE)....                      13,992                                                   13,992
   28   GLOBAL BRDCST SVC--          94          28,206                                       94          28,206
         GBS...............
   29   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP          15           2,778                                       15           2,778
         (TAC SAT).........
        COMM--C3 SYSTEM
   31   ARMY GLOBAL CMD &                        17,590                                                   17,590
         CONTROL SYS
         (AGCCS)...........
        COMM--COMBAT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   32   ARMY DATA                                   786                                                      786
         DISTRIBUTION
         SYSTEM (DATA
         RADIO)............
   33   JOINT TACTICAL           10,523         382,930                                   10,523         382,930
         RADIO SYSTEM......
   34   MID-TIER NETWORKING         130          19,200                                      130          19,200
         VEHICULAR RADIO
         (MNVR)............
   35   RADIO TERMINAL SET,                       1,438                                                    1,438
         MIDS LVT(2).......
   36   SINCGARS FAMILY....                       9,856                                                    9,856
   37   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS--      2,066          14,184                                    2,066          14,184
         OPA2..............
   38   TRACTOR DESK.......                       6,271                                                    6,271
   40   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT                       1,030                                                    1,030
         PROGRAM COMM/
         ELECTRONICS.......
   41   TACTICAL                 15,967          31,868                                   15,967          31,868
         COMMUNICATIONS AND
         PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
   42   UNIFIED COMMAND                          18,000                                                   18,000
         SUITE.............
   44   RADIO, IMPROVED HF                        1,166                                                    1,166
         (COTS) FAMILY.....
   45   FAMILY OF MED COMM                       22,867                                                   22,867
         FOR COMBAT
         CASUALTY CARE.....
        COMM--INTELLIGENCE
         COMM
   48   CI AUTOMATION                             1,512                                                    1,512
         ARCHITECTURE......
   49   ARMY CA/MISO GPF            323          61,096                                      323          61,096
         EQUIPMENT.........
        INFORMATION
         SECURITY
   50   TSEC--ARMY KEY MGT                       13,890                                                   13,890
         SYS (AKMS)........
   51   INFORMATION SYSTEM        1,133          23,245                                    1,133          23,245
         SECURITY PROGRAM-
         ISSP..............
   52   BIOMETRICS                                3,800                                                    3,800
         ENTERPRISE........
   53   COMMUNICATIONS              877          24,711                                      877          24,711
         SECURITY (COMSEC).
        COMM--LONG HAUL
         COMMUNICATIONS
   55   BASE SUPPORT                             43,395                                                   43,395
         COMMUNICATIONS....
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   57   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                     104,577                                                  104,577
   58   DEFENSE MESSAGE                             612                                                      612
         SYSTEM (DMS)......
   59   EMERGENCY                                39,000                                                   39,000
         MANAGEMENT
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   60   INSTALLATION INFO                       248,477                                                  248,477
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   64   JTT/CIBS-M.........                         824                                                      824
   65   PROPHET GROUND.....          10          59,198                                       10          59,198
   67   DCGS-A (MIP).......       2,717         267,214                                    2,717         267,214
   68   JOINT TACTICAL                5           9,899                                        5           9,899
         GROUND STATION
         (JTAGS)...........
   69   TROJAN (MIP).......                      24,598                                                   24,598
   70   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP                       1,927                                                    1,927
         (INTEL SPT) (MIP).
   71   CI HUMINT AUTO                            6,169                                                    6,169
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
   72   MACHINE FOREIGN                           2,924                                                    2,924
         LANGUAGE
         TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
         M.................
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   74   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER          18          40,735                                       18          40,735
         MORTAR RADAR......
   75   EW PLANNING &                                13                                                       13
         MANAGEMENT TOOLS
         (EWPMT)...........
   76   ENEMY UAS..........                       2,800                                                    2,800
   79   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/                      1,237                                                    1,237
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
   80   CI MODERNIZATION...                       1,399                                                    1,399
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   82   SENTINEL MODS......          86          47,983                                       86          47,983
   83   SENSE THROUGH THE                           142                                                      142
         WALL (STTW).......
   84   NIGHT VISION              6,879         202,428                                    6,879         202,428
         DEVICES...........
   85   LONG RANGE ADVANCED                       5,183                                                    5,183
         SCOUT SURVEILLANCE
         SYSTEM............
   86   NIGHT VISION,                            14,074                                                   14,074
         THERMAL WPN SIGHT.
   87   SMALL TACTICAL            1,491          22,300                                    1,491          22,300
         OPTICAL RIFLE
         MOUNTED MLRF......
   89   GREEN LASER                               1,016                                                    1,016
         INTERDICTION
         SYSTEM (GLIS).....
   90   INDIRECT FIRE                 5          55,354                                        5          55,354
         PROTECTION FAMILY
         OF SYSTEMS........
   91   ARTILLERY ACCURACY                          800                                                      800
         EQUIP.............
   92   PROFILER...........                       3,027                                                    3,027
   93   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP                       1,185                                                    1,185
         (FIREFINDER
         RADARS)...........
   94   JOINT BATTLE              3,866         103,214                                    3,866         103,214
         COMMAND--PLATFORM
         (JBC-P)...........
   96   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP         167          26,037                                      167          26,037
         (LLDR)............
   97   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL         120          23,100                                      120          23,100
         SYSTEM............
   98   COUNTERFIRE RADARS.          19         312,727                                       19         312,727
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
  101   FIRE SUPPORT C2             574          43,228                                      574          43,228
         FAMILY............
  102   BATTLE COMMAND              167          14,446                                      167          14,446
         SUSTAINMENT
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
  103   FAAD C2............                       4,607                                                    4,607
  104   AIR & MSL DEFENSE             8          33,090                                        8          33,090
         PLANNING & CONTROL
         SYS...............
  105   IAMD BATTLE COMMAND                      21,200                                                   21,200
         SYSTEM............
  107   LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE                       1,795                                                    1,795
         SUPPORT (LCSS)....
  109   NETWORK MANAGEMENT                       54,327                                                   54,327
         INITIALIZATION AND
         SERVICE...........
  110   MANEUVER CONTROL          2,959          59,171                                    2,959          59,171
         SYSTEM (MCS)......
  111   GLOBAL COMBAT                            83,936                                                   83,936
         SUPPORT SYSTEM-
         ARMY (GCSS-A).....
  113   LOGISTICS                                25,476                                                   25,476
         AUTOMATION........
  114   RECONNAISSANCE AND          212          19,341                                      212          19,341
         SURVEYING
         INSTRUMENT SET....
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  115   ARMY TRAINING                            11,865                                                   11,865
         MODERNIZATION.....
  116   AUTOMATED DATA                          219,431                                                  219,431
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
  117   GENERAL FUND                              6,414                                                    6,414
         ENTERPRISE
         BUSINESS SYSTEMS
         FAM...............
  118   HIGH PERF COMPUTING                      62,683                                                   62,683
         MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
  120   RESERVE COMPONENT                        34,951                                                   34,951
         AUTOMATION SYS
         (RCAS)............
  121   ITEMS LESS THAN                           7,440                                                    7,440
         $5.0M (A/V).......
  122   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M          16           1,615                                       16           1,615
         (SURVEYING
         EQUIPMENT)........
  123   PRODUCTION BASE                             554                                                      554
         SUPPORT (C-E).....
  124   BCT EMERGING                             20,000                                                   20,000
         TECHNOLOGIES......
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  124A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                       3,558                                                    3,558
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  126   FAMILY OF NON-                              762                                                      762
         LETHAL EQUIPMENT
         (FNLE)............
  127   BASE DEFENSE              3,759          20,630                                    3,759          20,630
         SYSTEMS (BDS).....
  128   CBRN DEFENSE.......      24,530          22,151                                   24,530          22,151
        BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
  130   TACTICAL BRIDGING..           2          14,188                                        2          14,188
  131   TACTICAL BRIDGE,             34          23,101                                       34          23,101
         FLOAT-RIBBON......
  132   COMMON BRIDGE                            15,416                                                   15,416
         TRANSPORTER (CBT)
         RECAP.............
        ENGINEER (NON-
         CONSTRUCTION)
         EQUIPMENT
  134   GRND STANDOFF MINE          311          50,465                                      311          50,465
         DETECTN SYSM
         (GSTAMIDS)........
  135   ROBOTIC COMBAT                            6,490                                                    6,490
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (RCSS)............
  136   EOD ROBOTICS                              1,563                                                    1,563
         SYSTEMS
         RECAPITALIZATION..
  137   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE        6,774          20,921                                    6,774          20,921
         DISPOSAL EQPMT
         (EOD EQPMT).......
  138   REMOTE DEMOLITION                           100                                                      100
         SYSTEMS...........
  139   < $5M, COUNTERMINE           70           2,271                                       70           2,271
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMBAT SERVICE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  140   HEATERS AND ECU'S..         464           7,269                                      464           7,269
  141   LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS                          200                                                      200
         AND LATRINES......
  142   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT                       1,468                                                    1,468
  143   PERSONNEL RECOVERY       31,530          26,526                                   31,530          26,526
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (PRSS)............
  144   GROUND SOLDIER            5,547          81,680                                    5,547          81,680
         SYSTEM............
  147   FIELD FEEDING               217          28,096                                      217          28,096
         EQUIPMENT.........
  148   CARGO AERIAL DEL &        6,904          56,150                                    6,904          56,150
         PERSONNEL
         PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
  149   MORTUARY AFFAIRS            248           3,242                                      248           3,242
         SYSTEMS...........
  150   FAMILY OF ENGR              289          38,141                                      289          38,141
         COMBAT AND
         CONSTRUCTION SETS.
  151   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M         210           5,859                                      210           5,859
         (ENG SPT).........
        PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
  152   DISTRIBUTION                508          60,612                                      508          60,612
         SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
         & WATER...........
        MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
  153   COMBAT SUPPORT            3,258          22,042                                    3,258          22,042
         MEDICAL...........
  154   MEDEVAC MISSON               88          35,318                                       88          35,318
         EQUIPMENT PACKAGE
         (MEP).............
        MAINTENANCE
         EQUIPMENT
  155   MOBILE MAINTENANCE           25          19,427                                       25          19,427
         EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
  156   ITEMS LESS THAN             347           3,860                                      347           3,860
         $5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
        CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT
  157   GRADER, ROAD MTZD,                        2,000                                                    2,000
         HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
  159   SCRAPERS,                    52          36,078                                       52          36,078
         EARTHMOVING.......
  160   MISSION MODULES--            13           9,721                                       13           9,721
         ENGINEERING.......
  162   HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR         109          50,122                                      109          50,122
  163   TRACTOR, FULL                84          28,828                                       84          28,828
         TRACKED...........
  164   ALL TERRAIN CRANES.          19          19,863                                       19          19,863
  166   HIGH MOBILITY                34          23,465                                       34          23,465
         ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
         (HMEE)............
  168   ENHANCED RAPID              109          13,590                                      109          13,590
         AIRFIELD
         CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
  169   CONST EQUIP ESP....          80          16,088                                       80          16,088
  170   ITEMS LESS THAN              66           6,850                                       66           6,850
         $5.0M (CONST
         EQUIP)............
        RAIL FLOAT
         CONTAINERIZATION
         EQUIPMENT
  171   ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP                      38,007                                                   38,007
  172   ITEMS LESS THAN                          10,605                                                   10,605
         $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
        GENERATORS
  173   GENERATORS AND            5,239         129,437                                    5,239         129,437
         ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  174   ROUGH TERRAIN                             1,250                                                    1,250
         CONTAINER HANDLER
         (RTCH)............
  175   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS          60           8,260                                       60           8,260
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
  176   COMBAT TRAINING             309         121,710                                      309         121,710
         CENTERS SUPPORT...
  177   TRAINING DEVICES,         8,181         225,200                                    8,181         225,200
         NONSYSTEM.........
  178   CLOSE COMBAT                 15          30,063                                       15          30,063
         TACTICAL TRAINER..
  179   AVIATION COMBINED             2          34,913                                        2          34,913
         ARMS TACTICAL
         TRAINER...........
  180   GAMING TECHNOLOGY                         9,955                                                    9,955
         IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
         TRAINING..........
        TEST MEASURE AND
         DIG EQUIPMENT
         (TMD)
  181   CALIBRATION SETS              3           8,241                                        3           8,241
         EQUIPMENT.........
  182   INTEGRATED FAMILY         1,810          67,506                                    1,810          67,506
         OF TEST EQUIPMENT
         (IFTE)............
  183   TEST EQUIPMENT            2,105          18,755                                    2,105          18,755
         MODERNIZATION
         (TEMOD)...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  184   M25 STABILIZED              647           5,110                                      647           5,110
         BINOCULAR.........
  185   RAPID EQUIPPING                           5,110                                                    5,110
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
  186   PHYSICAL SECURITY                        62,904                                                   62,904
         SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
  187   BASE LEVEL COMMON                         1,427                                                    1,427
         EQUIPMENT.........
  188   MODIFICATION OF IN-       1,936          96,661                                    1,936          96,661
         SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
         3)................
  189   PRODUCTION BASE                           2,450                                                    2,450
         SUPPORT (OTH).....
  190   SPECIAL EQUIPMENT            69          11,593                                       69          11,593
         FOR USER TESTING..
  191   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS        1,597           8,948                                    1,597           8,948
         OPA3..............
  192   TRACTOR YARD.......                       8,000                                                    8,000
        OPA2
  195   INITIAL SPARES--C&E          15          59,700                                       15          59,700
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,                    6,465,218                           0                    6,465,218
         ARMY Total........

        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        COMBAT AIRCRAFT
    1   EA-18G.............          21       2,001,787                                       21       2,001,787
    3   F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER)                     206,551                                                  206,551
         HORNET............
    5   JOINT STRIKE                  4       1,135,444                                        4       1,135,444
         FIGHTER CV........
    6      JOINT STRIKE                          94,766                                                   94,766
           FIGHTER CV--ADV
           PROC (CY).......
    7   JSF STOVL..........           6       1,267,260                                        6       1,267,260
    8      JSF STOVL--ADV                       103,195                                                  103,195
           PROC (CY).......
    9   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).          18       1,432,573                                       18       1,432,573
   10      V-22 (MEDIUM                          55,196                                                   55,196
           LIFT)--ADV PROC
           (CY)............
   11   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/         25         749,962                                       25         749,962
         AH-1Z)............
   12      H-1 UPGRADES (UH-                     71,000                                                   71,000
           1Y/AH-1Z)--ADV
           PROC (CY).......
   13   MH-60S (MYP).......          18         383,831                                       18         383,831
   14      MH-60S (MYP)--                        37,278                                                   37,278
           ADV PROC (CY)...
   15   MH-60R (MYP).......          19         599,237                                       19         599,237
   16      MH-60R (MYP)--                       231,834                                                  231,834
           ADV PROC (CY)...
   17   P-8A POSEIDON......          16       3,189,989                                       16       3,189,989
   18      P-8A POSEIDON--                      313,160                                                  313,160
           ADV PROC (CY)...
   19   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           5         997,107                                        5         997,107
   20      E-2D ADV                             266,542                                                  266,542
           HAWKEYE--ADV
           PROC (CY).......
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   21   JPATS..............          29         249,080                                       29         249,080
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   22   KC-130J............           2         134,358                                        2         134,358
   23      KC-130J--ADV                          32,288                                                   32,288
           PROC (CY).......
   25   RQ-4 UAV--ADV PROC                       52,002                                                   52,002
         (CY)..............
   26   MQ-8 UAV...........           1          60,980                                        1          60,980
   28   OTHER SUPPORT                 1          14,958                                        1          14,958
         AIRCRAFT..........
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   29   EA-6 SERIES........                      18,577                                                   18,577
   30   AEA SYSTEMS........                      48,502                                                   48,502
   31   AV-8 SERIES........                      41,575                                                   41,575
   32   ADVERSARY..........                       2,992                                                    2,992
   33   F-18 SERIES........                     875,371                                                  875,371
   34   H-46 SERIES........                       2,127                                                    2,127
   36   H-53 SERIES........                      67,675                                                   67,675
   37   SH-60 SERIES.......                     135,054                                                  135,054
   38   H-1 SERIES.........                      41,706                                                   41,706
   39   EP-3 SERIES........                      55,903                      22,000                       77,903
           12th aircraft to                                                  [8,000]
           Spiral 3........
           Sensor                                                           [14,000]
           obsolescence....
   40   P-3 SERIES.........                      37,436                                                   37,436
   41   E-2 SERIES.........                      31,044                                                   31,044
   42   TRAINER A/C SERIES.                      43,720                                                   43,720
   43   C-2A...............                         902                                                      902
   44   C-130 SERIES.......                      47,587                                                   47,587
   45   FEWSG..............                         665                                                      665
   46   CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C                      14,587                                                   14,587
         SERIES............
   47   E-6 SERIES.........                     189,312                                                  189,312
   48   EXECUTIVE                                85,537                                                   85,537
         HELICOPTERS SERIES
   49   SPECIAL PROJECT                           3,684                      10,000                       13,684
         AIRCRAFT..........
           Program office                                                    [5,000]
           sustainment.....
           Sensor                                                            [5,000]
           obsolescence....
   50   T-45 SERIES........                      98,128                                                   98,128
   51   POWER PLANT CHANGES                      22,999                                                   22,999
   52   JPATS SERIES.......                       1,576                                                    1,576
   53   AVIATION LIFE                             6,267                                                    6,267
         SUPPORT MODS......
   54   COMMON ECM                              141,685                                                  141,685
         EQUIPMENT.........
   55   COMMON AVIONICS                         120,660                                                  120,660
         CHANGES...........
   56   COMMON DEFENSIVE                          3,554                                                    3,554
         WEAPON SYSTEM.....
   57   ID SYSTEMS.........                      41,800                                                   41,800
   58   P-8 SERIES.........                       9,485                                                    9,485
   59   MAGTF EW FOR                             14,431                                                   14,431
         AVIATION..........
   60   MQ-8 SERIES........                       1,001                                                    1,001
   61   RQ-7 SERIES........                      26,433                                                   26,433
   62   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR                        160,834                                                  160,834
         ACFT) OSPREY......
   63   F-35 STOVL SERIES..                     147,130                                                  147,130
   64   F-35 CV SERIES.....                      31,100                                                   31,100
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   65   SPARES AND REPAIR                     1,142,461                                                1,142,461
         PARTS.............
   66   COMMON GROUND                           410,044                                                  410,044
         EQUIPMENT.........
   67   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL                      27,450                                                   27,450
         FACILITIES........
   68   WAR CONSUMABLES....                      28,930                                                   28,930
   69   OTHER PRODUCTION                          5,268                                                    5,268
         CHARGES...........
   70   SPECIAL SUPPORT                          60,306                                                   60,306
         EQUIPMENT.........
   71   FIRST DESTINATION                         1,775                                                    1,775
         TRANSPORTATION....
        AIRCRAFT                             17,927,651                      32,000                   17,959,651
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
         Total.............

        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
    1   TRIDENT II MODS....                   1,140,865                                                1,140,865
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
    2   MISSILE INDUSTRIAL                        7,617                                                    7,617
         FACILITIES........
        STRATEGIC MISSILES
    3   TOMAHAWK...........         196         312,456                                      196         312,456
        TACTICAL MISSILES
    4   AMRAAM.............          54          95,413                                       54          95,413
    5   SIDEWINDER.........         225         117,208                                      225         117,208
    6   JSOW...............         328         136,794                                      328         136,794
    7   STANDARD MISSILE...          81         367,985                                       81         367,985
    8   RAM................          66          67,596                                       66          67,596
    9   HELLFIRE...........         363          33,916                                      363          33,916
   11   STAND OFF PRECISION          50           6,278                                       50           6,278
         GUIDED MUNITIONS
         (SOPGM)...........
   12   AERIAL TARGETS.....                      41,799                                                   41,799
   13   OTHER MISSILE                             3,538                                                    3,538
         SUPPORT...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
   14   ESSM...............          53          76,749                                       53          76,749
   15   HARM MODS..........         143         111,902                                      143         111,902
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   16   WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL                        1,138                                                    1,138
         FACILITIES........
   17   FLEET SATELLITE                          23,014                                                   23,014
         COMM FOLLOW-ON....
        ORDNANCE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   18   ORDNANCE SUPPORT                         84,318                                                   84,318
         EQUIPMENT.........
        TORPEDOES AND
         RELATED EQUIP
   19   SSTD...............                       3,978                                                    3,978
   20   ASW TARGETS........                       8,031                                                    8,031
        MOD OF TORPEDOES
         AND RELATED EQUIP
   21   MK-54 TORPEDO MODS.         150         125,898                                      150         125,898
   22   MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP         108          53,203                                      108          53,203
         MODS..............
   23   QUICKSTRIKE MINE...                       7,800                                                    7,800
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
   24   TORPEDO SUPPORT                          59,730                                                   59,730
         EQUIPMENT.........
   25   ASW RANGE SUPPORT..                       4,222                                                    4,222
        DESTINATION
         TRANSPORTATION
   26   FIRST DESTINATION                         3,963                                                    3,963
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
   27   SMALL ARMS AND                           12,513                                                   12,513
         WEAPONS...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         GUNS AND GUN
         MOUNTS
   28   CIWS MODS..........                      56,308                       6,400                       62,708
           Additional RMA                                                    [6,400]
           kits............
   29   COAST GUARD WEAPONS                      10,727                                                   10,727
   30   GUN MOUNT MODS.....                      72,901                                                   72,901
   31   CRUISER                                   1,943                                                    1,943
         MODERNIZATION
         WEAPONS...........
   32   AIRBORNE MINE                            19,758                                                   19,758
         NEUTRALIZATION
         SYSTEMS...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   34   SPARES AND REPAIR                        52,632                                                   52,632
         PARTS.............
        WEAPONS                               3,122,193                       6,400                    3,128,593
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
         Total.............

        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE                          37,703                                                   37,703
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,                        65,411                                                   65,411
         ALL TYPES.........
    3   MACHINE GUN                              20,284                                                   20,284
         AMMUNITION........
    4   PRACTICE BOMBS.....                      37,870                                                   37,870
    5   CARTRIDGES & CART                        53,764                                                   53,764
         ACTUATED DEVICES..
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                           67,194                                                   67,194
         COUNTERMEASURES...
    7   JATOS..............                       2,749                                                    2,749
    8   LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE                       3,906                                                    3,906
         ATTACK PROJECTILE.
    9   5 INCH/54 GUN                            24,151                                                   24,151
         AMMUNITION........
   10   INTERMEDIATE                             33,080                                                   33,080
         CALIBER GUN
         AMMUNITION........
   11   OTHER SHIP GUN                           40,398                                                   40,398
         AMMUNITION........
   12   SMALL ARMS &                             61,219                                                   61,219
         LANDING PARTY AMMO
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND                          10,637                                                   10,637
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS                           4,578                                                    4,578
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   15   SMALL ARMS                               26,297                                                   26,297
         AMMUNITION........
   16   LINEAR CHARGES, ALL                       6,088                                                    6,088
         TYPES.............
   17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...                       7,644                                                    7,644
   18   60MM, ALL TYPES....                       3,349                                                    3,349
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...                      13,361                                                   13,361
   22   GRENADES, ALL TYPES                       2,149                                                    2,149
   23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.                      27,465                                                   27,465
   26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....                      26,366                                                   26,366
   28   AMMO MODERNIZATION.                       8,403                                                    8,403
   29   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        5,201                                                    5,201
         MILLION...........
        PROCUREMENT OF                          589,267                           0                      589,267
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
         Total.............

        SHIPBUILDING AND
         CONVERSION, NAVY
        OTHER WARSHIPS
    1   CARRIER REPLACEMENT                     944,866                                                  944,866
         PROGRAM...........
    3   VIRGINIA CLASS                2       2,930,704                                        2       2,930,704
         SUBMARINE.........
    4      VIRGINIA CLASS                     2,354,612                                                2,354,612
           SUBMARINE ADV
           PROC (CY).......
    5   CVN REFUELING                         1,705,424                                                1,705,424
         OVERHAULS.........
    6      CVN REFUELING                        245,793                                                  245,793
           OVERHAULS ADV
           PROC (CY).......
    7   DDG 1000...........                     231,694                                                  231,694
    8   DDG-51.............           1       1,615,564                                        1       1,615,564
    9      DDG-51 ADV PROC                      388,551                                                  388,551
           (CY)............
   10   LITTORAL COMBAT               4       1,793,014                                        4       1,793,014
         SHIP..............
        AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
   12   AFLOAT FORWARD                1         524,000                      55,300            1         579,300
         STAGING BASE......
           Navy requested                                                   [55,300]
           adjustment......
   14   JOINT HIGH SPEED                          2,732                                                    2,732
         VESSEL............
        AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
         AND PRIOR YR
         PROGRAM COST
   16   MOORED TRAINING                         183,900                                                  183,900
         SHIP..............
   17   OUTFITTING.........                     450,163                                                  450,163
   19   LCAC SLEP..........           4          80,987                                        4          80,987
   20   COMPLETION OF PY                        625,800                     100,000                      725,800
         SHIPBUILDING
         PROGRAMS..........
           Help buy 3rd DDG-                                               [100,000]
           51 in FY 13.....
        SHIPBUILDING AND                     14,077,804                     155,300                   14,233,104
         CONVERSION, NAVY
         Total.............

        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        SHIP PROPULSION
         EQUIPMENT
    1   LM-2500 GAS TURBINE                      10,180                                                   10,180
    2   ALLISON 501K GAS                          5,536                                                    5,536
         TURBINE...........
    3   HYBRID ELECTRIC                          16,956                                                   16,956
         DRIVE (HED).......
        GENERATORS
    4   SURFACE COMBATANT                        19,782                                                   19,782
         HM&E..............
        NAVIGATION
         EQUIPMENT
    5   OTHER NAVIGATION                         39,509                                                   39,509
         EQUIPMENT.........
        PERISCOPES
    6   SUB PERISCOPES &                         52,515                                                   52,515
         IMAGING EQUIP.....
        OTHER SHIPBOARD
         EQUIPMENT
    7   DDG MOD............                     285,994                                                  285,994
    8   FIREFIGHTING                             14,389                                                   14,389
         EQUIPMENT.........
    9   COMMAND AND CONTROL                       2,436                                                    2,436
         SWITCHBOARD.......
   10   LHA/LHD MIDLIFE....                      12,700                                                   12,700
   11   LCC 19/20 EXTENDED                       40,329                                                   40,329
         SERVICE LIFE
         PROGRAM...........
   12   POLLUTION CONTROL                        19,603                                                   19,603
         EQUIPMENT.........
   13   SUBMARINE SUPPORT                         8,678                                                    8,678
         EQUIPMENT.........
   14   VIRGINIA CLASS                           74,209                                                   74,209
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   15   LCS CLASS SUPPORT                        47,078                                                   47,078
         EQUIPMENT.........
   16   SUBMARINE BATTERIES                      37,000                                                   37,000
   17   LPD CLASS SUPPORT                        25,053                                                   25,053
         EQUIPMENT.........
   18   STRATEGIC PLATFORM                       12,986                                                   12,986
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
   19   DSSP EQUIPMENT.....                       2,455                                                    2,455
   20   CG MODERNIZATION...                      10,539                                                   10,539
   21   LCAC...............                      14,431                                                   14,431
   22   UNDERWATER EOD                           36,700                                                   36,700
         PROGRAMS..........
   23   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                      119,902                                                  119,902
         MILLION...........
   24   CHEMICAL WARFARE                          3,678                                                    3,678
         DETECTORS.........
   25   SUBMARINE LIFE                            8,292                                                    8,292
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
        REACTOR PLANT
         EQUIPMENT
   27   REACTOR COMPONENTS.                     286,744                                                  286,744
        OCEAN ENGINEERING
   28   DIVING AND SALVAGE                        8,780                                                    8,780
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SMALL BOATS
   29   STANDARD BOATS.....                      36,452                                                   36,452
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   30   OTHER SHIPS                              36,145                                                   36,145
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
        PRODUCTION
         FACILITIES
         EQUIPMENT
   31   OPERATING FORCES                         69,368                                                   69,368
         IPE...............
        OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
   32   NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS                     106,328                                                  106,328
   33   LCS COMMON MISSION                       45,966                                                   45,966
         MODULES EQUIPMENT.
   34   LCS MCM MISSION                          59,885                                                   59,885
         MODULES...........
   35   LCS SUW MISSION                          37,168                                                   37,168
         MODULES...........
        LOGISTIC SUPPORT
   36   LSD MIDLIFE........                      77,974                                                   77,974
        SHIP SONARS
   38   SPQ-9B RADAR.......                      27,934                                                   27,934
   39   AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW                       83,231                                                   83,231
         COMBAT SYSTEM.....
   40   SSN ACOUSTICS......                     199,438                                                  199,438
   41   UNDERSEA WARFARE                          9,394                                                    9,394
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   42   SONAR SWITCHES AND                       12,953                                                   12,953
         TRANSDUCERS.......
   43   ELECTRONIC WARFARE                        8,958                                                    8,958
         MILDEC............
        ASW ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   44   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC                       24,077                                                   24,077
         WARFARE SYSTEM....
   45   SSTD...............                      11,925                                                   11,925
   46   FIXED SURVEILLANCE                       94,338                                                   94,338
         SYSTEM............
   47   SURTASS............                       9,680                                                    9,680
   48   MARITIME PATROL AND                      18,130                                                   18,130
         RECONNSAISANCE
         FORCE.............
        ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         EQUIPMENT
   49   AN/SLQ-32..........                     203,375                                                  203,375
        RECONNAISSANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   50   SHIPBOARD IW                            123,656                                                  123,656
         EXPLOIT...........
   51   AUTOMATED                                   896                                                      896
         IDENTIFICATION
         SYSTEM (AIS)......
        SUBMARINE
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   52   SUBMARINE SUPPORT                        49,475                                                   49,475
         EQUIPMENT PROG....
        OTHER SHIP
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   53   COOPERATIVE                              34,692                                                   34,692
         ENGAGEMENT
         CAPABILITY........
   54   TRUSTED INFORMATION                         396                                                      396
         SYSTEM (TIS)......
   55   NAVAL TACTICAL                           15,703                                                   15,703
         COMMAND SUPPORT
         SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
   56   ATDLS..............                       3,836                                                    3,836
   57   NAVY COMMAND AND                          7,201                                                    7,201
         CONTROL SYSTEM
         (NCCS)............
   58   MINESWEEPING SYSTEM                      54,400                                                   54,400
         REPLACEMENT.......
   59   SHALLOW WATER MCM..                       8,548                                                    8,548
   60   NAVSTAR GPS                              11,765                                                   11,765
         RECEIVERS (SPACE).
   61   AMERICAN FORCES                           6,483                                                    6,483
         RADIO AND TV
         SERVICE...........
   62   STRATEGIC PLATFORM                        7,631                                                    7,631
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   63   OTHER TRAINING                           53,644                                                   53,644
         EQUIPMENT.........
        AVIATION ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   64   MATCALS............                       7,461                                                    7,461
   65   SHIPBOARD AIR                             9,140                                                    9,140
         TRAFFIC CONTROL...
   66   AUTOMATIC CARRIER                        20,798                                                   20,798
         LANDING SYSTEM....
   67   NATIONAL AIR SPACE                       19,754                                                   19,754
         SYSTEM............
   68   FLEET AIR TRAFFIC                         8,909                                                    8,909
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   69   LANDING SYSTEMS....                      13,554                                                   13,554
   70   ID SYSTEMS.........                      38,934                                                   38,934
   71   NAVAL MISSION                            14,131                                                   14,131
         PLANNING SYSTEMS..
        OTHER SHORE
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   72   DEPLOYABLE JOINT                          3,249                                                    3,249
         COMMAND & CONTROL.
   73   MARITIME INTEGRATED                      11,646                                                   11,646
         BROADCAST SYSTEM..
   74   TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I                      18,189                                                   18,189
         SYSTEMS...........
   75   DCGS-N.............                      17,350                                                   17,350
   76   CANES..............                     340,567                                                  340,567
   77   RADIAC.............                       9,835                                                    9,835
   78   CANES-INTELL.......                      59,652                                                   59,652
   79   GPETE..............                       6,253                                                    6,253
   80   INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM                       4,963                                                    4,963
         TEST FACILITY.....
   81   EMI CONTROL                               4,664                                                    4,664
         INSTRUMENTATION...
   82   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       66,889                                                   66,889
         MILLION...........
        SHIPBOARD
         COMMUNICATIONS
   84   SHIP COMMUNICATIONS                      23,877                                                   23,877
         AUTOMATION........
   86   COMMUNICATIONS                           28,001                                                   28,001
         ITEMS UNDER $5M...
        SUBMARINE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   87   SUBMARINE BROADCAST                       7,856                                                    7,856
         SUPPORT...........
   88   SUBMARINE                                74,376                                                   74,376
         COMMUNICATION
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   89   SATELLITE                                27,381                                                   27,381
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SYSTEMS...........
   90   NAVY MULTIBAND                          215,952                                                  215,952
         TERMINAL (NMT)....
        SHORE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   91   JCS COMMUNICATIONS                        4,463                                                    4,463
         EQUIPMENT.........
   92   ELECTRICAL POWER                            778                                                      778
         SYSTEMS...........
        CRYPTOGRAPHIC
         EQUIPMENT
   94   INFO SYSTEMS                            133,530                                                  133,530
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
   95   MIO INTEL                                 1,000                                                    1,000
         EXPLOITATION TEAM.
   96   CRYPTOLOGIC                              12,251                                                   12,251
         COMMUNICATIONS
         EQUIP.............
        OTHER ELECTRONIC
         SUPPORT
   97   COAST GUARD                               2,893                                                    2,893
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SONOBUOYS
   99   SONOBUOYS--ALL                          179,927                                                  179,927
         TYPES.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  100   WEAPONS RANGE                            55,279                                                   55,279
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  101   EXPEDITIONARY                             8,792                                                    8,792
         AIRFIELDS.........
  102   AIRCRAFT REARMING                        11,364                                                   11,364
         EQUIPMENT.........
  103   AIRCRAFT LAUNCH &                        59,502                                                   59,502
         RECOVERY EQUIPMENT
  104   METEOROLOGICAL                           19,118                                                   19,118
         EQUIPMENT.........
  105   DCRS/DPL...........                       1,425                                                    1,425
  106   AVIATION LIFE                            29,670                                                   29,670
         SUPPORT...........
  107   AIRBORNE MINE                           101,554                                                  101,554
         COUNTERMEASURES...
  108   LAMPS MK III                             18,293                                                   18,293
         SHIPBOARD
         EQUIPMENT.........
  109   PORTABLE ELECTRONIC                       7,969                                                    7,969
         MAINTENANCE AIDS..
  110   OTHER AVIATION                            5,215                                                    5,215
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  111   AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS                       4,827                                                    4,827
         INFORMATION SYSTEM
         (ALIS)............
        SHIP GUN SYSTEM
         EQUIPMENT
  112   NAVAL FIRES CONTROL                       1,188                                                    1,188
         SYSTEM............
  113   GUN FIRE CONTROL                          4,447                                                    4,447
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP MISSILE
         SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
  114   NATO SEASPARROW....                      58,368                                                   58,368
  115   RAM GMLS...........                         491                                                      491
  116   SHIP SELF DEFENSE                        51,858                                                   51,858
         SYSTEM............
  117   AEGIS SUPPORT                            59,757                                                   59,757
         EQUIPMENT.........
  118   TOMAHAWK SUPPORT                         71,559                                                   71,559
         EQUIPMENT.........
  119   VERTICAL LAUNCH                             626                                                      626
         SYSTEMS...........
  120   MARITIME INTEGRATED                       2,779                                                    2,779
         PLANNING SYSTEM-
         MIPS..............
        FBM SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  121   STRATEGIC MISSILE                       224,484                                                  224,484
         SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
        ASW SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  122   SSN COMBAT CONTROL                       85,678                                                   85,678
         SYSTEMS...........
  123   SUBMARINE ASW                             3,913                                                    3,913
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  124   SURFACE ASW SUPPORT                       3,909                                                    3,909
         EQUIPMENT.........
  125   ASW RANGE SUPPORT                        28,694                                                   28,694
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER ORDNANCE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  126   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE                       46,586                                                   46,586
         DISPOSAL EQUIP....
  127   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       11,933                                                   11,933
         MILLION...........
        OTHER EXPENDABLE
         ORDNANCE
  128   ANTI-SHIP MISSILE                        62,361                                                   62,361
         DECOY SYSTEM......
  129   SURFACE TRAINING                         41,813                                                   41,813
         DEVICE MODS.......
  130   SUBMARINE TRAINING                       26,672                                                   26,672
         DEVICE MODS.......
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  131   PASSENGER CARRYING                        5,600                                                    5,600
         VEHICLES..........
  132   GENERAL PURPOSE                           3,717                                                    3,717
         TRUCKS............
  133   CONSTRUCTION &                           10,881                                                   10,881
         MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
  134   FIRE FIGHTING                            14,748                                                   14,748
         EQUIPMENT.........
  135   TACTICAL VEHICLES..                       5,540                                                    5,540
  136   AMPHIBIOUS                                5,741                                                    5,741
         EQUIPMENT.........
  137   POLLUTION CONTROL                         3,852                                                    3,852
         EQUIPMENT.........
  138   ITEMS UNDER $5                           25,757                                                   25,757
         MILLION...........
  139   PHYSICAL SECURITY                         1,182                                                    1,182
         VEHICLES..........
        SUPPLY SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  140   MATERIALS HANDLING                       14,250                                                   14,250
         EQUIPMENT.........
  141   OTHER SUPPLY                              6,401                                                    6,401
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  142   FIRST DESTINATION                         5,718                                                    5,718
         TRANSPORTATION....
  143   SPECIAL PURPOSE                          22,597                                                   22,597
         SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
        TRAINING DEVICES
  144   TRAINING SUPPORT                         22,527                                                   22,527
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMMAND SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  145   COMMAND SUPPORT                          50,428                                                   50,428
         EQUIPMENT.........
  146   EDUCATION SUPPORT                         2,292                                                    2,292
         EQUIPMENT.........
  147   MEDICAL SUPPORT                           4,925                                                    4,925
         EQUIPMENT.........
  149   NAVAL MIP SUPPORT                         3,202                                                    3,202
         EQUIPMENT.........
  151   OPERATING FORCES                         24,294                                                   24,294
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  152   C4ISR EQUIPMENT....                       4,287                                                    4,287
  153   ENVIRONMENTAL                            18,276                                                   18,276
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  154   PHYSICAL SECURITY                       134,495                                                  134,495
         EQUIPMENT.........
  155   ENTERPRISE                              324,327                                                  324,327
         INFORMATION
         TECHNOLOGY........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  156A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                      12,140                                                   12,140
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
  157   SPARES AND REPAIR                       317,234                                                  317,234
         PARTS.............
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,                    6,310,257                           0                    6,310,257
         NAVY Total........

        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
   01   AAV7A1 PIP.........                      32,360                                                   32,360
   02   LAV PIP............                       6,003                                                    6,003
        ARTILLERY AND OTHER
         WEAPONS
   03   EXPEDITIONARY FIRE                          589                                                      589
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
   04   155MM LIGHTWEIGHT                         3,655                                                    3,655
         TOWED HOWITZER....
   05   HIGH MOBILITY                             5,467                                                    5,467
         ARTILLERY ROCKET
         SYSTEM............
   06   WEAPONS AND COMBAT                       20,354                                                   20,354
         VEHICLES UNDER $5
         MILLION...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
   07   MODIFICATION KITS..                      38,446                                                   38,446
   08   WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT                       4,734                                                    4,734
         PROGRAM...........
        GUIDED MISSILES
   09   GROUND BASED AIR                         15,713                                                   15,713
         DEFENSE...........
   10   JAVELIN............         219          36,175                                      219          36,175
   12   ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS                        1,136                                                    1,136
         SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
         H)................
        OTHER SUPPORT
   13   MODIFICATION KITS..                      33,976                                                   33,976
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEMS
   14   UNIT OPERATIONS                          16,273                                                   16,273
         CENTER............
        REPAIR AND TEST
         EQUIPMENT
   15   REPAIR AND TEST                          41,063                                                   41,063
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
   16   COMBAT SUPPORT                            2,930                                                    2,930
         SYSTEM............
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   18   ITEMS UNDER $5                            1,637                                                    1,637
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
   19   AIR OPERATIONS C2                        18,394                                                   18,394
         SYSTEMS...........
        RADAR + EQUIPMENT
         (NON-TEL)
   20   RADAR SYSTEMS......                     114,051                                                  114,051
   21   RQ-21 UAS..........          25          66,612                                       25          66,612
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   22   FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM                       3,749                                                    3,749
   23   INTELLIGENCE                             75,979                                                   75,979
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   26   RQ-11 UAV..........                       1,653                                                    1,653
   27   DCGS-MC............                       9,494                                                    9,494
        OTHER COMM/ELEC
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   28   NIGHT VISION                              6,171                                                    6,171
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
         TEL)
   29   COMMON COMPUTER                         121,955                                                  121,955
         RESOURCES.........
   30   COMMAND POST                             83,294                                                   83,294
         SYSTEMS...........
   31   RADIO SYSTEMS......                      74,718                                                   74,718
   32   COMM SWITCHING &                         47,613                                                   47,613
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   33   COMM & ELEC                              19,573                                                   19,573
         INFRASTRUCTURE
         SUPPORT...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   33A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                       5,659                                                    5,659
        ADMINISTRATIVE
         VEHICLES
   34   COMMERCIAL                                1,039                                                    1,039
         PASSENGER VEHICLES
   35   COMMERCIAL CARGO                         31,050                                                   31,050
         VEHICLES..........
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
   36   5/4T TRUCK HMMWV                         36,333                                                   36,333
         (MYP).............
   37   MOTOR TRANSPORT                           3,137                                                    3,137
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   40   FAMILY OF TACTICAL                       27,385                                                   27,385
         TRAILERS..........
        OTHER SUPPORT
   41   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        7,016                                                    7,016
         MILLION...........
        ENGINEER AND OTHER
         EQUIPMENT
   42   ENVIRONMENTAL                            14,377                                                   14,377
         CONTROL EQUIP
         ASSORT............
   43   BULK LIQUID                              24,864                                                   24,864
         EQUIPMENT.........
   44   TACTICAL FUEL                            21,592                                                   21,592
         SYSTEMS...........
   45   POWER EQUIPMENT                          61,353                                                   61,353
         ASSORTED..........
   46   AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT                        4,827                                                    4,827
         EQUIPMENT.........
   47   EOD SYSTEMS........                      40,011                                                   40,011
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
   48   PHYSICAL SECURITY                        16,809                                                   16,809
         EQUIPMENT.........
   49   GARRISON MOBILE                           3,408                                                    3,408
         ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
         (GMEE)............
   50   MATERIAL HANDLING                        48,549                                                   48,549
         EQUIP.............
   51   FIRST DESTINATION                           190                                                      190
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GENERAL PROPERTY
   52   FIELD MEDICAL                            23,129                                                   23,129
         EQUIPMENT.........
   53   TRAINING DEVICES...                       8,346                                                    8,346
   54   CONTAINER FAMILY...                       1,857                                                    1,857
   55   FAMILY OF                                36,198                                                   36,198
         CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT.........
   56   RAPID DEPLOYABLE                          2,390                                                    2,390
         KITCHEN...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
   57   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        6,525                                                    6,525
         MILLION...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   58   SPARES AND REPAIR                        13,700                                                   13,700
         PARTS.............
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE                   1,343,511                           0                    1,343,511
         CORPS Total.......

        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL FORCES
    1   F-35...............          19       3,060,770                                       19       3,060,770
    2      F-35--ADV PROC                       363,783                                                  363,783
           (CY)............
        OTHER AIRLIFT
    5   C-130J.............           6         537,517                                        6         537,517
    6      C-130J--ADV PROC                     162,000                                                  162,000
           (CY)............
    7   HC-130J............           1         132,121                                        1         132,121
    8      HC-130J--ADV                          88,000                                                   88,000
           PROC (CY).......
    9   MC-130J............           4         389,434                                        4         389,434
   10      MC-130J--ADV                         104,000                                                  104,000
           PROC (CY).......
        HELICOPTERS
   15   CV-22 (MYP)........           3         230,798                                        3         230,798
        MISSION SUPPORT
         AIRCRAFT
   17   CIVIL AIR PATROL A/           6           2,541                                        6           2,541
         C.................
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   20   TARGET DRONES......          41         138,669                                       41         138,669
   22   AC-130J............           5         470,019                                        5         470,019
   24   RQ-4...............                      27,000                                                   27,000
   27   MQ-9...............          12         272,217                     -30,000           12         242,217
           Prior year                                                      [-30,000]
           savings.........
   28   RQ-4 BLOCK 40 PROC.                       1,747                                                    1,747
        STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
   29   B-2A...............                      20,019                                                   20,019
   30   B-1B...............                     132,222                                                  132,222
   31   B-52...............                     111,002                                                  111,002
   32   LARGE AIRCRAFT                           27,197                                                   27,197
         INFRARED
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
   33   A-10...............                      47,598                                                   47,598
   34   F-15...............                     354,624                                                  354,624
   35   F-16...............                      11,794                                                   11,794
   36   F-22A..............                     285,830                                                  285,830
   37   F-35 MODIFICATIONS.                     157,777                                                  157,777
        AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
   38   C-5................                       2,456                                                    2,456
   39   C-5M...............                   1,021,967                                                1,021,967
   42   C-17A..............                     143,197                                                  143,197
   43   C-21...............                         103                                                      103
   44   C-32A..............                       9,780                                                    9,780
   45   C-37A..............                         452                                                      452
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   47   GLIDER MODS........                         128                                                      128
   48   T-6................                       6,427                                                    6,427
   49   T-1................                         277                                                      277
   50   T-38...............                      28,686                                                   28,686
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   52   U-2 MODS...........                      45,591                                                   45,591
   53   KC-10A (ATCA)......                      70,918                                                   70,918
   54   C-12...............                       1,876                                                    1,876
   55   MC-12W.............                       5,000                                                    5,000
   56   C-20 MODS..........                         192                                                      192
   57   VC-25A MOD.........                         263                                                      263
   58   C-40...............                       6,119                                                    6,119
   59   C-130..............                      58,577                      47,300                      105,877
           C-130 avionics                                                   [47,300]
           upgrades........
   61   C-130J MODS........                      10,475                                                   10,475
   62   C-135..............                      46,556                                                   46,556
   63   COMPASS CALL MODS..                      34,494                                                   34,494
   64   RC-135.............                     171,813                                                  171,813
   65   E-3................                     197,087                                                  197,087
   66   E-4................                      14,304                                                   14,304
   67   E-8................                      57,472                                                   57,472
   68   H-1................                       6,627                                                    6,627
   69   H-60...............                      27,654                                                   27,654
   70   RQ-4 MODS..........                       9,313                                                    9,313
   71   HC/MC-130                                16,300                                                   16,300
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   72   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....                       6,948                                                    6,948
   73   MQ-1 MODS..........                       9,734                                                    9,734
   74   MQ-9 MODS..........                     102,970                     -34,500                       68,470
           Lynx radar                                                      [-34,500]
           reduction.......
   76   RQ-4 GSRA/CSRA MODS                      30,000                                                   30,000
   77   CV-22 MODS.........                      23,310                                                   23,310
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   78   INITIAL SPARES/                         463,285                                                  463,285
         REPAIR PARTS......
        COMMON SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   79   AIRCRAFT                                 49,140                                                   49,140
         REPLACEMENT
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        POST PRODUCTION
         SUPPORT
   81   B-1................                       3,683                                                    3,683
   83   B-2A...............                      43,786                                                   43,786
   84   B-52...............                       7,000                                                    7,000
   87   C-17A..............                      81,952                                                   81,952
   89   C-135..............                       8,597                                                    8,597
   90   F-15...............                       2,403                                                    2,403
   91   F-16...............                       3,455                                                    3,455
   92   F-22A..............                       5,911                                                    5,911
        INDUSTRIAL
         PREPAREDNESS
   94   INDUSTRIAL                               21,148                                                   21,148
         RESPONSIVENESS....
        WAR CONSUMABLES
   95   WAR CONSUMABLES....                      94,947                                                   94,947
        OTHER PRODUCTION
         CHARGES
   96   OTHER PRODUCTION                      1,242,004                                                1,242,004
         CHARGES...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   96A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                      75,845                                                   75,845
        AIRCRAFT                             11,398,901                     -17,200                   11,381,701
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE Total.......

        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        MISSILE REPLACEMENT
         EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
         IC
    1   MISSILE REPLACEMENT                      39,104                                                   39,104
         EQ-BALLISTIC......
        TACTICAL
    2   JASSM..............         183         291,151                                      183         291,151
    3   SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)         225         119,904                                      225         119,904
    4   AMRAAM.............         199         340,015                                      199         340,015
    5   PREDATOR HELLFIRE           413          48,548                                      413          48,548
         MISSILE...........
    6   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB         144          42,347                                      144          42,347
        INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES
    7   INDUSTR'L                                   752                                                      752
         PREPAREDNS/POL
         PREVENTION........
        CLASS IV
    9   MM III                                   21,635                                                   21,635
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...                         276                                                      276
   11   AGM-88A HARM.......                         580                                                      580
   12   AIR LAUNCH CRUISE                         6,888                                                    6,888
         MISSILE (ALCM)....
   13   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB                       5,000                                                    5,000
        MISSILE SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   14   INITIAL SPARES/                          72,080                                                   72,080
         REPAIR PARTS......
        SPACE PROGRAMS
   15   ADVANCED EHF.......                     379,586                                                  379,586
   16   WIDEBAND GAPFILLER                       38,398                                                   38,398
         SATELLITES(SPACE).
   17   GPS III SPACE                 2         486,047                                        2         486,047
         SEGMENT...........
   17   GPS III SPACE                           -82,616                                                  -82,616
         SEGMENT...........
   18   GPS III SPACE                            74,167                                                   74,167
         SEGMENT...........
   19   SPACEBORNE EQUIP                          5,244                                                    5,244
         (COMSEC)..........
   20   GLOBAL POSITIONING                       55,997                                                   55,997
         (SPACE)...........
   21   DEF METEOROLOGICAL                       95,673                                                   95,673
         SAT PROG(SPACE)...
   22   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            5       1,852,900                                        5       1,852,900
         LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
   23   SBIR HIGH (SPACE)..                     583,192                                                  583,192
        SPECIAL PROGRAMS
   29   SPECIAL UPDATE                           36,716                                                   36,716
         PROGRAMS..........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   29A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                     829,702                                                  829,702
        MISSILE                               5,343,286                           0                    5,343,286
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE Total.......

        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE
        ROCKETS
    1   ROCKETS............                      15,735                                                   15,735
        CARTRIDGES
    2   CARTRIDGES.........                     129,921                                                  129,921
        BOMBS
    3   PRACTICE BOMBS.....                      30,840                                                   30,840
    4   GENERAL PURPOSE                         187,397                                                  187,397
         BOMBS.............
    5   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK       6,965         188,510                                    6,965         188,510
         MUNITION..........
        OTHER ITEMS
    6   CAD/PAD............                      35,837                                                   35,837
    7   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE                        7,531                                                    7,531
         DISPOSAL (EOD)....
    8   SPARES AND REPAIR                           499                                                      499
         PARTS.............
    9   MODIFICATIONS......                         480                                                      480
   10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        9,765                                                    9,765
         MILLION...........
        FLARES
   11   FLARES.............                      55,864                                                   55,864
        FUZES
   13   FUZES..............                      76,037                                                   76,037
        SMALL ARMS
   14   SMALL ARMS.........                      21,026                                                   21,026
        PROCUREMENT OF                          759,442                           0                      759,442
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE Total.......

        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        PASSENGER CARRYING
         VEHICLES
    1   PASSENGER CARRYING                        2,048                                                    2,048
         VEHICLES..........
        CARGO AND UTILITY
         VEHICLES
    2   MEDIUM TACTICAL                           8,019                                                    8,019
         VEHICLE...........
    3   CAP VEHICLES.......                         946                                                      946
    4   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        7,138                                                    7,138
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL PURPOSE
         VEHICLES
    5   SECURITY AND                             13,093                                                   13,093
         TACTICAL VEHICLES.
    6   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       13,983                                                   13,983
         MILLION...........
        FIRE FIGHTING
         EQUIPMENT
    7   FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH                      23,794                                                   23,794
         RESCUE VEHICLES...
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
    8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        8,669                                                    8,669
         MILLION...........
        BASE MAINTENANCE
         SUPPORT
    9   RUNWAY SNOW REMOV &                       6,144                                                    6,144
         CLEANING EQUIP....
   10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        1,580                                                    1,580
         MILLION...........
        COMM SECURITY
         EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
   12   COMSEC EQUIPMENT...                     149,661                                                  149,661
   13   MODIFICATIONS                               726                                                      726
         (COMSEC)..........
        INTELLIGENCE
         PROGRAMS
   14   INTELLIGENCE                              2,789                                                    2,789
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   15   INTELLIGENCE COMM                        31,875                                                   31,875
         EQUIPMENT.........
   16   ADVANCE TECH                                452                                                      452
         SENSORS...........
   17   MISSION PLANNING                         14,203                                                   14,203
         SYSTEMS...........
   18   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL                      46,232                                                   46,232
         & LANDING SYS.....
   19   NATIONAL AIRSPACE                        11,685                                                   11,685
         SYSTEM............
   20   BATTLE CONTROL                           19,248                                                   19,248
         SYSTEM--FIXED.....
   21   THEATER AIR CONTROL                      19,292                                                   19,292
         SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
   22   WEATHER OBSERVATION                      17,166                                                   17,166
         FORECAST..........
   23   STRATEGIC COMMAND                        22,723                                                   22,723
         AND CONTROL.......
   24   CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN                        27,930                                                   27,930
         COMPLEX...........
   25   TAC SIGNIT SPT.....                         217                                                      217
        SPCL COMM-
         ELECTRONICS
         PROJECTS
   27   GENERAL INFORMATION                      49,627                                                   49,627
         TECHNOLOGY........
   28   AF GLOBAL COMMAND &                      13,559                                                   13,559
         CONTROL SYS.......
   29   MOBILITY COMMAND                         11,186                                                   11,186
         AND CONTROL.......
   30   AIR FORCE PHYSICAL                       43,238                                                   43,238
         SECURITY SYSTEM...
   31   COMBAT TRAINING                          10,431                                                   10,431
         RANGES............
   32   C3 COUNTERMEASURES.                      13,769                                                   13,769
   33   GCSS-AF FOS........                      19,138                                                   19,138
   34   THEATER BATTLE MGT                        8,809                                                    8,809
         C2 SYSTEM.........
   35   AIR & SPACE                              26,935                                                   26,935
         OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
         SYS...............
        AIR FORCE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   36   INFORMATION                              80,558                                                   80,558
         TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
   38   AFNET..............                      97,588                                                   97,588
   39   VOICE SYSTEMS......                       8,419                                                    8,419
   40   USCENTCOM..........                      34,276                                                   34,276
        SPACE PROGRAMS
   41   SPACE BASED IR                           28,235                                                   28,235
         SENSOR PGM SPACE..
   42   NAVSTAR GPS SPACE..                       2,061                                                    2,061
   43   NUDET DETECTION SYS                       4,415                                                    4,415
         SPACE.............
   44   AF SATELLITE                             30,237                                                   30,237
         CONTROL NETWORK
         SPACE.............
   45   SPACELIFT RANGE                          98,062                                                   98,062
         SYSTEM SPACE......
   46   MILSATCOM SPACE....                     105,935                                                  105,935
   47   SPACE MODS SPACE...                      37,861                                                   37,861
   48   COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM                       7,171                                                    7,171
        ORGANIZATION AND
         BASE
   49   TACTICAL C-E                             83,537                                                   83,537
         EQUIPMENT.........
   50   COMBAT SURVIVOR                          11,884                                                   11,884
         EVADER LOCATER....
   51   RADIO EQUIPMENT....                      14,711                                                   14,711
   52   CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL                         10,275                                                   10,275
         EQUIPMENT.........
   53   BASE COMM                                50,907                                                   50,907
         INFRASTRUCTURE....
        MODIFICATIONS
   54   COMM ELECT MODS....                      55,701                                                   55,701
        PERSONAL SAFETY &
         RESCUE EQUIP
   55   NIGHT VISION                             14,524                                                   14,524
         GOGGLES...........
   56   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       28,655                                                   28,655
         MILLION...........
        DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
         HANDLING EQ
   57   MECHANIZED MATERIAL                       9,332                                                    9,332
         HANDLING EQUIP....
        BASE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   58   BASE PROCURED                            16,762                                                   16,762
         EQUIPMENT.........
   59   CONTINGENCY                              33,768                                                   33,768
         OPERATIONS........
   60   PRODUCTIVITY                              2,495                                                    2,495
         CAPITAL INVESTMENT
   61   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.                      12,859                                                   12,859
   62   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        1,954                                                    1,954
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL SUPPORT
         PROJECTS
   64   DARP RC135.........                      24,528                                                   24,528
   65   DCGS-AF............                     137,819                                                  137,819
   67   SPECIAL UPDATE                          479,586                                                  479,586
         PROGRAM...........
   68   DEFENSE SPACE                            45,159                                                   45,159
         RECONNAISSANCE
         PROG..............
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   68A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                  14,519,256                                               14,519,256
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   70   SPARES AND REPAIR                        25,746                                                   25,746
         PARTS.............
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,                   16,760,581                           0                   16,760,581
         AIR FORCE Total...

        PROCUREMENT,
         DEFENSE-WIDE
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCAA
    1   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                        1,291                                                    1,291
         MILLION...........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCMA
    2   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....                       5,711                                                    5,711
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DHRA
    3   PERSONNEL                                47,201                                                   47,201
         ADMINISTRATION....
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DISA
   09   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                      16,189                                                   16,189
         SECURITY..........
   12   TELEPORT PROGRAM...                      66,075                                                   66,075
   13   ITEMS LESS THAN $5                       83,881                                                   83,881
         MILLION...........
   14   NET CENTRIC                               2,572                                                    2,572
         ENTERPRISE
         SERVICES (NCES)...
   15   DEFENSE INFORMATION                     125,557                                                  125,557
         SYSTEM NETWORK....
   17   CYBER SECURITY                           16,941                                                   16,941
         INITIATIVE........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DLA
   18   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....                      13,137                                                   13,137
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DMACT
   19   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           5          15,414                                        5          15,414
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DODEA
   20   AUTOMATION/                               1,454                                                    1,454
         EDUCATIONAL
         SUPPORT &
         LOGISTICS.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DEFENSE SECURITY
         COOPERATION AGENCY
   21   EQUIPMENT..........                         978                                                      978
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DSS
   22   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....                       5,020                                                    5,020
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DEFENSE THREAT
         REDUCTION AGENCY
   23   VEHICLES...........           2             100                                        2             100
   24   OTHER MAJOR                   3          13,395                                        3          13,395
         EQUIPMENT.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         AGENCY
   26   THAAD..............          36         581,005                                       36         581,005
   27   AEGIS BMD..........          52         580,814                                       52         580,814
   28   BMDS AN/TPY-2                            62,000                                                   62,000
         RADARS............
   29   AEGIS ASHORE PHASE            1         131,400                                        1         131,400
         III...............
   31   IRON DOME..........           1         220,309                                        1         220,309
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         NSA
   39   INFORMATION SYSTEMS                      14,363                                                   14,363
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         OSD
   40   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,                         37,345                                                   37,345
         OSD...............
   41   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,                         16,678                                                   16,678
         INTELLIGENCE......
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         TJS
   42   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,                         14,792                                                   14,792
         TJS...............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         WHS
   43   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,                         35,259                                                   35,259
         WHS...............
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   43A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS                     544,272                                                  544,272
        AVIATION PROGRAMS
   45   ROTARY WING                             112,456                                                  112,456
         UPGRADES AND
         SUSTAINMENT.......
   46   MH-60 MODERNIZATION                      81,457                                                   81,457
         PROGRAM...........
   47   NON-STANDARD                              2,650                                                    2,650
         AVIATION..........
   48   U-28...............                      56,208                                                   56,208
   49   MH-47 CHINOOK......                      19,766                                                   19,766
   50   RQ-11 UNMANNED                              850                                                      850
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
   51   CV-22 MODIFICATION.           3          98,927                                        3          98,927
   52   MQ-1 UNMANNED                            20,576                                                   20,576
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
   53   MQ-9 UNMANNED                             1,893                      13,000                       14,893
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
           Capability                                                       [13,000]
           Improvements....
   55   STUASL0............                      13,166                                                   13,166
   56   PRECISION STRIKE                        107,687                                                  107,687
         PACKAGE...........
   57   AC/MC-130J.........                      51,870                                                   51,870
   59   C-130 MODIFICATIONS                      71,940                                                   71,940
        SHIPBUILDING
   61   UNDERWATER SYSTEMS.                      37,439                                                   37,439
        AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
   63   ORDNANCE ITEMS