E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 160 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2014 No. 147—Book II House of Representatives JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT BY tional security programs in the Department upgrades to sustain these networks as the MR. MCKEON, CHAIRMAN OF THE of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Fa- Navy determines how to converge all of its HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERV- cilities Safety Board (DNFSB). The budget networks as part of a future Naval Net- ICES REGARDING THE HOUSE AMEND- request incorporates the amendments sub- working Environment. The investment re- MENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT mitted to Congress on June 26, 2014 and No- quired by this funding would bring the ON H.R. 3979, PROTECTING VOLUNTEER vember 10, 2014. OCONUS networks up to a standard that FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RE- The bill authorizes $577.1 billion in fiscal could support a transition to the Next Gen- SPONDERS ACT OF 2014 year 2015, including $495.9 billion for base eration Enterprise Network contract in the The following consists of the explanatory DOD programs, $63.7 billion for OCO, and future, which would also align Navy net- material to accompany the National Defense $17.5 billion for national security programs works in a way that would support the enter- Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. in the DOE and the DNFSB. prise-wide push to standardize capabilities in Section 5 of the Act specifies that this ex- The two tables preceding the detailed pro- the Joint Information Environment frame- planatory statement shall have the same ef- gram adjustments in Division D of this joint work. We note that this set of hardware and fect with respect to the implementation of explanatory statement summarize the direct network systems transitions entail addi- this legislation as if it were a joint explana- discretionary authorizations in the agree- tional cost, technical risk, and potentially tory statement of a committee of con- ment and the equivalent budget authority operational risk to deployed forces, which ference. levels for fiscal year 2015 defense programs. could have been avoided with better planning In this joint explanatory statement, the The first table summarizes the agreement on for and more strategic funding of the sys- provisions of H.R. 4435, the House-passed authorizations within the jurisdiction of the tems. We expect the Navy, as well as the De- version of the National Defense Authoriza- Armed Services Committees. The second partment of Defense Chief Information Offi- tion Act for Fiscal Year 2015, are generally table details the budget authority implica- cer, to ensure that all Department of Navy referred to as ‘‘the House bill.’’ The provi- tion of the discretionary authorizations in and Department of Defense enterprise IT sys- sions of S. 2410, the Senate Committee on the agreement when accounting for national tem efforts have robust planning related to Armed Services committee-reported version defense items that are not in the jurisdiction and funding dedicated for the maintenance of the National Defense Authorization Act of the Armed Services Committees. and sustainment of legacy systems, and to for Fiscal Year 2015, are generally referred to Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4) ensure that systems meet requirements and as ‘‘the Senate committee-reported bill.’’ The Senate committee-reported bill con- reflect modern state-of-the-art IT systems, Senate amendments included in the agree- tained a provision (sec. 4) that would require to the maximum extent practicable and that ments are identified by Senate amendment the budgetary effects of this Act be deter- this is documented in the programs’ acquisi- numbers. The final form of the agreements mined in accordance with the procedures es- tion strategy documentation. This should reached during negotiations between the tablished in title I of the Statutory Pay-As- apply to both Major Automated Information House and the Senate are referred to as ‘‘the You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–139). Systems (MAIS) and non-MAIS efforts. agreement.’’ The House bill contained no similar provi- Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement Compliance with rules of the House of Rep- sion. program resentatives and Senate regarding earmarks The agreement includes the Senate provi- and congressionally directed spending items sion. The amended budget request included no Consistent with the intent of clause 9 of DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE funds for the procurement of modernized and rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Rep- AUTHORIZATIONS upgraded ejection seats for Department of the Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft. resentatives and Rule XLIV of the Standing TITLE I—PROCUREMENT The House bill would increase the budget Rules of the Senate, neither the bill text re- BUDGET ITEMS request by a total of $10.5 million, of which flected in the agreement nor the accom- Navy enterprise information technology panying joint explanatory statement con- $3.5 million is for initial qualification of up- The budget request included $87.2 million tains any congressional earmarks, congres- graded ejection seats in the Research, Devel- in Other Procurement, Navy Line 161 for en- sionally-directed spending items, limited tax opment, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force terprise information technology (IT). benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as defined (RDT&E, AF) account, and $7.0 million is for The House bill would approve the budget in such rules. initial installation of upgraded ejection request. Summary of discretionary authorizations and seats in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force The Senate committee-reported bill would (APAF) account. budget implication decrease that line item by $15.0 million to re- The administration’s budget request for flect concerns about the continued invest- The Senate committee-reported bill ap- national defense discretionary programs ment of funds into legacy IT infrastructure. proved the budget request. within the jurisdiction of the Committees on The agreement authorizes the budget request We recommend an additional increase of Armed Services of the Senate and the House for this item. $6.0 million ejection seat programs, includ- of Representatives for fiscal year 2015 was We note that much of this funding is sup- ing $3.5 million in RDT&E, AF, and $2.5 mil- $577.1 billion. Of this amount, $495.5 billion porting procurements related to the lion in APAF. was requested for base Department of De- sustainment of legacy Navy IT systems lo- Section 146(b) of the National Defense Au- fense (DOD) programs, $63.7 billion was re- cated outside the continental United States thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public quested for overseas contingency operations (OCONUS). We understand that these pro- Law 113–66) required a report by the Sec- (OCO), and $17.9 billion was requested for na- curements are necessary to provide technical retary of the Air Force on various aspects of b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H8671 . VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:38 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORD14\DEC 2014\H04DE4.PT2 H04DE4 bjneal on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE H8672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 4, 2014 the health and safety risks associated with Limitation on availability of funds for mission SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS ejection seats. The report confirmed that, modules for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122) Prohibition on availability of funds for retire- with increased use of helmet-mounted de- The House bill contained a provision (sec. ment of MQ–1 Predator aircraft (sec. 131) vices, the risks of death or serious injury in- 125) that would prohibit the Secretary of the The Senate committee-reported bill con- creases, and increases even more for lighter Navy from obligating any funds for the pro- aircrew. tained a provision (sec. 131) that would pro- curement of mission modules for the Littoral hibit the Department of Defense from using In response to a requirement to analyze Combat Ship until the Secretary submits to initiatives to decrease the risk of death or fiscal year 2015 funds to retire MQ–1 Predator the congressional defense committees each aircraft. serious injury during an ejection sequence, of the following: The House bill contained no similar provi- the report indicated that, although the Air (1) The Milestone B program goals for cost, sion. Force had spent $25.8 million for investments schedule, and performance for each incre- in safety improvements for existing seats, ment. The agreement includes the Senate provi- sion with an amendment that would prevent the Air Force had stopped short of final qual- (2) Certification by the Director of Oper- the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring ification testing. ational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) with any MQ–1 aircraft, unless an MQ–1 aircraft The report also referred to an Air Force respect to the total number for each module has been damaged and it is not economically analysis of alternatives (AoA) that the Air type that is required to perform all nec- viable to repair the aircraft, as determined Force had conducted in 2010 that supported: essary operational testing. by the Secretary. ‘‘(a) an improved ejection seat solution with The Senate committee-reported bill con- an expanded anthropometric envelope that tained no similar provision. Prohibition on availability of funds for retire- would match the current pilot population to The agreement includes the House provi- ment of U–2 aircraft (sec. 132) increase safety; and (b) a design that reduces sion with an amendment that would clarify aircraft life cycle costs.’’ The House bill contained a provision (sec.