[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5761-S5762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  SA 1071. Mr. STRANGE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed 
to amendment SA 1003 proposed by Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Reed) 
to the bill H.R. 2810, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 
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; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title XVI, add the following:

     SEC. 1656. REVIEW OF PROPOSED GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEM CONTRACT.

       (a) Limitation on Changes to Contracting Strategy.--The 
     Director of the Missile Defense Agency may not change the 
     contracting strategy for the systems integration, operations, 
     and test of the ground-based midcourse defense system until 
     the date on which--
       (1) the report under subsection (b)(4) is submitted to the 
     congressional defense committees; and
       (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date of 
     such submittal.
       (b) Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of Cost Assessment and 
     Program Evaluation shall conduct a review of the contract for 
     the systems integration, operations, and test of the ground-
     based midcourse defense system.
       (2) Elements.--The review required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Contract performance of current industry-led prime 
     contract approach, including with respect to--
       (i) system readiness performance and reliability growth;
       (ii) development, integration, and fielding of new homeland 
     defense capabilities; and
       (iii) cost performance against baseline contract.
       (B) With respect to alternate contracting approaches--
       (i) an enumeration and detailing of any specific benefits 
     for each such alternate approach;
       (ii) an identification of specific costs to switching to 
     each such alternate approach; and
       (iii) detailing of the specific risks of each such 
     alternate approach to homeland defense, including regarding 
     schedule, costs, and the sustainment, maintenance, 
     development, and fielding, of integrated capabilities.
       (C) With respect to contracting approaches that transition 
     to Federal Government-led systems engineering integration and 
     test--
       (i) an enumeration of the processes, procedures, and 
     command media that have been established by the Missile 
     Defense Agency and proven to be effective for the execution 
     of programs that are of the scale of the ground-based 
     midcourse defense system; and
       (ii) the manner in which a new contract will control for 
     growth in the personnel and support contracts of the Federal 
     Government to support cost growth and minimize the risk of 
     schedule delay.

[[Page S5762]]

       (D) A baseline for historical and current staffing of the 
     ground-based midcourse defense system program, specifically 
     with respect to personnel of the Federal Government, 
     personnel of federally funded research and development 
     centers, personnel of departments and agencies of the Federal 
     Government, and support contractors.
       (E) Projections of the staffing categories specified in 
     subparagraph (D) under a new contracting strategy and how 
     such staffing categories will be limited to prevent 
     significant cost growth and to minimize the risk of schedule 
     delays.
       (F) The views and recommendations of the Director for any 
     changes the current ground-based midcourse defense system 
     contract or a new contract, including the proposed 
     contracting strategy of the Missile Defense Agency.
       (G) Such other matters as the Director determines 
     appropriate.
       (3) Transmission.--The Director of Cost Assessment and 
     Program Evaluation shall transmit to the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Research and Engineering and the Missile Defense 
     Executive Board the findings of the Director with respect to 
     the review conducted under paragraph (1).
       (4) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which 
     the Under Secretary and the Missile Defense Executive Board 
     receive the findings of the Director under paragraph (3), the 
     Under Secretary and Board shall jointly submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report containing--
       (A) the findings of the Director transmitted under 
     paragraph (3), without change; and
       (B) such views and recommendations of the Under Secretary 
     and the Board may have with respect to such findings or the 
     review conducted under paragraph (1).
                                 ______